PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 2002

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 2002 in the Commissioners' Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present were Commissioners David Burrus, Larry Sheets and John Evans and Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger.

President David Burrus called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

WELCOME COMMISSIONER LARRY SHEETS BACK FROM ILLNESS

Com. Burrus, "Our first item of business is somewhat obvious. We want to welcome Larry Sheets back to us today. He was released from the hospital on Friday, and within four days he is back on the job. Throughout his stay there have been a number of prayers and concerns expresses and good wishes for his speedy recovery and return. We feel very fortunate as a board and as a community that Larry is back with us today. So would you please join me in welcoming Larry back."

Com. Sheets, "Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that is very kind of you. While I was in the hospital there was a lot of support and prayers for me and I have known all my life that Porter County is a wonderful community and we do come together. Every now and then there is some negativity but we overcome that. I want to thank this office and the Board of Commissioners for their professionalism and the way they conducted themselves during my illness. I greatly appreciate even more today than I have ever before, the Board of County Commissioners. I put an ad in the paper thanking people for their letters and prayers and there were a lot of them, but I will continue thanking people one on one for their support. I am back but with this illness it is a process that will go on for a little bit of time yet. I don't anticipate missing any meetings but if do it will be rare. I am prepared to respond to calls I get and the job I need to do. We are heading in the right direction. My short stay at Porter Memorial was great, I got nothing but the best service and moving to Northwestern was a thing I had to do at the time, and they took care of me. Dave, I appreciate everything you said and it is wonderful to be back. Thank you very much."

APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll of December 2, 2002, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CLAIMS

Com. Evans moved to approve the claims of December 3, 2002, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

SHERIFF'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
Attorney David Hollenbeck

Atty. Hollenbeck, "I would like to add my voice to those who have already indicated how exciting it is for us to see you back. We annually, ‘we' meaning both the County Commissioners and the Council enter into a compensation agreement with the Sheriff. We started this with David's predecessor. As you may be aware, there is a number of laws and statutes that augment payment that the Sheriff should get from one form or another. In lieu of that, the Sheriff has agreed to accept a straight salary. I think it is fair to say he could probably be earning more income if her were to take these different funds that he can draw a salary from. To simplify the matter and to facilitate a better understanding what we are paying the Sheriff, the Sheriff has agreed again this year to enter into the compensation agreement. He has already signed it, it is identical to previous years' including his compensation because there were no raises for anyone. I have provided you with a copy of this. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them otherwise I would ask you to favorably consider the 2003 Porter County Sheriff Compensation Agreement. If you approve it today, I will take it to the County Council this evening for their approval."

Com. Sheets, "There are no changes?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "There are no changes, it all stayed the same."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Sheriff's Compensation Agreement for 2003, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES CONTRACT FOR VALPARAISO

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Another annual contract that the County has is for the services that the Animal Shelter provides to communities, one of them is Valparaiso. Valparaiso has approved its part of the agreement for an annual payment to the County in the amount of $20,000.00 and then the Animal Shelter covers calls in the City of Valparaiso. It is again identical to previous years' contracts and the burden fell on me simply because I was at City Hall and they gave it to me after they approved it and they asked me to bring it over here. This does not require County Council approval, just the Commissioners. And it is the same as last year."

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract for the City of Valparaiso and the Animal Shelter for 2003, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

NEW INTER-FUND BORROWING FROM BRIDGE FUND

Atty. Hollenbeck, "One other thing. As you know, you authorized and the Council approved in November, a new inter-fund borrowing from your bridge fund in an amount not to exceed $1.25 million. All of that has not yet been borrowed but a substantial portion has been borrowed in order to alleviate cash flow problems in the general fund. The third component of the Porter County Bail Out Loan was approved by the State Board of Finance on November 18th in Indianapolis. In talking with the staff at that office, I became concerned as to when we would actually receive that money. We still don't have it. In calling yesterday, I didn't get a clear picture as to when that $1.8 million will be available. With that in mind, I am concerned about cash flow again in the first part of January and I would ask your acquiescence on an as needed basis for the County Council to declare the same type of financial emergency as they did last year and at least have the option of deferring repayment. If we don't do that the law would require us on December 31st to pay back whatever we borrowed from the bridge fund. Of the $1.8 million, it will be very difficult to do that. So I think we need that option and that is going to be my recommendation to the Council this evening. Of course, it is your money and your fund so I wanted to bring that to your attention today and hopefully get your acquiescence on that."

Com. Evans, "Well, we have stated in the past that we have always been willing to cooperate with the Council and we are in this together. I think that may extend to the condition that the Council put on us at the meeting where we borrowed $150,000.00 for our CCD fund. As long as they are willing to reciprocate, I would make the motion to approve."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "I will certainly communicate that thought to them."

Com. Burrus, "I would like to echo that thought also because it was John and I that made that request and it was as a result of our CCD being underfunded in the first place. We think some of that activity they used may have been inappropriate. We are glad to do our part but there has to be some reciprocity."

Com. Sheets, "I agree and say that hopefully, January 1st we will be able to work better together. In these particular areas we have worked well but there has been some shortcomings and this is one of them. One side can only give so much."

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

Atty. Hollenbeck, "The other thing the Council will be discussing tonight in the context of cash flow is the need to issue once again, tax anticipation warrants after the first of the year. This is even more problematic due to the status of the reassessment process and the fact that we are now being told it is a virtual certainty that our tax bills will not go out on time. With that in mind, the recommendation for the Council is going to be the issuance in January of tax anticipation warrants. You may remember when the local banks stepped up last year to help us. They allowed us to get the tax anticipation warrant dollars on an as needed basis, kind of like a line of credit, so we didn't have to incur interest on money we weren't using. I have talked to the lead bank of that three bank consortium last year and they have indicated again, a willingness to do that. The recommendation is we ask for tax anticipation warrants in January in an amount not to exceed $12 million. That is about as much as we can issue under the law and then we will have to hope the reassessment process is expedited as much as possible. There is still the legislative session coming up in January where there is all sorts of rumors of what might happen to soften the blow. The last I heard about 50% of the counties will not get their tax bills out in time. Whether the legislature will respond to that in some fashion, I don't know. The worse case scenario is that Porter County will be well into the summer before the tax bills go out which will delay the receipt of any cash. We are looking at up to $12 million. We were approved up to $12 million, we used $5.1 million to pay off the tax anticipation warrant that we had. We have had to borrow less than a million dollars of new money so we have been very frugal with that. We will be able to pay back that tax anticipation in its entirety by December 31st from the tax dollars that are paid through November 10th."

Com. Evans, "I understand your Council also received the committee's report from the committee they put together to assist to look at some of the government operations."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "I was advised yesterday afternoon that the report is not ready for presentation. Dean Schroeder, who is the chairman of the oversight group, they have received three or four sub working groups, those people have done their work, have put their reports together and submitted it to the oversight process committee. The process committee's responsibility is to meld those three reports into one concise report. That work is not completed and in talking to Dean he indicated he was going to have to defer that report until the January meeting so there will not be a report this evening."

Com. Evans. "My remarks would be premature then."

Com. Sheets, "It seems to me that this Council put it together and this Council will not hear the report and that is unfortunate. So be it."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "The other side of the coin in that regard is the people that will have to implement any of the strategies that are recommended will be in place in January and can take this and implement part of it or whatever they choose. Thank you gentlemen."


PUBLIC HEARING

PORTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LAND ACQUISITION ADJACENT TO HEART CENTER OWNED BY DR. CHRISTOPHER WIRSING
Attorney Robert Welsh
Christopher Wirsing, M.D.
Ronald Winger, CEO of Porter Memorial Hospital

Com. Burrus, "This next item is a need of Porter Memorial Hospital to acquire additional property adjacent to the Glendale facility. We will hear first from the hospital. Our procedure then will be to hear from any opposing landowners who desire to rebut and following that there will be an opportunity for each side to answer questions. At that point in time, we will close the discussion and the Commissioners will deliberate. So first, the representative of the hospital will come forward and present your case."

Atty. Welsh, "I represent the hospital and on behalf of the hospital we are here this morning asking for the assistance of the Board of Commissioners and the County to help us acquire approximately 3.3 acres of land. This is bare land, it lies immediately east of the existing Valparaiso Surgery Center and the Heart Center. Those facilities I am sure you are aware are located at the intersection of Roosevelt and Glendale streets in the City of Valparaiso. I have some photographs and I thought it would be helpful to actually see the property. The first one is taken on Roosevelt Street of the Heart Center and the Surgery Center. The second one is taken from Glendale looking west showing the back side and on the right edge is the beginning of the property. Third photograph shows the vacant parcel of land that we are discussing today. Fourth photograph is further east on Glendale and incorporates not only vacant ground but the rear of the hospital facility that fronts on Roosevelt. The last photograph shows the property where a church is located on the east side. That is the area that exists around Roosevelt and Glendale. I also have two plats here. The first one shows four lots. The first three lots are along Roosevelt and the hospital already owns those. The fourth is the 3.3 acres we are speaking of today. The second plat shows basically the same thing but it shows some of the vegetation that exists. There is a small wetland area on the northwest corner of the property and the hospital buildings that are located on the property. Under the Indiana County Hospital Act there is a portion of that act that pertains to what we are here about this morning. It is Section 25 of the Act and it indicates that if the governing board and the owners of real property needed for hospital purposes cannot agree on the price to be paid for the real property, the Board may report the facts to the Commissioners who have the power of eminent domain and condemnation proceedings shall be instituted by the county executive and prosecuted in the name of the county where the hospital is located or to be located by an attorney representing the county. It is for that reason we come before you this morning. The statute indicates that we should. Let me get into the need for the hospital to have this property. First of all, the current hospital is basically landlocked. We have residential neighborhoods with high density to the west and commercial development to the north and the University of Valparaiso to the south and east. As far as there being an opportunity for the hospital to expand at its existing facility, we are pretty limited. Secondly, at the Valparaiso Surgery Center and the Heart Center, we are out of space. We have physicians who want to be able to see patients in that area and to have offices near that area. We can't help them in that regard. All of the leased space we have for physicians is completely leased up and we have no space to put additional physicians but we do have demand and the demand is across the spectrum. All kinds of physicians need to be able to have office space to use that facility. Also, we need to be able to expand that facility to offer additional outpatient services. We are in the process now of having plans and surveys and engineering done in order to assist the hospital in developing the property properly. This 3.38 acres lying immediately to the east of the existing facilities is now and has been, the prime area that we would probably start that development with. We contacted the owner of the property and I think everybody understands the owners are Dr. and Mrs. Wirsing. We started that contact approximately in May, perhaps a little earlier of this year. During discussions that have been had with the owners, we have attempted to reach a price that would be fair to everybody. The method that has been implemented to do that is that an appraisal was prepared for the property and in order to satisfy everyone in that regard, we took the appraiser that Dr. Wirsing recommended, contacted the appraiser and got the appraisal performed. When the appraisal was received, I am sure Dr. Wirsing had an opportunity to review it, but likewise the hospital did, comparable sales were actually visited and the adjustments the appraisers made with respect to comparable sales in the area were reviewed. By the way, the comparable sales were commercial properties, out in the area where Kohl's and Target and Barnes and Noble are developing on the east end of Valparaiso in addition to some other properties. For example, the Hampton Inn property east of Strongbow's, and property in Urschel's light industrial development. In any event, these are what I call high quality commercial properties. We concluded that the appraisal value was, in fact, fair market value and that the comparables were the kind of comparables you would expect to see when comparing to Dr. Wirsing's property. The appraisal was $460,000.00. We made the offer at the appraised value. Dr. Wirsing wanted to have the appraisal reviewed. He did with somebody of his selection. My understanding is that person likewise indicated the appraisal was fair. So we have at all times been willing to buy the property at its appraised value. Dr. Wirsing feels it is worth more money, so we haven't been able to come to a determination on the price. The hospital does not have unbridled flexibility when it comes to buying property that is owned by a physician or when it comes to entering into contracts with physicians. The federal government has a number of laws; the Anti-kick back statute, among others that prohibit doing anything when you have a transaction with a physician and a hospital that is other than fair market value. There are penalties that are substantial, triple damages, there are criminal penalties which always would be substantial for having any transaction that would exceed fair market value. So while we probably would not want to exceed fair market value in the first place when it comes to any kind of situation involving a transaction between a physician and a hospital, both the physician and the hospital bear an equal risk in that regard. The risk comes from reimbursement payers such as Medicare, Medicaid and the federal government. We have an appraisal here by an appraiser who was chosen by the property owner and reviewed by somebody on behalf of the property owner; we have made the offer and to our knowledge, that offer is a fair market value offer. That is what we are limited in doing, is paying fair market value. I think that probably brings you up to date on where we are at this point. Yesterday the hospital had a special meeting of its Board. At that time it passed a resolution approving the acquisition of this property. I also have prepared a form of resolution for your consideration in the event you see fit to go forward today and to assist the hospital in acquiring this property. Both of those resolutions refer to the legal authority for bringing an action in the event that one has to be brought to acquire the property and both of them indemnify and hold harmless the County from any expenses of any kind or type whatsoever in that process. The hospital would naturally be responsible for any costs of that nature, whether it be litigation costs, court proceedings costs, and obviously of payment of fair market value as to be determined. Are there any questions I can answer for you?"

Com. Evans, "When was the first appraisal done?"

Atty. Welsh, "That was in June of this year. I believe it was June 25th. It was by Lee & Associates which is a well known appraisal firm in Lake County, Indiana."

Com. Evans, "On subsequent review, was there an appraisal done or was it a review of the existing appraisal done?"

Atty. Welsh, "We actually do not know who Dr. Wirsing had to review the appraisal, but he advised us he had that reviewed by somebody of his choosing."

Com. Burrus, "Is the action you are requesting of this Board, through the resolution, to delegate the authority we hold to do the process of eminent domain to the hospital?"

Atty. Welsh, "The action will be have to brought on behalf of the County, but we hope in the future we will have the opportunity to have additional discussions with Dr. Wirsing as this matter proceeds. Whether or not those discussions would ever reach a point where everybody would be on the same page. We would like to have that opportunity keeping in mind that it may never produce the result everybody desires. We don't want to be able to proceed in this fashion. The statute calls for that to be done under the name of the County, but if it would be agreeable with the Board, we would like to have the hospital authorize or delegate it with the opportunity to move forward under the County's name for that purpose."

Com. Burrus, "Well, I think from our point of view that we hope the dialogue would continue also."

Com. Sheets, "That is the best part- knowing you are talking to the doctor and his wife and this is just part of the process."

Atty. Welsh, "To be correct, we have talked with Dr. Wirsing, I have and I know the administration has, but I don't know if Mrs. Wirsing has been involved, but if anybody would like that to happen, of course, it is always welcome."

Com. Burrus, "If that concludes the hospital's remarks, then we are prepared to hear from Dr. Wirsing and Mrs. Wirsing."

Dr. Wirsing, "Good morning. Thank you for hearing us today. Mr. Sheets, I am very impressed and very happy to see you back on the job."

Com. Sheets, "Thank you, it is nice to have a doctor say that."

Dr. Wirsing, "I appreciate your tribulations over the last several months. I would like to inform the Commission that we were only informed of this eminent domain process 18 days ago. I don't feel that is adequate time to obtain legal counsel and properly prepare ourselves even for this meeting today. I would like to make it plain to the Commission that my wife and I at this time and under these circumstances are not interested in selling the property. In 1993, I purchased the land along with nine other physicians. When the property was initially subdivided with the name of Porter Medical Group, at that time the intention for the land and the reason for subdividing it was to eventually be a medical complex and one of the lots was owned by the hospital and they went ahead and developed their facility. The property that the physicians purchased was later purchased by myself from the other partners in 1995. The purpose for my purchase at that time was to retain this property for my professional office use and as my business expanded, we wanted a location that was going to be as ideal as this to be able to grow our practice. At this juncture, as Mr. Welsh mentioned, the hospital approached me, unsolicited, regarding the sale of this land. There were appraisals in this process and when I received the appraisals, I believed they were appraisals that were consistent with other commercial property, but not truly reflective of the uniqueness of this portion of property and therefore rejected the appraisal and the offer that the hospital made to me based on that particular appraisal. Again, our intent for this was to use it for medical purposes for my office, which now employs 15 people and we have been serving and enjoying privileges at Porter Memorial Hospital for the last 16 years. I am really upset that the hospital would be taking this position at this time; being in direct competition with me in desiring to put medical offices in the same spot that I desire to put my office. Mr. Welsh did not bring his intent for the property up. I am assuming that what the newspapers told me that they wished to put up a 17,000 square foot office that would house approximately 12 physician's offices. The papers have also told me that the hospital purchased Dr. Felton's land directly adjacent to their property and mine that I feel would be a perfect spot with plenty of room for this building. The suitability of the land for such a purpose is excellent. Directly adjacent to the parking lot of the Valparaiso Surgery Center, there are two very adequate access lanes built into this land acquisition that the hospital has made. My understanding of the eminent domain procedure is that the governing board should find that this acquisition and expansion is necessary. I feel it is very unnecessary given the fact the hospital has 18 acres in their possession of vacant property with good access in direct approximation to their present property. I believe they are asking you to take my property off the tax rolls and in doing so directly compete with my intended use for the property. My intended use for the property is very complimentary to Porter Memorial's stated interest in developing their new buildings. I think my proposed purpose would be a win-win situation for both myself, for the hospital and for this county. Why do I say this county? My property is paying taxes, will continue to pay taxes, and there would be no reason that I could find that the Commissioners would find that the hospital's expansion onto my property in necessary. Their proposed purpose of medical offices there, the need could easily be filled by a private medical facility directly adjacent to theirs and not require eminent domain process to place this business, and it is a business. The hospital uses this as a business, which would be in direct competition with my intended use. The hospital attorney has been very informative about the location of the property and the needs that they have. I think the process that they are choosing to acquire this land does not fit the intent of the state's statute. I presume the state statute was made when a very important structure like a hospital needs to be built for the public's use and benefit, that they are able to do that. We are talking about however, that the facility that Porter Memorial Hospital is suggesting needs to be expanded, is an outpatient facility not having inpatients that I believe are specifically mentioned in the state's statutes explaining hospital's rights of eminent domain. We are in a situation where the hospital is proposing that whenever they have a satellite office that everything around them is immediately fair game for eminent domain. This is an outpatient facility, it is zoned for outpatient use only, there is to be no inpatient use here and I feel that the hospital has its eye on what appears to be a nice piece of property, they would rather have my property than their property. I don't think they should be asking the County Commissioners to go along with that desire. I would definitely want to answer any of your questions to cover things you feel I should have covered this morning."

Com. Evans, "Dr. Wirsing, thank you for your presentation. You mentioned the word ‘intent' several times; was it your intent when you allowed the hospital to have the appraisal done to sell the property?"

Dr. Wirsing, "In my discussions with the hospital administrator at the time, again, I mentioned this was an unsolicited question, ‘would you like to sell your property?' ‘Well, maybe' I said, and ‘you know, Dr. Wirsing, we could actually find out the value of the property by having an appraisal done and we would be happy to pay for that.' I thought, good, this is an offer I can't refuse. At that point in time I felt I was under no contractual situation where we have entered into negotiations to sell my property. There has been no negotiations to sell my property. The hospital said this is what the appraisal says and this is what we are going to pay. Well, sorry I am not interested in selling the property at this time and that was the end of our negotiation. As I stated at the beginning, under these circumstances and at this time, is to not my intention to sell the property."

Com. Evans, "You were aware that the hospital can only pay appraised value and that there is no way they can pay more than the appraised value?"

Dr. Wirsing, "Again, I do want to consult with attorneys, but the appraised value is many people's opinion. This property's appraised value was based on commercial property that was vacant, it was figured on a square foot basis. It was not figured on other variables that would consider an income producing property such as a medical office building or how much revenue is generated say from an office rental. None of those comparative situations were considered in these appraisals. I appreciate the appraisal. I don't feel it has tremendous bearing on whether I decide to sell the property or not."

Com. Evans, "When the appraisal came back, you took that appraisal to another appraiser or employed another appraiser? At that point was it still your intent not to sell the property?"

Dr. Wirsing, "At that point in time, I asked another appraiser to review the initial appraisal, not to perform a new appraisal."

Com. Sheets, "Doctor, with your intent of building something there, what kind of time frame do you have?"

Dr. Wirsing, "Our time frame is very soon. We have a very busy practice. We deliver approximately 30% of the babies at Porter Memorial Hospital. I have devoted my entire professional career to servicing this hospital and again, I have enjoyed the privileges of working there. We are very busy, I recently had a new partner join me approximately five years ago. We are busting at the seams right now at my office. We need new office space and that is our intent to get moving on this process. I have had many discussions throughout this summer and fall with other physicians at the hospital regarding their desires and needs for extra space as well. I do recognize there is a pressing need for physician offices in this community and certainly feel that my property is in a unique situation that could fulfill those needs."

Com. Sheets, "In future discussions I hope that will take place, it is not possible for some discussion to take place that would allow for your needs and allow for their needs either through partnerships or lease agreements, those type of things, maybe guaranteeing you the space you need or offering you the space you need and all the conveniences are there? I don't know if these discussions have taken place or not, but can they not be in the future discussions? Then we would meet both sides' needs and quite frankly, I am hearing a cry out there that we need more space for more doctors to do more things and I can tell you first hand, that is very important to me and should be pretty important to the community. So is there some way we can carry these discussions on further? You probably need to engage an attorney and whoever else you need to aid you in this. Is this out of the question?"

Dr. Wirsing, "Early in the discussions with the hospital administrator, I did make it clear that I was anxious to proceed with some building and one of my discussion points at that time was a partnership with the hospital which was told to me was basically out of the question, not possible. In some of these discussions I had also mentioned lease agreements of the property which I was also told was out of the question. I am not adverse to further discussions with the hospital regarding any issues they may want to bring up with me."

Com. Sheets, "Bob or Ron, you heard my comments and the doctor's response. Is this not out of the question? You hear of partnerships all the time with hospitals. He has a need, so is this some discussion that could take place that would benefit both parties? Bob, you have been around here with me for 20 years and the very blunt remark of taking property is something we don't take very lightly and we have not to my knowledge done it more than once in all the years I have been a Commissioner. I am treading very lightly here on the responsibility as Commissioner and eminent domain so I would like to get some positive response from you people that this discussion will take place."

Atty. Welsh, "I had a meeting with Dr. Wirsing, and I assume that is the one he is referring to 18 days ago and I have indicated since that meeting through the administration that we certainly want to keep all the doors open and don't want to have any roles created here even if we are going forward with the possibility of an eminent domain. It is not a personal thing at all. It is not an emotional thing, it is just a hospital in need. As time goes on, for example, if there would be a piece of property that would be desirable in Dr. Wirsing's eyes for an office in Valparaiso that we could acquire and he could take that property and build the office complex that he has spoken of if that is what he chooses to do. We could settle up either by a refund to us or an additional payment to him depending on the value of that property. We talked about those kinds of things of keeping the door open on that kind of thing to explore any opportunity that might come along that would be suitable. Obviously it has to work both ways, or it won't work at all. We want to keep that kind of dialogue and do the very best we can to try and meet his needs but we also have to meet our own."

Mr. Winger, "Larry, we also indicated at the time we started to have the discussions that if Dr. Wirsing would like to locate his practice in the building we would be very happy to discuss arrangements that would work for him based on fair market lease rates. The lease that the doctor referred to was a lease of ownership arrangement off the land itself and he did not want to lease the land."

Com. Sheets, "What type of schedule and need do you have if you were to purchase this in the near future?"

Mr. Winger, "We would start construction as soon as the drawings would be completed and the permit process completed as well."

Com. Sheets, "Well, I appreciate your need and I appreciate what he wants to do and I have already made my comments as to the responsibility to the board and eminent domain. I also heard the doctor say he had 18 days and I think he needs time to engage some legal help. I think that is important that we don't take action without him having representation. I would recommend he do that and I think something has to happen in the near term and not drug out but I think both parties need to continue talking and he needs to have some legal assistance. I am concerned about that."

Com. Burrus, "I think some clarification needs to be heard also. There has been a number of references made to Dr. Wirsing just being made aware of this meeting 18 days ago and I would like to emphasize the fact that this meeting is not going to be initiating any kind of eminent domain action. We are simply discussing or authorizing the hospital to have the authority to proceed that way in the event that the dialogue that we are all hoping for fails. We are not in any way initiating any action today."

Atty. Welsh, "This would all be preliminary to anything like that happening. If it were to proceed and you passed the resolution today, then eminent domain would proceed with the usual and normal course through the court system. It is not like you do something today and that is the end of the discussion. That is not the case at all."

Com. Sheets, "Doctor, did you understand that before they explained it?"

Dr. Wirsing, "I believe I understand it. I would like to emphasize my wife and I don't want to go to court. We don't want to be taken to court and I don't want my land taken. That is why I believe the hospital is coming to you today; to ask you to be a condemning authority and initiate this process."

Com. Sheets, "If I am to support a resolution, I think the president would make part of that, if not I would make part of that be that the dialogue continue and this not be a process that starts immediately. You certainly need time to engage some help."

Com. Burrus, "Any other discussions between the parties, questions or comments?"

Atty. Welsh, "I have some. You indicated that after Dr. and Mrs. Wirsing we would have an opportunity to respond. There are just a few things I would like to make the Board aware of. First of all, just to make sure everyone understands what the procedure would be if an eminent domain would result. The first thing to happen under the law, there has to be a certified mailing written offer for the purchase of the property and makes no difference that the parties have had a number of discussions for example, where the hospital has made the offer to purchase. That still has to be done, that is part of the eminent domain statute before any lawsuit can be filed, that has to be done. That 30 day offer could then be accepted or rejected by the land owner and only after that 30 days has expired would it be possible to file any type of action requesting a court to issue an appropriation order and appoint court appointed appraisers to go out and view the property and determine what the value would be. So if we proceeded along those lines eventually it would be court appointed appraisers who would likewise get appraisals and go out and assess what they think the property would be worth. I presume they would also take a look at comparable sales and others that have already been utilized by the current appraisers and assess whether or not the comparison between those sales and this property was properly done. Anyway, they will then file a report with the court in writing indicating what they feel the value would be and what value the landowner should receive as fair market value. So all that is probably a minimal 90 day process if we were to start today. Obviously it wouldn't start today, but we are looking at minimally 90 days. The opportunity to have additional time for discussion or reflection would be there for everybody. Secondly, I would like to briefly address the Dr. Felton property situation. Some of you may know that Dr. Felton had 18 acres of land that is the interior pond shaped parcel and while the discussions were ongoing with Dr. Wirsing for the purchase of his property, Dr. Felton made available his 18 acres. The Board needs to understand that Dr. Wirsing's property always was and always has been, the prime piece of property the hospital felt needed for expansion of its facilities in this area. Dr. Felton's property came along later on. It would be years before that entire property is utilized for hospital health related services. Obviously, Dr. Felton is not going to sell half of his property; he wants to sell it all so if the hospital wants it, they have to take all of it. The building intending to be built for out patient services and for physician office space would probably be located both on the Felton property which is immediately to the north and on Dr. Wirsing's property. I suspect that would be the two areas that would first be developed. The balance of the Felton property, as it goes to the northeast, will remain vacant for the foreseeable future. We are not going to lose tax base with respect to the building of this office or out patient facilities because, I am sure most of you are aware, that when a hospital builds office space it gets assessed. We pay taxes on the office space that we purchased from physicians in Demotte and other areas when we rent them out. So, there will be tax assessments made on that property when they are leased out to physicians. That happens consistently with county and township assessors whenever we have that kind of arrangement. The only other thing I would like to point out is that if I understand Dr. Wirsing correctly today, he has indicated he is not willing to sell his property but to my understanding that was not the case when discussions began. Discussions began and he was willing to sell and the question was what was the fair market value. It went through the process to determine what was the fair market value and used that process that Dr. Wirsing suggested used by the appraisers that Dr. Wirsing selected. When I met with Dr. Wirsing about three weeks ago, it was my understanding he was still willing to sell but not willing to sell for the appraised value. He made a counter offer which we feel we would, and he would, have exposure to civil and criminal penalties if we were actually engaged in a transaction at the level of that counter offer. So today is, quite frankly, the first time that I have heard he doesn't want to sell. It has always been my understanding that the parties simply have a money problem. Of course, as a landowner, he is entitled to feel the way he wishes to feel and to have the position of whatever he wants but I feel it is important the Board understand that up until today, it was our understanding we were simply negotiating over money and over appraised values. So, we still want to keep the dialogue open. We still want to see if there is some way we can work this out that keeps everybody out of hot water with the federal government on the fair market value issue and still satisfy the needs of the hospital and Dr. Wirsing. If we can do that, we certainly will. If in the long run that can't be done, Dr. Wirsing is entitled to receive, and we recognize that he is entitled to receive, fair market value for the property so he can use that money in any way he wishes whether it would be to buy additional property or for any other purpose. So if that property were to actually be condemned, he would receive what it is in fact, worth."

Com. Burrus, "I have a question, Bob, with respect to the issue of necessity. Looking at the site plan you provided, would it be fair to conclude that the need for Dr. Wirsing's property has to do with the proximity to your existing buildings? Will there be any kind of plan to connect or join those?"

Atty. Welsh, "I don't know just how far the engineers and designers are going to go in that regard. Certainly that has been discussed and is a driving force behind the desire to acquire this property has been its proximity. That is the whole reason is its proximity. We would be here or we would be talking with Dr. Wirsing in that regard no matter what. If Dr. Felton had never come along and said maybe you want my property, too, we would still be talking with Dr. Wirsing. It was always the primary site. The fact that we might have an opportunity to spill over from that site onto some additional property that is currently owned by Dr. Felton was just an unforseen gratuitous situation that developed. Whether or not it would be tunnels or covered passages going from the existing to the to-be-built building, I don't know but clearly, anybody that is going to be practicing in that area and offering health services to the community at that overall facility is going to want to have as close proximity to the existing Heart Center and Surgery Center and outpatient facilities as they generally can."

Com. Sheets, "I think the doctor may want to respond to what was just said. Before you say anything, you can read her (Mrs. Wirsing's) handwriting, but can she read yours?"

Dr. Wirsing, "Probably not. In fact, I think it is very unfortunate that Mr. Welsh is portraying me as the "money doctor." Our discussions stopped when there was no possible way of agreeing upon any sort of sale. The first I heard of any other discussion occurred one day after the hospital was at the site planning a committee meeting in Valparaiso. There was no discussions ongoing whatsoever with the hospital about the sale of the property. My very first discussion then with Mr. Welsh was the night he said we are going to get your property. We are going to use this eminent domain process. There was no discussion at that time of a higher price. Mr. Welsh brought up a higher price that I had asked very early on at the initial discussion with Mr. Winger, the hospital administrator. As I said today, we are not interested in selling the property under these circumstances or at this time. I think you can appreciate when I say under these circumstances because of this extraordinary process we are having to go through involving private land with my close business associate over the last 16 to 17 years."

Com. Burrus, "Are there any other remarks you care to make at this time for rebuttal?"

Dr. Wirsing, "No."

Atty. Welsh, "I don't think so."

Com. Evans, "The Felton property was purchased for $40,000.00 per acre and the offer to purchase Dr. Wirsing's property was for $460,00.00?"

Atty. Welsh, "Yes, pursuant to the appraisals."

Com. Evans, "The dollar amount that was proposed in the counter offer was what?"

Atty. Welsh, "$575,000.00"

Com. Evans, "There seems to be some discrepancy about when that offer was made?"

Atty. Welsh, "It was made after the appraisal."

Com. Evans, "Okay, after the appraisal. So if we say it is a 4-acre parcel instead of 3.8, we are talking a difference of roughly $115,000.00; at any rate the hospital can only pay the appraised value. You contend, Dr. Wirsing, that the offer was not made in that time frame?"

Dr. Wirsing, "I am not sure of the question, I don't understand what you are getting at or what you are saying."

Com. Evans, "The hospital says the appraisal was made at $460,000.00 at which time it was presented to you and you had another appraiser look at it to tell you whether or not it was fair, and at that point in time, you turned down their offer and counter offered for $575,000.00."

Dr. Wirsing, "Yes, that is true and that was initially in the spring or early summer."

Com. Evans, "That was the sequence of events that you remember?"

Dr. Wirsing, "Yes."

Com. Evans, "You indicated earlier that it was not how the sequence went."

Dr. Wirsing, "Mr. Welsh, in his rebuttal, said at our meeting, I again brought up the counter offer. I did not bring up any counter offer. Mr. Welsh brought up that original figure that I used and at that point in time, in almost the same sentence, we are going to go ahead with another process here so I didn't feel we were in any sort of an ‘okay, lets get this resolved situation,' even though my understanding is that the hospital wants to resolve this and that has been conveyed to me on several occasions by several people."

Com. Evans, "Do you have any preliminary plans drawn for the complex you are talking about?"

Dr. Wirsing, "No, I do not."

Com. Burrus, "I think at this time, it would be appropriate to read the proposed resolution and discuss the content."

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF PORTER COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IC 16-22-3-25 AND IC 16-22-3-1 et seq.

WHEREAS, Porter Memorial Hospital ("Hospital") is a county hospital organized and operating in Porter County, Indiana pursuant to the Indiana County Hospital act (IC 16-22-3-1 et seq); and
WHEREAS, the Hospital has established hospital health facilities and services consisting of the Valparaiso Surgery Center and the Northwest Indiana Heart Center at the intersection of Roosevelt Road and Glendale Boulevard in Valparaiso, Indiana; and
WHEREAS, Christopher M. Wirsing and Michelle M. Wirsing are the owners of 3.38 acres more or less ("Owner") on Glendale Boulevard east of and adjacent to the Valparaiso Surgery Center and the Northwest Indiana Heart Center owned and operated by the Hospital; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the real estate of the Owner above described is needed by the Hospital for the expansion of hospital health related facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the Hospital and the Owner have not been able to agree on the price to be paid for said real estate which would represent fair market value; and
WHEREAS, IC 16-22-3-25 permits the initiation of eminent domain proceeding to permit the acquisition of the aforesaid property and a determination of its fair market value to which the Owners are entitled.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners of Porter County, Indiana resolve that:
Pursuant to IC 16-23-3-25 and IC 32-24-1-1 et seq. the above described property of the Owner shall be acquired and its fair market value determined pursuant to an eminent domain proceeding brought by Porter County, Indiana for Hospital purposes through Hospital counsel and that all costs of such proceeding of any type or kind and the payment of the fair market value of the property to the Owner and any other costs, claims or damages in connection therewith shall be the exclusive obligation of the Hospital and the Hospital shall indemnify and save harmless Porter County, Indian from the financial obligation thereof.
Dated this ___ day of ________________________, 2002.

Com. Sheets, "I would support that but with two concerns. One is that Mr. Welsh and the administration do not rush this process along and that they continue negotiating with Dr. Wirsing and that Dr. Wirsing be given plenty of time to engage an attorney of his choice and to continue this discussion supported in this matter."

Com. Evans, "I hate to see eminent domain used in any instance, and I really wish that there would be room for negotiation and agreement. There is a clear need on both sides, both expressed the intent or purpose for the property as the same thing for the same types of facilities. I just wish that you could get together on a dollar amount. Lacking that, the hospital is proceeding in the only way they know how. We are required to comply with that for the good of the county."

Com. Burrus, "If I could summarize this then, it appears that this Board has some concerns. We would be prepared to endorse this resolution as written, however, we want to insure it is reflected in the minutes that these requests are taken by the hospital and acted upon to the best of their ability and that both parties can continue to negotiate in good faith hopefully to avoid the process we are talking about. I think this Board is very sensitive to the issues that were presented by the Wirsings, and we are very aware of the needs of the hospital. We feel it is an unfortunate situation in that we have to be discussing these kinds of issues and our overall objective would be to see an amicable resolution. I think that summarizes my feelings and the Board's. With that in mind, do we have a motion?"

Com. Evans moved to approve Resolution No. 02-09, Com. Sheets seconded,

Com. Burrus, "Okay, with that in mind, and again remember the content of the minutes regarding the conditions, if you will."

Motion carried.

Com. Sheets, "We will make sure you get a copy of this resolution and the minutes."

RECEIVE BIDS FOR 2003 FOR COUNTY OFFICE SUPPLIES
Becky Clark, employee of the Auditor's office

Com. Sheets, "We have two classes, 1 and 2. The first one I will open is from Boyce and covers Class 1 and 2. Boyce is the only one received for Class 1 and 2 and the others are for Class 2 only. I would like to comment that these will be opened and read aloud and taken under advisement. The awards will be announced at our next meeting, which is December 17th."

Com. Evans, "Did we change the format for this bid?"

Becky Clark, "Yes."

Com. Burrus, "The total for Class 1 items is $9,773.95. The total for Class 2 items is $7,723.75."

Com. Sheets, "That is the only bid I have for Class 1 and 2. The other two bids I have are for Class 3. I have two; one from Kramer & Leonard and one from Corporate Express. Kramer & Leonard is out of Chesterton and Corporate Express is out of Mishewaka."

Com. Burrus, "This is for Class 3 only, the bid from Kramer & Leonard is $49,469.45. Corporate Express for Class 3 items, total bid is $39,993.31. That concludes the bids. They will be taken under advisement and the awards will be made at out next scheduled meeting."

OFFICE HOLDERS/DEPARTMENT HEADS
Ken Perkins, Juvenile Center

Mr. Perkins, "Yes, I wanted to come before you and ask you to make an alteration to our per diem charge for other counties holding kids in detention. We are happy with the contracts, it is for the counties that do not contract with us. We really wanted to raise that from $100.00 to $110.00 per day. The reason being is some counties don't see any reason to bother with a contract. A contract is for guaranteeing funds and allows us to plan better, so we thought by making a difference on it, it may encourage some additional counties to contract with us. I did look at a survey done by the Indiana Detention Association and for counties that do not have contracts, the average per diem charge is just slightly over $110.00, so we are right in the ball park."

Com. Evans, "What is your percentage of use by those people that are not contracted?"

Mr. Perkins, "It is a small percentage. Each year we have at least one non contracting county that holds close to as many as our smallest contracting counties. It would be useful if we can plan ahead of time on that and count on that revenue."

Com. Sheets moved to approve the increase in the per diem rate for juvenile services for non-contractual counties, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.


COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS

North District: John Evans

1.Road agreement Pine Minor Subdivision #2314-C-1, containing 3 lots located in Pine
Twp. Owners offer to contribute $750.00 per lot for a total of $2,250.00. Owner is Marilyn Busch.

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

Center District: Larry Sheets

1. LPA Claim form #3 for $1,260.00 for right of way services for CR 300 West from US
30 to SR 130. Companion Claim #3 for $157.50 (half the local share).

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

2. LPA Claim form # 11 for $1,020.00 for right of way engineering services for CR 300 West from US 30 to SR 130. Companion claim #11 for $127.50 (half the local share).

Com. Sheets moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.


CORRESPONDENCE

Weights & Measures monthly report for November, 2002 is on file.
Clerk's monthly report for October 2002 is on file.
Veteran's Service Officer monthly report for November is on file.

Acceptance of Paul Acevedo as late enrollee to Porter County Employee Benefit Plan

Com. Evans moved to accept Paul Acevedo to the Porter County Employee Benefit Plan with coverage to be effective December 1, 2002, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

2003 Holiday Schedule for Porter County Employees

Com. Sheets moved to approve the 2003 Holiday Schedule for Porter County Employees, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Wednesday, January 1New Year's Day
MondayJanuary 20Martin Luther King Jr Day
MondayFebruary 17President's Day
FridayApril 18Good Friday
MondayMay 26Memorial Day
FridayJuly 4Independence Day
MondaySeptember 1Labor Day
Monday October 13Columbus Day
TuesdayNovember 11Veteran's Day
ThursdayNovember 27Thanksgiving Day
FridayNovember 28Thanksgiving
ThursdayDecember 25Christmas Day

Engagement letter with Schooley Mitchell Telecommunications to audit telephone lines

Com. Burrus, "This is submitted by Schooley Mitchell Telecommunications regarding a request where we had asked them to provide this agreement to audit the telephone lines located in the Porter County Courthouse. This is very similar to the audit they conducted at the North County Annex and I understand it is at the same rate of $50.00 per hour, not to exceed 20 hours."

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

Christmas Eve as a paid holiday for Porter County Employees

Com. Burrus, "With Christmas being on Wednesday this year, we thought with the financial situation and the lack of raises that it would be a gesture of the season to authorize the employees to have the 24th, Christmas Eve, off. Any discussion on that?"

Com. Sheets, "I think it is a good idea. They have lost plenty, with no raises over the years and I think it is a good gesture."

Com. Evans, "I understand that one of those reports the Council is going to receive says that we shouldn't do that, it is not a wise gesture, that we are not getting the full use of our employees. I think that even if they are here, mentally they will be someplace else."

Com. Burrus, "Well, sometimes there is discussion and disagreement on what is right and what is not. With the history of what has gone on here for the last year and a half financially, I support this."

Com. Sheets moved to give Christmas Eve as a paid holiday for the Porter County employees, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

OLD PORTER COUNTY JAIL AUCTION DISCUSSION

Com. Sheets, "I would like to make a public acknowledgment to you, Dave that I was concerned we wouldn't get the $55,000.00 we were paying to have the old jail put up for auction, and we certainly exceeded that. You were right and I was not correct."

Com. Burrus, "Together we went through this and we were successful with the sale of the old jail and we were very pleased at the outcome. For the people that were here for the auction, the closing took place this week and we have our check. It went very efficiently."

Com. Evans moved to recess the morning session, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

AFTERNOON SESSION-PLAN COMMISSION

Rezone Amend PUD ordinance, Aberdeen Phase 1-1st reading
Mary Cable, Plan Commission
Barb Young, Benchmark Ltd.

Com. Burrus, "We reconvene the Commissioners' meeting. The agenda for this afternoon has to do with Plan Commission business. We have three rezoning issues. The first one has to do with an amendment to the PUD with respect to Aberdeen."

Ms. Cable, "I am here today representing Steve Nigro who is on vacation. Our first case is 02M3, petition of Benchmark, Ltd. Their request was for an amendment to their existing PUD ordinance for a portion of Aberdeen, Phase I. The Plan Commission's recommendation of this case was a recommendation for denial on a vote of 6-1. I believe their petitioner is here also and would like to make a presentation."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. Our procedure this afternoon for you in the audience, is we will allow the petitioner to make a presentation and following that we will listen to any remonstrators and at the conclusion of the discussion period, then the Commissioners will close the public portion and we will have our own discussion and then take our vote."

Ms. Young, "Good morning, Mr. President. I am Barb Young, president of Benchmark, Ltd., one of the developers of Aberdeen. I also have Bob______ from __________ & Associates, and Todd Leeth from Hoeppner Wagner & Evans is here on behalf of Greg Valenti. Greg is the builder we are working with on this particular project. What you see on this map outlined in pink, is really the area we are here this afternoon to talk about. I believe, quite frankly, at the Plan Commission there was some confusion as to the procedure we were following because Aberdeen is a planned residential development that was initiated before the Planned Unit Development was adopted by the County. So the major part of Aberdeen was approved for zoning approval which includes all of the area in Phase I that is in Center Township. All of that was zoned for a planned residential district back in 1994 when we did the original Aberdeen. Between 1994 and 1998, the County adopted the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and when we came before the Commissioners at that time and the Plan Commission to bring in Phase G, which is referred to as "the Links" which is north of Aberdeen and connects up to 100 North. That was adopted as a PUD ordinance and it was referred to as an amendment to our existing planned residential development. The ordinance that was adopted at that time was strictly for the Links, so the new lot sizes, the setbacks, everything included in the original PUD ordinance dealt with only the properties in the Links. I think there was some confusion at the Plan Commission about the difference between the basic part of Aberdeen which is a planned residential development for which there is no ordinance. There was just a preliminary zoning special exception granted by the BZA identifying the different neighborhood concepts for Aberdeen. The part in Center Township, while it is already zoned planned residential development, has not been platted. So we are here, and this is part of the process, for the platting of Phase I when we drafted the ordinance for consideration of the Plan Commission.We treated all of this as one neighborhood so the ordinance that is before you has the setbacks and the lots sizes, would be self contained for just this Phase I. It is a little confusing because Aberdeen has been there a number of years. When the PUD was adopted for the Links, it included the road right of way up to what is now Phase I, so it was clearly anticipated that the road would connect through Phase I all the way down to our neighborhood which we refer to as the Fairway. In fact, this road has been roughed in since 2000. It was clearly anticipated that this road would connect through the 7 acre parcel, the road is roughed in and it is used for an exit for the Parade of Homes that took place in 2000, the road has not been finished because we did not have a final design for that neighborhood. Again, what is before you today is a simple rezoning request for this 7 acres to bring it into Aberdeen to make it a part of Aberdeen. All of Aberdeen includes 491 acres and all of Aberdeen has a traditional single family subdivision. We would have been allowed over 1,200 single family residences. So it is the entire 491 acres which includes Phase I, this entire development has been developed as a traditional single family, most restrictive, R-1 zoning classification that would have allowed over 1,200 units. The reality is that even with the completion of Phase I as we have proposed, is less than 800 units. So this is a classic case of what a planned development should be and that is the clustering of the residential areas in the different neighborhoods and the preservation of open space. We have over 260 acres of open space to the golf course, recreation area which includes the swimming pool, tennis courts, soccer field, baseball field, we have individual pocket parks and a variety of neighborhoods. All of Aberdeen is serviced by Valparaiso City Water and in fact the water line has already been extended out of the Highland Hills to Phase I to create the loop for the Links. So the water line is already installed and the extension of road is already installed. This entire area is serviced by the Nature woods Conservancy District. It is covered and the Plan Commission has a letter indicating it is more than more than adequate for passing the wastewater treatment. All of the utilities such as NIPSCO, REMC, cable tv, are available in to both ends of this development so clearly this final phase of Aberdeen, Phase I, was always anticipated to be done. The product we are looking for in this particular neighborhood is a villa product. The demographic is empty nester type similar demographic to what we sought in the Aberdeen Village, which is essentially sold out as a generally one story, although it could be beyond that. This demographic individual is looking for a maintenance free, in terms of both the physical structure of the home and also limited yard area. As I mentioned, this is going to be a single builder project, Mr. Valenti, who we have had contact with him to do this entire project which helps us control the look and architectural standards for this area. The setbacks for the front yard, rear yard and side yard for this neighborhood are identical to the Highland Villas across the way and are similar with the exception these are duplexes to those that are in the Villas. The rear yard setbacks are the same for every single residential lot that backs up on the golf course anywhere in Aberdeen, has the same rear year setback. And every single lot has the same landscaping requirement for each of the individual lots but additional requirements for landscaping when it backs up to the golf course. So the requirements in this new phase are identical to the Highland Villas, and the Links. This type of development along the golf course is similar to what we have done along hole number 2 in Glen Eagle Villas. It is similar to what has been done along hole number 15 along Tower Road and similar to what is being developed along hole number 5 in the Links. So the overall plan is very consistent to what we have done throughout Aberdeen. In fact, this map, all of the shaded lots, are lots that are under 11,000 square feet. Over 42% of all the single family lots in Aberdeen are less than 11,000 square feet. That is 200 lots over the 470 single family. That is not even taking into count the condos or the apartments, that is just the single family lots. So that whole idea again of a planned community is clustering residential and preserving the open space. From the outset, Aberdeen has been the development that has incorporated varieties of lifestyle products. We have had the approach since the very beginning, and I think we have been fairly successful, that there is not one neighborhood in Aberdeen that has a minimum lot size requirement or minimum square footage requirement. Size is not what we believe is the in terms of quality, or int terms of the esthetics of the neighborhood. We have placed our entire control of this development on the exterior design standards and the landscaping requirements. We think that works very well. Again we think it is particularly important to have a single builder because that controls that entire neighborhood. This is a self contained urban community. While this is a community that is in the county, this is a community that has sidewalks on every developed lot, street lights, and city utilities. This is an urban community. I know there are neighbors that have concerns, the neighbors that are on the east side of hole number 4 are some of the first people that moved into Aberdeen. So they have beautiful homes. I certainly have a great deal of respect for the issues that they have. We believe that what we are proposing has been the original design and concept of Aberdeen and that we have protected their interest as well as the interests of all the neighborhoods of Aberdeen by imposing a physical control standard, landscaping standards and by creating a situation where we can finish in a way that was originally designed by putting in this final one. There are trees that we are going to lose. There are trees that we have lost in every single neighborhood. It is hard to construct homes without losing trees. But we have planted and probably replaced more trees in Aberdeen than we did remove. We have string trees in every single neighborhood, they will be in this neighborhood and we have even included an additional landscaping buffer over and above the individual requirements for each lot as a golf course screen along the end of this property. While we definitely will lose trees, we don't want to lose any trees that can be saved because trees sell lots, people like to buy lots that have trees available, but we will lose trees. We do have a plan that we will replace more trees than will be removed. Overall, we think there are a lot of benefits to finishing this particular area. Everything ties in and completes this link of Aberdeen. The roads will all be private roads maintained by the Homeowners's Association, not by the county. The storm water and drainage system has already been designed and will in fact alleviate any issues that the property owner's to the west (inaudible). The lot sizes are consistent with the rest of Aberdeen and we believe the development we are proposing are appropriate as a part of our planned unit development and that this last seven acres should be brought into Aberdeen."

Todd Leeth, "Thank you. I am here this afternoon on behalf of Valenti Construction and Greg Valenti. As Barb indicated, he is the exclusive builder in the proposed new addition to Aberdeen. I was not present in the room at all of the proceedings before the Plan Commission on November 13 though I was here for a portion of it. I have extensively reviewed the minutes of that hearing process. A lot of the concerns I would characterize as development types of issues and not zoning. The purpose of the hearing before you is one of zoning, exclusively of zoning in my opinion, under your ordinance. In the past, Barb has indicated that the pink drawing showed the seven acre parcel outside of Aberdeen. What we are really trying to do is incorporate that back into the Planned Unit Development so we can then proceed with the planned concept and the concept plan that Barb has shown you, then plat it through the Plan Commission process, just as we would any other subdivision. There has to be another hearing at the Plan Commission and at that time, Barb and her group of engineers have to appear before the Technical Advisory Committee. They have to prove to the staff of the county that the drainage is sufficient and properly handled. They have to prove to them that the traffic flow meets with the purpose of intention. All of those details if you will, are properly at a second and third step in this process we call Planned Unit Development. We are really not talking about all of the 13 acres, we are really only talking about those 7 acres outlined in pink. So it really is focusing on the zoning. The big picture as to what happens with that 7 acres, and frankly, how that 7 acres is going to be developed. There was also some concern and some statements that were made that there were too many variances or that there were variances being granted. While planned unit development ordinances refers to variances, they're really not variances in the true concept of what a zoning ordinance talks about when they say variance. A variance in zoning is a deviation from an established code standard and that is not what the PUD process is about. The PUD process is about creating a community just as Barb has presented to you and then establishing through that plan an ordinance that dictates what those code standards are in that community. In this case, it's that 13 acres laid out just as we have shown you this afternoon. There are no standards under the PUD process. Though your ordinance refers to that word, it is really kind of a deviation from Benchmark that is established at R-3 code standards. We think the R-3 code standards are not restrictive enough. That is what Barb has established in her commitments through the petition process to you and to the Plan Commission. It is more restrictive in many respects than the R-3 standards would allow. That is the benchmark, but not truly, in my opinion, a variance. So then what are the real benefits that this petition brings? We think that it is somewhat self evident that this property ought to be included in Aberdeen to the benefit of the residents in that 13 acres to utilize the infrastructure that has been established by Aberdeen previously. Barb indicated that this is an urban type of setting and I guess I share that opinion. This petition is very analogous to a municipal annexation, if you will. This seven acres wants to come in and share the benefits of the conservancy district providing for sanitary sewers. I think that is a great benefit, not only for the 13 acres, but also to the community as a whole because the benefits of sanitary sewer disposal far outweigh septic sewers in our environment as a whole and in our community as a whole. The thoroughfare systems as I expressed earlier, that obviously for four years has been anticipated to circulate through that seven acres. That was done at the earlier planning and the earlier phase as Barb indicated with the substreet there. So really the question for you is, how fast can we bring this service the seven acres that is highlighted and I think the best way to do that is through the process we have outlined to you. It is somewhat confusing and that confusion is raised by the fact that this planned unit development was started in the mid ‘90's prior to the general assembly adopting the planned unit development ordinance the county following with its local ordinance as well. The process is somewhat confusing because we had something that was started prior to your existing PUD, but I think if you boil it down and understand the process really, it is one of how best to develop seven acres, and that is the petition before you. The more process is required and that process takes us back to the Plan Commission to do the detail work that is required by the engineers. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and I know Barb will as well, as we go through the hearing process. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Do we have a spokesman for the remonstrators?"

Mark Thiros, "I live in Aberdeen and I spoke mainly on behalf of these folks at the Plan Commission. What I would like to do is simply begin by repeating a request made by Mr. Leeth. I would like to show you a photograph of the area we are speaking about. I would also like to show you photographs of the proposed front and back holes that are intended to be placed into this development and a photo that would be immediately adjacent to the southern most point of the development. I will begin by indicating this area, the 6 acres that are in the original boundaries and the seven acres outside, I think the exact words were always anticipated to be developed. In fact, the evidence we have been able to garner through brochures of Aberdeen and what we were represented when buying out lots there indicates the opposite of that. First of all, every single recorded plat that is upstairs in the Surveyor's office, for this six acre parcel, there is nothing ever platted. All the marketing brochures that Aberdeen has distributed indicate the development would end in this area of the southern part of this plat in a cul-de-sac and nothing was planned for this area called Phase I. In fact, I would represent to you that the reason this seven acres was ever purchased was to put this temporary road through when they had the Parade of Homes exhibit in this new section called the Links. Now they have seven acres of land and they are trying to figure out what to do with it. So again, as far as anything being represented to the homeowners in Aberdeen, this Phase I was never before presented to anybody until recently. Additionally, the issue here today, again we are talking about zoning and the PUD, as I understand this proposed plat and how it was presented to the Plan Commission and the Board of Commissioners, this entire thirteen acres would become a PUD. I don't think we are dealing specifically with a six acre parcel of the original part of Aberdeen and then a seven acre parcel over here. My understanding is that this entire plat is being presented to you to be amended as such as this entire 13 acres become a separate PUD. Therefore, the issue is one of zoning and your own ordinance dictates that the zoning for a PUD would be that of R-3. R-3 requires 12,000 minimum square foot lots with the minimum width of 80 feet. There is also certain setback requirements for R-3 zoning. As best I can tell, none of these lots with the exception of maybe a few of the______________ lots meet any of these requirements. Ms. Young has indicated to you that she believes these lots to be of similar size to the other existing lots in Aberdeen, specifically in the Willows, which are on the opposite side of the hole. The average lot size of the buildable lots, there are about 22 of them, is 11,830 square feet. The average golf course frontage on buildable lots is 121 feet. The average size of the 47 lots in Phase I is 8,417 feet. So even if those were under the R-3 zoning code, that a variance is only about 200 square feet versus 3,500 square feet on one of the new proposed lots. Additionally, a big difference on the what is proposed is the fact that in the Villas, you have six lots open and abut this golf hole. On the opposite of the hole, you would have 20 homes on the west side alone. So, it really is not similar, it is not the same as Ms. Young would want you to believe. The homes are much smaller than the homes that exist in other places on the golf course, and it will be much denser on this less relatively small strip of land and anywhere else on this golf course or on this development. The fact that the road is roughed in this area, I don't think was sufficient as it has been indicated to me that the existence of the road that connects the rest of Aberdeen, it is really how that 13 acres is going to be developed. Again, getting back into zoning. Not only with the lot sizes required to get a variance from R-3, the front setbacks and the side set backs also require variances for all those lots. Ms. Young made a comment about open space at Aberdeen and preservation thereof, and I think what she is trying to infer that there is an open space here because of the existence of this golf hole adjacent to this. Really what they are trying to do is to piggyback onto the golf course for open space. The golf course is a complete separate entity of the development portion of this. There is one corporation that owns the golf course and there is Benchmark which is developing this land. The open space is composed of Phase I, I think I counted three or four very small lots that would constitute open space in this development. The percentage of open space in this Phase I versus open space in other areas of Aberdeen, it is like saying the percentage of open space is exclusive of the golf course and obviously Barb also made the comment about preservation of trees. In the photograph I showed you it depicts the stand of trees that will have to be clear cut for this development. We believe that should not be allowed and again, getting back to representations that were made to people and I know this is not necessarily only a matter of zoning, but Barb is trying to sell this like it is being consistent with the rest of Aberdeen and how Aberdeen is planned with, the original concept of Aberdeen, when quite simply this Phase I was not in the original concept of Aberdeen. When Aberdeen was originally conceptualized and platted, this area was not owed by Benchmark, the development ended in this northwest corner. To sit here today and say this has always been planned as a part of the concept is simply false and misleading. Ms. Young also made a statement regarding trees and the fact that Aberdeen has replaced more trees than they have taken down. Again, if you look at this photograph, this stand of trees is the replacement. If you want to plant a few shrubs behind these new proposed homes, it is simply cannot compensate for what is already there and again, in keeping with Aberdeen was originally conceptually supposed to be then this stand of trees should remain there. Mr. Leeth made a comment regarding zoning of this issue and that there are no standards for PUD's, again going back to the ordinance which indicates that PUD's are governed by R-3, he believes they are not restrictive enough and apparently these lots don't even meet the R-3 standard. That would conclude my remarks and I would like to introduce to you copies of the calculations of the lot sizes which are based on the proposed plat, Phase I and the information regarding the lot sizes. As is said, there are several other people who would like to make some comments, there was also a petition that was circulated which I believe we have obtained approximately 137 signatures of other residents of Aberdeen that could not attend this meeting today but wished to express their opposition. Thank you."

Randy Pecsek, "I live at 290 Durness Court in the Highland Villas. I just thought I would bring you more pictures, the top picture indicates some of the new trees that have been planted by the developer in the foreground and in the back ground are all the original trees that exist today within the Highland Villas section of the development. The bad news is I may say a few things that Mark already said and the good news is I prepared my remarks so I am not going to dally. I have copies of this letter for each of you. The Aberdeen community began as a planned development designed to compliment and enhance the natural surrounding beauty of Timberlake Farm that came out of the welcome brochure. It explains about the gently rolling hills and dense woods; meandering streams and quiet ponds. Now imagine your home, the home of your dreams, distinctly built and nestled artfully into this spectacular surroundings. This is what my neighbors and I were sold on when we bought premium priced lots and signed restrictive building covenants to control the style, quality construction in our suburban neighborhood remote from Aberdeen town center. This is not an urban setting we are talking about here. Aberdeen was originally presented to this body as a planned unit development. The originally expertly planned community was comprised of seven neighborhoods: the Highlands, the Highland Villas, and five others. Later the preserve and the Fairways were added in succession following the original engineered plan and on property that was part of the original parcel of ground. The day Benchmark Ltd. asks the Porter County Plan Commission to approve the addition of seven acres of new property to the planned community, this will be the fourth addition to the original expertly planned community. Each of the past three additions, the Hills; which are apartments, the condos, and the Links, have been hastily planned and strayed from the original design of the overall community plan. The Hills apartment complex is an overcrowded environment which involved the annexation of a new addition, again, of property to build a much more dense development that was planned in the original community master plan. Doorknock condos are a style and quality eyesore in the center of the village. The Links have seen the bankruptcy of this developer early in the project with only a few homes built according to the original proposed design and its future intent unclear. Now Benchmark is proposing the initiation of another tastefully planned development in the Aberdeen community, trying to squeeze a high density development into a small parcel of land at the remote fringes of this community. The developer will quote statistics based on averages and using the golf course as green space and that they are well within the design guidelines of the zoning standards. However, with the last few projects, they have severely compromised the intent of Aberdeen which was originally approved. High density outside the village center, the clear cutting of natural tree lines, and the leveling of rolling hills are better today a signature part of Aberdeen and were not part of the original plan my neighbors and I were presented with and bought into when we paid premium prices for our property and built upscale homes according to Benchmark's strict design covenants. Another surprise to Highland Villas residents has been of the 18 golf course holes, only those bordering the Highland Villas have homes built across from them, no other neighborhoods have been impacted. In each case these developments have been variances to the original plans of the planned unit development. Hole number 3 has four Highland Villa lots on it and eight fairway lots across from the Highland Villas. Hole number 5 has five Highland Villa lots on it and six houses across from the golf course from it. It has been done tastefully and with balance but this proposed variance will place 20 homes across hole number 4 from five Highland Villa lots. This density, style, layout and price point is totally inconsistent with the Aberdeen community plan that my neighbors and I were presented with when we bought. The western boundary of Aberdeen currently follows Center Township line with the golf course hole number 4 and stand of trees surrounding the green just inside that line. The positioning of the golf course hole design made it clear to all potential buyers that there was no Aberdeen development planned for this corner of the property. Without the addition of this seven acre parcel, it would be impossible to have added anything to this corner of the golf course. The seven acres across the township lines and would be the only such inconsistency in this Aberdeen community. This is clearly another tack on project inconsistent with the planned community designed and a project that will impact the intended landscape, environment and economical value of the Highland neighborhood. That this project wasn't included in the original design and presented to potential property owners, I doubt that the current property owners would have been so quick to buy and pay a premium price for the property. Lastly, it is our understanding that Benchmark is working towards a turnover at Aberdeen to a property owner's association by the end of 2003. At that time, we will be forced to accept the managed impact of this and the other hastily done projects that we would have opposed ourselves. I urge you to oppose this request."

Eric Mehlberger, "I am here on behalf of the residents in the Fairways. The Fairways is the subdivision directly south of there. I own lot F-15, which is directly one over from this new subdivision. I would like to present a petition that is signed by 137 people, I would say 90% of those do reside in the Fairways close by. On Aberdeen's own webpage when they were marketing Aberdeen, the Fairways were described as surroundings of lush green open spaces. Aberdeen's newest single family neighborhood, magnificent views of the golf course and a gentle stream, a wholesome environment and enchanted land to call home with a picture of a house. I also have some pictures I would like to present to you. This is the land directly adjacent to Lot F-16 showing some of the rolling hills that they intend to level to make way through this subdividing as well as pictures of the neighboring trees and the rolling hills which they plan to take out. When I purchased my lot, I was made to believe these rolling hills would remain. I was made to believe this next lot, F-16, in case there was a new development made, there would be a space made available and this hill would remain to make a gentle transition to whatever this subdivision or new element was made. I would also like to present my plot for Lot F-15 which is one away from this. To give you an idea of the existing plat that are out there and in no way does this 60 foot lot correspond to anything that is close next door to it. This high density traffic caused by this new development, all this traffic in a sense would come through the Fairways and our traffic would be greatly increased coming through. Also, on the Aberdeen website when I first bought my lot, was a large circle ending in a court so the fact that this was always meant to be a through road, that was not the way it was presented to the property owners. Then another drawing of the Fairways showing the grove of trees on the one side that they prepared to cut down a number of trees to make way for this new subdivision. On behalf of the Fairways people I would like to express our opposition to this subdivision based upon the high density of the houses and the small number of lots that will greatly increase traffic through our neighborhood and also the destruction of the hills and the trees that we were promised would remain there when we purchased out lots."

Jill Mehlberger, "I live in the Fairways and I just wanted to say that I don't agree with this and one of the reasons for it is because of the fact there are two school districts in that subdivision, I am not sure where it splits. I am not sure exactly where it splits."

Jerrilyn Pecsek, "I also am a property owner in the Highlands and I agree with everything that has been said here and also I was not at the Plan Commission meetings but they did decide to vote 6-1 against it and I am sure they had their reasons for it. I do agree with that."

David Berger, "I live at 279 Durness Court and I agree with everything that has been said. The things I would like to point out that concerns me. One, I play golf quite a bit on Aberdeen and I see some of my golfing buddies and you will notice the tees are here, and the best way to play this hole is come up to the pond and then the green. They have a lot of (inaudible) I can go from my house over here to the rough and find 10 to 20 golf balls a day. Where these houses are now located you have a high density hazard that will be subject to safety factor, golf balls going in your yards. All that means is people are going to start complaining if they buy there, they will want a security fence, or a privacy fence to prevent that. Trees just won't do it. I think you have a safety factor you need to look at. The second thing, is there is two ponds, I believe this one is man made as a drainage and irrigation for the hole. This one was a natural water __________. The EPA studies that have been done has an impact on these wetlands here."

Amy Hickle, "I just want to add about the school system. Not only are they separated into two school systems, but the Hayes Leonard school that my daughter goes to in kindergarten has 28 children in each kindergarten class right now and an additional first grade teacher because they couldn't legally handle the number of students that they have in first grade. It goes all the way up, they don't have the capacity, they are already too taxed and now they are talking about putting all these homes in. It is not going to be restricted to empty nesters, people with children will be in this too. I think that is a big issue."

Com. Burrus, "Does anyone else want to speak? Barb, do you have any rebuttal?"

Ms. Young, "I am just trying to answer some of the questions. With regard to the house plans that were circulated for Mr. Valenti's project, that is the Crown Point project, those are pictures without the changes that are required of those structures when they come into Aberdeen. So as part of the contract we have established additional architectural standards that need to be applied. It is a very different subdivision at Crown Point than Aberdeen so I don't think those are fair representations of what this project will look like. Landscaping plans are significantly different. There has been a lot of comments about this not being reflected on any of our plats and that is absolutely true because we have never platted this final phase. We have only, on all of our marketing brochures, we showed only the property that we had for sale at that time and we couldn't be advertising something we hadn't platted and didn't have any idea what that product was going to be at that time. So they are absolutely right, it has not been platted. We did not include this in any of our materials because we didn't know what it was going to look like, but it has been zoned. Every parcel in Center Township has been zoned as part of the planned residential development. I am pleased that they read our brochures, I am pleased they check our website and we believe that Aberdeen does represent all of those things that were said about Aberdeen. I think you have to look at Aberdeen as a whole. This is not Phase I versus the Villas; that is not at all what this is about. Every single neighborhood in Aberdeen is different. We had the exact line up of lots along this hole as we do along Hole Number 2, as we do along hole number 5. To say that because there are only a few lots here, that is not consistent with the entire hole number 15 in line with holes number 2, 4 and 5. Hole number 14 is on both sides of that hole and all the way down to hole number 13 and most of hole number 12. So to say that we don't have houses in small lots along the golf course is simply not true. You cannot look at one phase of a PUD and expect that the open space requirements are going to be contained in that one phase. The whole concept of a PUD is as you look at the entire acreage and you do offset the open spaces in the other portions of development so that you can cluster the homes. We are able to preserve 260 acres of open space because we were able to cluster the homes. This is very consistent from what we had planned from the very beginning. We have had this planned from the very beginning, this area was included; the seven acres was not. That was property we acquired after the fact. But to say that Doorknock was something new that was added, is absolutely not true. Doorknock in the Village Center was always part of our plan. The apartment complex, the Hills, was always part of our plan. The only two pieces that have been added to Aberdeen is amendments to the existing size were the Links, which has been final platted and there is an entire area that is owned by Bob Coolman which has already been through the PUD process. It has not been platted, but there is another whole area in through here. This is very consistent with the rest of the development. We are actually going to have to lose trees. We have lost trees with construction of a great deal of the homes, streets and the golf course, but if there are trees on the golf course, they will be preserved; if there are trees within Phase I that should be preserved, they will be. The reality is, we will lose trees. The statement about the fairways court, I am sure you are familiar enough with your technical advisory committee that when you have a road that is intended to go through, but you haven't yet got the developments, you have to put a cul-de-sac in for a turn around. What is reflected on the plat is the cul-de-say that was our turn around until such time that we could finish the road. There is one collection behind the fairways of construction fill that has been referred to as a rolling hill. There is just simply a collection of excavation that will be excavated as far as this process. There are not wetlands to be impacted by this development, the ponds that are on the golf course are _________ of the golf course, they have absolutely nothing to do with our wetlands permit. All of our wetlands has been monitored and is in place and there are not wetlands being impacted by any of this. In terms of safety, those issues were all taken into consideration at the time of the design of the golf course. There are certain rules about how wide fairways have to be and what the boundary lines and they meet all those guidelines available for golf balls. People that live on golf courses expect that to happen and we do whatever we can to try and alleviate that through landscaping and other issues. This is in Union Township; we have not had any discussion with the Union Township schools to see whether or not they have an issue. Quite frankly, we just don't expect the demographics here will generate very many school children, but that is a possibility."

Mr. Leeth, "Just a couple things. Number one, the schools, as Ms. Young mentioned, it has been my experience that with regard to Valparaiso Community Schools, they don't take any position with regard to developments, pro or con. They will take all students and accommodate them into the system. That has been their public policy for many years. At the time, and I was involved when Aberdeen was first presented to the County. At that time, the school capacity issue was a very big concern, and particularly Hayes-Leonard school. I think the evidence, as I recall at that time, we learned from the school system, was back in the mid ‘90's Hayes Leonard had less students at that time that it did say, ten years prior to that. The reason was, Flint Lake Elementary School came on the line and the school systems simply adjusts the boundary lines to balance the school population amongst all the elementary schools. That is how they accommodate the students into their system. So, I have every faith in the fact that slight number of students that Ms. Young indicated that might be generated from this would be accommodated into the school systems accordingly. Secondly, I just want to reiterate the contractual obligations that Benchmark is places Mr. Valanenti under with regard to the architectural style of the homes and the home type, we call it product but they are going to be homes when this project is moving forward. The contract between Valenti Construction and Benchmark has those specific standards built in. Mr. Valenti cannot free lance, if you will, housing types, architectural considerations, landscaping issue. All of those were very much negotiated and imposed upon Mr. Valenti as the builder by Benchmark as we negotiated the contract between the two parties. Lastly, I want to read to you the portion of your ordinance when Aberdeen first came into being. This is the planned residential development, an ordinance that is now superceded but at that time the purpose of a planned residential development was to encourage good land and building site design. In the establishment of unified residential neighborhoods to encourage and allow a variety of housing types but subject to general density of an applicable zoning district with respect to the total area of the development under this procedure. Two points in there, total area. I think you have to look at Aberdeen as a whole, and Ms. Young indicated that. This isn't a focus on 13 acres. We are asking that seven acres come into an existing 491 acre development. Second of all, with a variety of housing types. That was the purpose and intent of a planned residential development under the ordinance that was adopted June of 1983 and was superceded by your PUD in 1996. I think that is what Aberdeen is all about. That certainly what was approved by the county in the mid ‘90's when Aberdeen first came before this body and it is consistent with this petition before you."

Com. Burrus, "Would anyone from the opposition care to make any remarks or rebuttal?"

Male from audience, "Regarding these units and what they are going to look like, I dealt with Mr. Valenti a couple weeks ago. He invited me to go to Crown Point to examine those units and said this is what they are going to be like. That is how he represented it to me, that is how they would appear. Those are the photographs. I haven't seen any of the documentation or drawings that indicate they would look any different than they appear in those photographs. Additionally, this type of development is simply being placed in the wrong part of Aberdeen. You are going to have high density, lower priced houses, put them up closer to the road where the property is less desirable. We have our investments there already. We would like to see they are protected and preserved as Ms. Young indicated earlier. In fact, they can argue all they want but this is good for Aberdeen and it is proper and okay, but it is not consistent with anything else on the golf course. There is no other hole on the golf course that would have a total of 26 homes on it. Specifically, on one side there would be 20 houses in a straight line. That does not appear anywhere else in Aberdeen. Hole number 2 has a couple duplexes on it, Hole number 15 has about 8 houses on it, they wrap around it and are of different styles and shapes. This would be 20 almost exact looking units of straight line, it simply isn't right to put it there. The Plan Commission has heard these arguments, they gave us 6-1 negative recommendation. This isn't about zoning, they're requesting different variances and we simply feel you should go with the recommendation as it is presented to you."

Com. Burrus, "Thank you. Anyone else with some closing remarks from the opposition?"

(The entire portion of an unidentified male speaking from the audience was inaudible)

Com. Sheets, "If you are concerned about the number of people in opposition, that is not the most important part of this hearing. The most important part of this hearing is what you have to say, not how many people say it. This is not a vote as far as you are concerned. This is a vote as far as we are concerned. So, democracy is here at work and you are allowed to speak at a public forum and a vote will be taken by three members up here."

Larry Urkel, "I reside at 242 _________ Drive. I recently purchased a little piece of property on Turnbury at 272 and planned to build a home in that area of Aberdeen and just wanted to express my disappointment with this particular planned development. In this section of Aberdeen, I strongly agree with Mr. Thiros and the other gentlemen with regard to what they have presented to you. I hope that you ............." (inaudible).

Eric Mehlberger, "I would like to make the statement that yes, Aberdeen is a planned urban development, but the plan for the high density housing was already made and is already put in there in the form of the village. It already exists there. Again, I don't see the need for high density housing in Aberdeen and that every other neighbor in his large homes on large lots."

Com. Burrus, "Any other comments? If not, I will close the public portion of this hearing and the Commissioners will deliberate the information we received."

Com. Sheets, "I have not had the opportunity to visit the minutes of the meeting so I will have to hold off with my thoughts."

Com. Evans, "The standard we are talking about, the 12,000 square feet reduced by the Conservancy District is reduced by the availability of water and that in actuality is 10,000 square feet instead of 12,000. We are being asked to take into consideration many different items but in actuality the petition before us is pretty specific and in its request, trees and siding are probably not something we should be considering. The 20 houses in a row on the golf course don't align according to the golf hole because there can't be room for houses on the other side. The houses directly across from that golf hole, there are only 14. The thing I keep hearing over and over is the density. I think maybe some type of amendment to the density needs to be tendered. The other thing is, good golfers hook to the left and bad golfers go to the right."

Com. Burrus, "John mentioned again the density question and I have a question for the developer. The size of the lots that are at least proposed here preliminarily on this plat run generally from about 7,200 square feet up to around 8,400 to 8,500 square feet. What kind of numbers of lots do you have in that range or higher or lower? Do you have any figures on that?"

Ms. Young, "As I indicated, everything that is on the map that is shaded is less than 11,000. We have 68 lots that are less than 7,500 and we have another 57 that are between 7,500 and 9,000 and then another 83 between 9,000 and 11,000. So over 200 total lots, there are 12 on the 22 lots of the Highlands that are below 11,000 square feet. There are over 22 houses that align hole number 15. Again, I believe we are proposing a very good system with the rest of these. Obviously, a number of houses below 11,000."

Com. Evans, "The biggest thing I see here is with the rest of the development it is pretty hard to argue against one piece across the road. They cut down trees to build houses everywhere. They can plant them back. Thornapple Valley was a barren field with no trees at all and now look at it 20 years later. I don't think trees are a consideration that we should take in as vinyl siding versus brick is part of the restrictive covenants in the building code. I think we have to look at specifically what we are being asked to do here, and that is the variance from the standards of 10,000 feet to 7,400 square feet and I think that if we go to 8,500 square feet it should be more palpable for everyone and allow both sides to come away with something."

Com. Burrus, "John is proposing minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet. Is that something the developer could accommodate?"

Ms. Young, "I am sure that if that is the request of the Commissioners, we could accommodate it."

Com. Burrus, "I would like to make one or two comments. I think we need to focus on the issue the petition brings to us and that is the rezoning of the 7 acres. Mr. Leeth made points earlier that there will be a number of subsequent visits and presentations to the Plan Commission regarding the plat layout, improvements and so forth that would be proposed if that was approved. I would also point out that the concept of Aberdeen in general and the idea of planned unit developments is consistent with the Porter County Land Use Plan and that is the clustering of facilities in exchange for the preservation of open space in particular with the provision of all municipal utilities. I think the concept of Aberdeen has been acceptable and I think the majority of you folks here have bought into Aberdeen with the idea it was acceptable. I think the concept is consistent with our land use plan. The issue comes down then to the final decision as to whether or not this Board is prepared to vote on the rezoning of the seven acres. Larry has been absent for a number of weeks, he is the Commissioners' representative on the Plan Commission and as he said, it is unfortunate that he has not been involved in those meetings because of his illness. Also being the Commissioner from the Center District, we tend to rely a great deal on his input. We have two choices at this point and I don't know for sure how the Commissioners will react to this but we can go ahead and take a vote on this and make a finding on this immediately or if you wanted to have some time to catch up on it, Larry and feel more comfortable on this, we can continue for one more meeting."

Com. Sheets, "Well, my one comment would be if based on my about 20 years' experience, is that this property is separate from Aberdeen to start with and if this land was to be purchased by the same people and developed outside of Aberdeen, your biggest argument would be voted down unless it is brought into Aberdeen. Today, your argument is just the opposite. So believe me, we can sit here and argue, but with my 20 years' experience, your biggest argument would be make sure this comes in and meets the standards of broad planning of Aberdeen. I think on that case, that Benchmark and Aberdeen is doing it correctly by trying to bring it inside. I think both sides have made good presentations. PUD, in case some of you don't know, means you have mixed uses, you have some big lots, you have some small lots. You have apartment buildings, you have some commercial and then you have some smaller lots and villas. What we tend to do is have a break between the type of homes you have and the empty nesters you are talking about, that you do have on the fairway. I do see those things are met. That is about all the comments I have."

Com. Burrus, "I appreciate your comments. With what has been said here today and your previous experience with prior Aberdeen phases, do you feel comfortable putting it through?"

Com. Sheets, "This will go through several more phases; not only TAC, but it will go before the Plan Commission again. My one question is do you have architectural standards and an architectural committee? And if so, who is it made up of?"

Ms. Young, "Yes, we have it. It is currently the developer and we have a professional architect that serves on that, but we have invited the homeowners to participate in that process and we are hoping coming January 1st, the homeowners will be involved in that process. We welcome their participation.

Com. Sheets, "I think that based on several steps that we would have to take and we can still deal with that as the process moves forward that we ought to bring it inside Aberdeen. That would be my position."

Com. Evans moved to stipulate the square footage be moved up to 8,500 square foot rather than the 7,400, Com. Sheets seconded, motion carried.

REZONE-AA-Agricultural to R-1, Single Family-CINDY HALL

Ms. Cable, "This is for a rezone a 10 acre parcel of land from AA-Agricultural and open space to R-1 single family residential. They are looking to subdivide the project parcel into four buildable home sites which they would have to go through planning procedure to do that once and if the zoning is approved at some point. The property to the south of this property is already subdivided under the minor subdivision ordinance and so because one minor sub has been done off the original parcel in order to proceed with subdividing this property, it must be rezoned. A major subdivision, regardless of number of lots, is not allowed in an AG zoning so the request is to change it to R-1 or R-2 to be able to subdivide it properly. The Plan Commission's recommendation in this case was approval on a 7-0 vote."

Com. Burrus, "Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this rezone issue?"

Ms. Cable, "I don't see anyone."

Com. Sheets, "Was there anyone in opposition at the Plan Commission?"

Ms. Cable, "There were no remonstrators at the meeting."

Com. Sheets moved to approve the rezone, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

REZONE PETITION OF GLENBROOK PROPERTY GROUP LLC
from RR to R1

Ms. Cable, "This property is located on the southwest corner of County Road 100 South and County Road 500 West in Porter Township. The request is for rezoning for a 129 acre parcel from RR-Rural Residential to R-1-Single Family. The developer has made a deal with the Lake Eliza Conservancy District requesting annexation for utilization of sanitary sewers. Because there will be sanitary sewers available that would reduce the lot size requirements and the zoning ordinance in an R-1 zoning district, they would not in RR. The frontage requirements are major different in the two zoning districts. In R1, the minimum lot width is 100 foot requirement and in RR it is 160 so that is a major sticking point for development in that zoning district. The Plan Commission recommendation for this was an approval on a 6-1 vote and the main concern of the remonstrators was drainage and the potential drain on the aquifer from additional wells."

Ron Lowe, "I am here on behalf of the Glenbrook properties-9700 West 197th Street, Mokena, Illinois. If I could I would like to point out where the property is located. It is located on the southwest corner of 500 West, 100 South. It is southwest of the railroad track. As you see the zoning around it is R1 and C4. We have a preliminary street layout but basically this is just for rezoning and not for platting. I bring with me two letters from the Lake Eliza Conservancy District and that is the reason we are in here for the rezoning. This was signed and given to Mr. Nigro of the Plan Commission. I just received an update on the petition for annexation, dated November 27 which is a response from the IDNR stating they will not be taking an independent study. I ask that you approve our request for rezoning."

Com. Burrus, "If I can make one comment to the Board. I have received a phone call from at least one of the engineers that is involved with the conservancy district and it is very much consistent with this letter in the fact that they would look forward to the annexation of this area into their territorial authority. Do we have anyone here speaking against this development?"

Marilyn Sulewski, "I live at 117 South, 580 West, Hebron. It is ironic that we are here to oppose this development when the people of Aberdeen are opposing it basically for aesthetic, we are opposing this basically because we want to continue our way of life. As a 24 year Porter County resident I was appalled at the November 13th meeting that the Planning Commission did not see any problems with rezoning the property for Prairie Landing, as it is called. I don't know why he didn't have or didn't want to show you but this is what my husband obtained at the Planning Commission as to how many houses and how small the lots are. If the mission of the Plan Commission is to serve and protect the current residents, I do not see how this can be accomplished if the county allows almost 180 new wells to be dug without any knowledge of the capabilities of the current water tables. According to what my husband obtained from Glenberg Properties, there is going to be 180 individual houses with 180 individual wells. I believe the county has to look at the tree subdivision to see what happens when too many wells are dug on a limited aquifer. What will we do if our wells go dry or are contaminated by the sewage? Because if you look, there is a detention pond that they have drawn in is right on the edge of all of these wetlands which is basically what this whole area is back here. A lot of that area is wetlands, what will dumping all of that wastewater do to that wetlands? We are also currently paying the special tax to clean the ditch because of flooding farther down the line and if you will note, right along the edge of this. So what will happen to all the farmers down the line if all of this wastewater from 180 houses and run off goes down Luddington Ditch? Several months ago the Plan Commission denied the building of a pole barn on the four acres because of the location and then will allow a subdivision such as Prairie Landing."

Com. Burrus, "I have some comments that will explain a few things later. Is there anyone else who wants to speak against?"

David Vandenberg, "131 South 580 West. We are on the western border of the proposed development. We heard about the water table, no sense repeating that but it is a big concern of ours. Then on the plat of 180 homes, another concern of mine is Lake Eliza Volunteer Fire Department being responsible for all these additional homes in there. We've already got a development to the west of us with a lot of new homes and a lot of drainage problems in that area. I don't know the name of that subdivision. I did not hear what the gentleman said about the Lake Eliza conservancy district. I am hard of hearing. Has that been approved by the state or does it have to be approved by the state?"

Com. Burrus, "It would have to be approved but at this point I don't believe it has. To make your point, this proposed development would not be able to go forward with their proposed density unless it is approved. You must have Lake Eliza sewers in order for this to happen."

Ms. Sulewski, "Because they are just going to annex that one little portion there?"

Ron Lowe, "First of all, the answer to your question is would this move forward without the Lake Eliza and the answer to that is no because we would not have the sewage treatment. When I came to the Plan Commission, I had some preliminary plan that is not our final plan and I was asked if they could have one and I tried to explain that it was a preliminary plan. I don't think we will end up with that many lots when we get into the final process. But that is a process we have to go through with the TAC and Plan Commission. The only property today that they are considering for annexation today as far as I know is this 129 acres. We have to run a line up to their treatment plan approximately a mile. The reason the conservancy treatment plant has excess capacity, however they cannot get new users to use it to excess capacity because when it was built and through the federal regulations, the lines that were put out there were small and they were limited on what they could do, so this basically is add on revenues to the district that they cannot realize their own boundaries and will not be in the capital improvements having to do with line. I hope that answered your question."

Unidentified male, "We do have a copy of the preliminary plan. The detention pond shown on this preliminary is currently a lake ____________. What is it going to retain if it is full of water already? As this one down here as well. Another concern, based on all 180 lots, these are all new residences, what about the impact of the school district? Do we take them all or do we build another school? How many people are going to want to build that close together? They are not going to be upper income, that is for sure. And the detention pond is now a lake. That is all wetland down there and will always be wetlands. The proposed lots on the preliminary, half of them are in wetlands as it is, 100 foot wide. Not a very good development."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, thank you. Anyone else to speak?"

Ron Lowe, "The only thing I can say is, yes there are some wetlands there but we have not done the final engineering. We will have to obviously pass engineering approval for the property and that is to say that after the rezoning they can start."

Com. Sheets, "The rezoning is only a start. There is TAC that he has to go through with his plans that will probably be different than what you see. There is at least three engineers that will review it; the surveyor, the county engineer and the soil and water conservation people as well as the Health Department. That is just a start. Then the Plan Commission will get it and I sit on that. I heard what he has to say and when somebody says 129, we will probably have less. I hold him to less. There will be many opportunities for you and the public and the neighbors to come and be a part of that."

Com. Evans, "My only concern is that maybe we are being premature in granting the rezoning before we know about the sewer request and are we in doing so, giving the authority, the decision to somebody that we have already said go ahead?"

Com. Sheets, "If we rezone this, then what happens between wetlands, the conservancy district, the TAC , will adjust everything that happens to this plan. If he has 129 and they look at the wetlands and they look at other things that might be potential problems, then he will have to adjust his plans. It has to be rezoned before he can do anything."

Com. Burrus, "If they do not receive their territorial authority annexation, then immediately it throws it into a higher lot size because you don't have municipal services."

Com. Sheets, "We do have guards against that, John."

Mrs. Sulewski, "Are there any guards against drilling too many wells? Does anybody look at how much water there is available. Obviously Lake County didn't; that is why all the wells went dry. Now does anybody look at what the impact is going to be? Well, we may not build 180 homes, but I will be honest, the way this whole company has been operating, as I said, as a 24 year resident, I know how easy it is to go in, look at the plats, see who owns the property and they are supposed to for the Plan Commission, send out letters. I never, as Sulewski, never received one of these letters. We received, under a different person's name that lives on 100 South, who is directly affected, their name on the letter, with our address. You can say, oh well, it was a mistake, but how do we know they don't do underhanded dealings and didn't deliberately not notify the people that were directly affected because they have different names, different addresses, and they send it registered. If you don't accept it, and we don't know about the meetings."

Com. Sheets, "Mary, you can respond to that better than I can."

Ms. Cable, "The list of neighboring property owners' names is given to us by the petitioner. What we do with that is, it is typed onto an affidavit with the names and addresses on it and the letters for them to mail out. The responsibility of mailing is the petitioner's."

Ms. Sulewski, "All right, but they are also responsible for getting the names and addresses, right? And this is my point. It's like they didn't do it because they didn't want everybody to know they were going to do this."

Ms. Cable, "Well, if at the Plan Commission it comes to light that they have not notified all the neighbors and those neighbors are not there, if you are there, you got notified somehow. Our attorney in the past has told us that if you show up at the meeting regardless of whether you received a registered letter, you have been notified, you're here, so you know about it."

Com. Evans, "Did