PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007
6:00 P.M.

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 in the Commissioners’ Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present were: Commissioners Robert Harper, John Evans and Carole Knoblock; County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger, Administrative Assistant Melissa Hartig and Recording Secretary Vi Wagner.

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE

President Harper called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

REORGANIZATION

Com. Harper, “The first thing on our agenda is the reorganization for the year. Do I hear a nomination for president?”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Robert Harper for president, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Vice-president?”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint John Evans for Vice-president, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Secretary?”

Com. Evans moved to appoint Carole Knoblock for secretary, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

NIRPC

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Robert Harper, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

NICTD

Com. Evans moved to nominate himself, motion died for lack of a second.

Com. Harper, “Do I hear another nomination?”

Com. Knoblock moved to nominate Leon West for NICTD, Com. Harper seconded,

Com. Evans, “May we have a little discussion on that one?”

Com. Harper, “Yes, we may.”

Com. Evans, “You know, we do this every year and we come here and we go through the pretext but I think that if you don’t want to put me on there, that’s fine but let’s get some new blood.. Let’s give somebody that isn’t there for a free lunch or somebody that’s not president of the Democratic Party. If we are going to put somebody there, let’s put somebody there that polishes.”

Com. Harper, “Anything else?”

Com. Evans, “That’s it.”
Com. Harper, “John, all I say to that is that Mr. West has been serious in his duties there. As you know, he went to Indiana University, he was a foreman at US Steel, he served on the Portage Board of Zoning Appeals, he served eight years on the Portage City Council, he served on the Porter County Council for three years, he’s involved in our community, he’s involved in Gabriel’s Horn, he’s involved in Porter County Council on Aging Services, he’s involved in Portage Exchange Club, he’s been active in the community. He’s been a Portage resident and frankly, the last year you were there they had several meetings and I think you only attended two of them.”

Com. Evans, “No, I made more than that. There was about half a dozen that I missed but I made several more than that. But I didn’t hit the lunch circuit every time you turn around. And I didn’t function in the capacity that he does, but I functioned in the capacity and I think you can ask the Board or the chairman or the administrator of NICTD if I functioned as a group board member. I was available to them in many other ways and many other times. He has many credentials, granted, but he couldn’t even get elected in his own district. So, end of discussion.”

Com. Harper, “We’re all involved in politics.”

Motion carried, with Com. Evans voting against.

PLAN COMMISSION

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Robert Harper, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

DRAINAGE BOARD

Com. Evans moved to appoint Carole Knoblock, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

CENTER OF WORKFORCE INNOVATION

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Robert Harper, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint John Evans, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

CHILD PROTECTION TEAM

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint John Evans, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint John Evans, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN COMMITTEE

Com. Knoblock, “Russell Pumroy is on there and he would like to stay there.”

Com. Harper, “So you are nominating him?”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Russell Pumroy, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.



EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Robert Harper, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

COMMON WAGE CONSTRUCTION RATE COMMITTEE

Com. Evans moved to appoint Dale Brewer, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Alcoholic Beverage Commission

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Don Cirrincione, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Animal Welfare Board

Com. Harper, “We have more than one opening.”

Com. Evans, “That’s the only one that’s up.”

Com. Knoblock, “There’s two.”

Com. Evans, “Not to be confused with the Wildlife Management Board.”

Com. Harper, “Right. There’s only two on the Animal Welfare Board that are up? Okay. Do I hear a motion on those?”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Dr. Patrick Orms and Donna Werner, Com. Evans seconded Dr. Orms

Com. Evans, “I thought the other applicant was Glenn Wiles.”

Com. Knoblock, “Well, Donna Werner was up.”

Com. Evans, “Was her term up? I don’t have her term as expired.”

Ms. Hartig, “Her term was expired but I didn’t receive an application.”

Com. Evans, “I didn’t think she was reapplying.”

Com. Harper, “Had you been told she wasn’t?”

Com. Evans, “Yes, and I didn’t see an application either.”

Com. Harper, “Do you want to wait on this one until next time?”

Com. Evans, “Well, we can do those two and then if she wants to apply for the vacancy.”

Com. Harper, “Okay, then the motion is to appoint Dr. Orms and Donna Werner, we’ll do those two and then if she doesn’t want to…”

Com. Evans, “Donna Werner didn’t make an application. Glen Wiles and Dr. Orms and then hers would be the third.”

Motion dies for lack of second.

Com. Evans moved to appoint Dr. Orms and Glen Wiles,

Com. Harper, “He’s saying Donna is not reapplying.”

Com. Knoblock, “Oh, okay. If she’s not applying then I’ll second that.”

Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Board of Health

Com. Harper, “Do you want to make a motion for all three or one at a time?”

Com. Evans moved to appoint Dr. Alfred Kobak, Kathryn Martz, and Martin Moeller, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Board of Zoning Appeals

Com. Harper, “We have two members, I thought we only had one for the Board of Zoning Appeals, do we have two?”

Com. Knoblock, “I think it’s just Rich Burns.”

Com. Harper, “No, I think Bob Detert, too.”

Com. Evans, “I don’t have BZA on my list at all.”

Ms. Hartig, “I think there’s one open.”

Com. Harper “And it’s Bob Detert, correct?”

Ms. Hartig, “Right.”

Com. Evans, “That’s on the Plan Commission, not the BZA?”

Com. Harper, “It’s both of them, John.”

Ms. Hartig, “I’m sorry, it’s Richard Burns on the BZA.”

Com. Harper, “Do I hear a motion to nominate Rich Burns to the BZA?”

Com. Knoblock seconded,

Com. Harper, “No, I didn’t make the motion, I was waiting for it.”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Rich Burns, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried with Com. Evans voting against.

Convention, Recreation & Visitor’s Commission

Com. Harper, “We have two to the Convention, Recreation & Visitor’s Commission, is that correct?”

Com. Evans, “One is yours by district and one is Carole’s by district. The other I believe is from the mayor of Portage or appointment by the Tri-town.”

Com. Evans, “You should nominate your district and Carole should nominate her own district.”

Com. Haprer moved to appoint James Reed from Center District, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Knoblock moved to nominate Sylvia Graham for South District, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.
Drainage Board

Com. Evans moved to nominate Karl Bauer and Russell Pumroy, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Hospital Board of Trustees

Com. Harper, “This next one I don’t know if we should even do this at this time. The Hospital Board of Trustees.”

Com. Evans, “I think we should do away with that board to tell you the truth.”

Com. Harper, “Well, I think we better wait and see what they are going to need on the transfer. That’s going to be the eventual ending of it. Why don’t we put that off for a while?”

Com. Evans moved to put off the appointment until further notice, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Parks and Recreation

Com. Harper, “We have no appointment at this time?”

Com. Knoblock, “Judge Bradford had one.”

PTABOA

Com. Harper, “Now I had a letter on this, did you have that, John?”

Com. Evans, “I did, too, but I question whether James Kopp can serve on that board.”

Com. Harper, “I didn’t think it was James Kopp.”

Ms. Hartig, “They withdrew that. There should be another letter in there.”

Com. Harper, “Here it is, ‘please appoint, this is from John Scott, Bill LaFever, yes this is the letter right here. Has a real estate license, attended assessor’s class and field work in Union Township.’ So that is the request for him but I don’t know about the other one. Do we have applications here?”

Ms. Hartig, “For PTABOA we have one for (inaudible)…”

Com. Harper, “Let’s continue this.”

Com. Evans, “Did Barbara Wiggins reapply?”

Ms. Hartig, “Not with us, she may have through the Council.”

Com. Harper, “How many appointments do we have right now?”

Ms. Hartig, “To the PTABOA you have one.”

Com. Evans, “I think we should nominate the one who has been on the board and who reapplied anyway. Jeanine Chrisman.”

Com. Evans moved to appoint Jeanine Chrisman, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Evans moved to continue the second appointment until next meeting until the applications have been reviewed, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “In the first place, you are going to have to contact this fella and see if he wants to put his application in and then whatever other applications we get in for that next time. Are they supposed to meet anytime soon? Okay, West Porter Fire District. Do we have an application for that?”

West Porter Twp. Fire District

Com. Evans moved to appoint Linda Radinsky, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Wildlife Management Advisory Board

Com. Evans, “Dottie Kostka is a member of that board and has been a member since the board’s inception but she’s got some health issues currently but they would like for her to stay on because she is very knowledgeable and is sort of the historian to that group.”

Com. Evans moved to appoint Dottie to be an ex-officio member and have her continue on and then the other member I would like to nominate Dr. Larry McAfee, Frank Zona, Mary Ann Zona-Gregg, Glenn Wiles and Melissa Culbertson and Alan Resetar, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Our member on the Plan Commission is Bob Detert who has applied for reappointment.”

Plan Commission

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Bob Detert to the Plan Commission, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried with Com. Evans voting against.

RESOLUTION 07-01-SETTING COMMISSIONERS’ MEETING DATES FOR 2007

Com. Knoblock moved to approve Resolution No. 07-01,

Com. Evans, “Basically the first and third Tuesdays again, is that where we’re at?”

Com. Harper, “I think that’s what she’s got listed. The first and third Tuesdays, is that what these dates coincide with?”

Ms. Hartig, “Right.”

Com. Evans, “There’s no time listed here. Can we move the time to 4:00 p.m.”

Com. Harper, “I’m not in tune with that.”

Com. Knoblock, “I think a lot of people want to come to the meeting and they can’t because it’s in the morning.”

Com. Knoblock moved to keep the time at 6:00

Com. Evans, “4:00 is in the afternoon. A lot of people that attend these meetings are county employees that are here all day long and then must remain here until the wee hours of the morning to function in this capacity. Nine times out of ten someone who has a duty or a time to be in front of this Board is going to make themselves present for that time whatever it might be.”

Com. Harper, “John, citizens want to come to the Plan Commission meetings especially, coming in the evening. We’ve heard that since we started.”

Com. Evans, “Plan Commission could be made a different time than the regular meetings. For years this body met at 10:00 in the morning.”

Com. Harper, “Do we have a motion on the floor to hold these meetings at the dates listed at 6:00?”

Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

RESOLUTION NO. 07-01
PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

WHEREAS, the Porter County Board of Commissioners is the Executive Body of Government in Porter County, Indiana; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to I.C. 36-2-2-6 the Executive shall hold a regular meeting at least once each month and at other times as needed to conduct all necessary business; and

WHEREAS, the Porter County Board of Commissioners meet regularly on the first and third Tuesdays of each month with the exception of county holidays which may fall on a designated meeting day, therefore, designating the Wednesday immediately following the Tuesday holiday as a regular meeting day.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Porter County Board of Commissioners that the following is a list of regular meetings in 2007 for the Porter County Board of Commissioners and that any other meetings, as needed to conduct all necessary business, will be announced at a later date:

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007 Tuesday, December 18, 2007

This Resolution passed and adopted this 9th day of January 2007.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

s/Robert P. Harper
s/John A. Evans
s/Carole M. Knoblock
Attest:s/James K. Kopp, Auditor



OFFICE HOLDERS/DEPARTMENT HEADS

ATM Lease Agreement
John Thorstad, Expo Manager

Mr. Thorstad, “We’ve had an increased interest in a request for an ATM machine at the Expo. After a little investigation I found that it is a pretty difficult proposition to get a bank to put an ATM anywhere anymore. I did get Centier Bank to agree to that. It’s a very simple proposal before you to be signed and this can be done pretty quickly.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “I’ve reviewed it.”

Com. Evans, “We’ve got an ATM right outside this door straight out there that was placed there at the same time Centier Bank put one in the courthouse. And Centier has subsequently taken the ATM out of the courthouse and the other one still exists. We tried to get somebody to put one back in there and everybody declined.”

Mr. Thorstad, “Centier believes that business is adequate at the Expo to maintain the one there.”

Com. Evans, “Do we have them locked into a time frame so that they are not going to give you two months and them pull it out?”

Mr. Thorstad, “It’s year by year, but by the contract there is a 90 day out.”

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

APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll of December 26, 2006 and January 8, 2007, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Com. Evans moved to approve the minutes of November 21, 2006, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS

Center District:

1. Tower Meadows Estates North Performance Letter of Credit #HACH1577800S from Harris Bank in the amount of $892,000.00. Expiration date is December 13, 2007. Recommend approval.

Com. Harper moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded,

Com. Harper, “Dave, can I ask you a couple questions about this?”

Mr. Schelling, “Sure.”

Com. Harper, “Is this the one where we had the drainage problem?”

Mr. Schelling, “Yes.”

Com. Harper, “Does that change the performance letter of credit amounts any?”

Mr. Schelling, “The dollar amount is enough to cover what needs to be done out
there, including the corrections on the bond.”

Com. Harper, “So there is no reason we should not approve this at this time?

Mr. Schelling, “No, please approve it.”

Motion carried.

WILLOWCREEK ROAD AND SR 149 EXTENTIONS DISCUSSION

Com. Harper, “We have a long meeting tonight, do you want to do that?”

Com. Evans, “Just say a couple things about that if I might. First of all, I think Mayor Olson, the mayor of Portage is in conversation with Representative Visclosky in regards to an additional funding appropriation to try and accomplish that. I just want to go on record again and say whether it’s Willowcreek or 149 or whatever it is, I think there needs to be another north-south roadway in Porter County that connects Highway 12 in this case to Highway US 30 and they are both US highways so I think federal funding is indeed the appropriate vehicle to help sponsor this. The other thing is I think we need to maybe pull back and take a studied approach to C.R. 100 South rather than allow the money that the Congressman so graciously accumulated for that project to go back. I think the thing we need to do is remember that it took an act of Congress to get us that money and to just let it go back without spending it, I am afraid could have adverse consequences for any future projects. We need to take a studied approach to that 100 South.”

Com. Knoblock, “We did mention it could be transferred.”

Com. Evans, “I don’t know, I think we need to be very careful before we let it expire before we just let it go completely. That is all I have.”

Com. Harper, “That is the way of the discussion, right, John? Anything else?”

CORRESPONDENCE

Weights and Measurers monthly report for December 2006 is on file.
Clerk’s monthly report for November 2006 is on file.
Court Security Activity report for December 2006 is on file.

Approval of employment contract with Herbert Douglas and Drainage Board

Com. Harper, “Gwenn, have you reviewed this?”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Yes, it’s the same every year.”

Com. Evans moved to accept the contract for legal affairs for the Drainage Board with Attorney Herbert Douglas for 2007, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Approval of 2007 Official Bond for Al Hoagland, Highway Superintendent in the amount of $8,500.00

Com. Evans moved to approve the bond for 2007 for Al Hoagland in the amount of $8,500.00, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.


Approval of 2007 Official Bond for James Kopp, Porter County Auditor in the amount of $15,000.00

Com. Evans moved to approve the bond for 2007 for James Kopp in the amount of $15,000.00, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Is there any other matter that should come before the Commissioners?”

APPROVAL OF LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH MANATRON

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Just briefly, the Assessor, the Data Processing Director and myself have been negotiating with Manatron to try to get our support back for our software, Plexis software, and we have prepared a letter of understanding that I ask the Board to approve. We will forward it to Manatron for approval. They have not approved it yet but just so we do not have to call a special meeting, if we can come to terms, I would ask for a motion to approve the letter of understanding that is in your binder. John Scott is fine with it.”

Com. Evans moved to approve the letter of understanding, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.
Com. Harper, “Let’s take a five minute break before we start the Plan Commission part of the meeting if that is all right.”

PLAN COMMISSION

Robert Thompson, Director

Com. Harper, “We are in our Plan Commission session and I am going to turn the schedule around a little bit and do this amendment to the Storm Water Ordinance, first reading. Is that okay? Bob do you want to tell us a little bit about what this ordinance is about?”

Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission Resolution 06-12, Petitioner is Porter County Plan Commission and requesting an amendment to Storm Water Control Ordinance. This amendment will allow for the Plan Commission to hire or request that an independent engineer review developments coming in whether it’s a residential subdivision or commercial or industrial site or non residential sites. It’s allowing for the review of the storm water by an independent engineer by the Plan Commission’s choosing. And this situation is also set up, I have to come forward with lay ordinances if this is so approved with the fee ordinance. Essentially, that is the whole thing. It allows the Plan Commission to hire an independent engineer of their choosing to review storm water for applications filed at the Plan Commission office for development.”

Com. Harper, “I want to clarify a couple things, number one, it was clarified at the Plan Commission meeting that it would be a professional engineer, correct?”

Mr. Thompson, “Right. That was some of the language that was asked and I did make that change in here if I can find it, Indiana state licensed professional engineer. Originally it was just stating an independent engineer. There was a request that we make sure it was an Indiana licensed. . .”

Com. Harper, “The other thing, it will be at the developer’s expense. This is the open meeting on this issue and is there anyone here to either speak for or against this ordinance? If not, I will close the open portion of the meeting. Do I hear any discussion?”

Com. Evans, “At the Plan Commission portion of this hearing, did the Porter County Builder’s Association have a representative present and did they voice a concern one way or another?”

Mr. Thompson, “No. They did not have a representative present and I never heard anything from the organization on that.”

Com. Knoblock moved to accept the Storm Water Ordinance, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Gwenn, does this need to go on to the next meeting?”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Should have two readings.”

Com. Harper, “All right, the second reading will be January 23. The next thing we have is a rezone petition from the Porter County Plan Commission from I2 to RR. Bob, would you like to give us a report on that?”

Rezone, I2 to RR, Plan Commission, 1st reading

Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission Resolution 06-11, Porter County Plan Commission is the petitioner requesting to rezone a parcel of land from I2, General Industry to RR, Rural Residential. I had a map and I showed it to the Plan Commission members and I believe is sent it down with the staff report that is with the County Commissioners tonight. What this parcel is, is, I guess I will give you the boundaries real quick. The western boundary of it is 325 East, the southern boundary is State Road 2 in one place and also the existing Powder Tech and another parcel that is north of Powder Tech will be the southern boundary and the eastern boundary would essentially be Washington Township School. It is East Porter County School Corporation with Washington Township High School and also Augustine Subdivision. There are two parcels in this area. One of them is owned by DBL which is Larry, Dean and Brian Bucher. And also the East Porter County School Corporation or Washington Township School Corporation, the Bucher’s own 40 acres approximately in this area and it is the northern portion. It’s the portion that has the access or frontage along 325 East and also bounds proposed Augustine Subdivision. Washington Township School Corporation, the East Porter County School Corporation has 8 acres which fronts along State Road 2 and along their western boundary of the school corporation in that area. It is an 8 acre parcel. This was heard at the Plan Commission at their December 13th meeting and it was by a 5-4 vote given the recommendation of denial for this rezoning. At that I will turn it over.”

Com. Harper, “Let me add one thing to that. The motion at the Plan Commission that was voted on to rezone all except portions of the township school owned by Washington Township schools was never voted on.”

Com. Evans, “Is that in litigation?”

Com. Harper, “No, it was just the Plan Commission filed a petition to rezone including all this land that was I2 in that area. When the motion was made, and I think I made it but I can’t remember who made it, the motion made at the Plan Commission to rezone it was made to rezone everything but the Washington Township School.”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct. And that did not go through, because it lacked a majority. The second motion was made to forward this to the County Commissioners with no recommendation. That failed because of lack of a second. And then a third motion was made and it was to recommend denial of the whole petition and that didn’t go forward. The first motion was to rezone the 40 acres and leave out the 8 acres of Washington Township School and that failed by a majority.”

Com. Evans, “So your Plan Commission voted to …”

Mr. Thompson, “Recommend denial of the entire 48 acre rezone.”

Com. Harper, “Tonight is the open meeting. And I am going to allow comments from those that are speaking for and against this. We ask that you walk up somewhere around the front of these chairs so you are near the microphone. I am not going to call anyone by name. I am just going to say those that want to speak for I will let them start first and when one person finishes then another person can start. So, then when we get done with them we will hear those that are against. So who wants to start to speak in favor? I’m sorry, I am going to start with those that are against this petition. And everyone that comes up, state your name and your address because she is recording everything.”

Larry Bucher, “215 S. 75 East. This petition in front of you tonight was originated by the Plan Commission in August of last year. This petition seeks to rezone approximately 50 acres of land in Washington Township from Industrial I2 to Residential RR. After hearing from the public and listening to the facts in this case, on December 13, 2006 the Plan Commission sent you an unfavorable recommendation on their own petition. The recommendation they sent was in accordance with state law because this petition does not meet the five tests required in order to rezone property. The answers the Plan Commission as the petitioners gave the questions we posted them are a major factor in why you should support the commission’s recommendation to deny this petition. Tonight I will summarize those answers and provide supporting evidence on why we believe you also should deny this petition. First, denying this petition is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 of the packet that I will submit to you when I am done, is a page from the government section of the Master Plan that discusses land use. Denying this petition is in accordance with each of these goals. This petition does not respect the development of rights of property owners or encourage a mix of uses as stated in Points 4 and 5. Point 6 talks of establishing standards that promote buffering and transition areas between differing land uses. Our design exceeds both the existing and the proposed standards in the new Unified Development Code that is likely to be adopted. This petition also denies the property owners the chance to build a type of development that the master plan states and I quote, “would be acceptable and perhaps even encouraged along major and some minor arterials.” As stated in the future land use classification section, the existing zoning allows our development plan to be a natural extension of the type of businesses that are currently operating in this immediate area. Second, denying this petition supports current conditions of current structures and uses. Petitions confirm that this land has been zoned I2 since 1959 and that the industrial use of the surrounding property came before the residential uses. The homes in Deerfield Park and along County Road 325 were built well after 1959 and the County had made the zoning maps available so that people had the opportunity to check if they wanted to live in that exact proximity to industrial zone land. In case 06BP-2 on August 9 of last year, the Plan Commission unanimously approved a new industrial building site for Todd Adams, less than 100 yards from our property. The Adams’ property actually shares a property line with Deerfield Park and therefore is closer than our property which is across the road. It is a fact documented by the Plan Commission staff that in this same continuously zoned industrial block of land the Plan Commission gave an unfavorable recommendation to Greg Instrom when he tried to rezone property from I2 to RR just like this petition. It was case 04-Z-4 in 2004. Third, denying the petition insures the most desirable use of land. When we appeared at the Plan Commission for primary plat approval for our residential development August 9, the main concern was the concern for the school being new students being added to the system. Maintaining the current zoning on this property will provide property tax dollars, almost 50% of which go to education and will add zero students. Based on maps in the Plan Commission office, this property has been deemed an economic revitalization area maintaining the current zoning will certainly add ongoing economic activity in Washington Township. It is also important to remember that this decision affects more than just the neighboring residents. It affects the whole southern part of Porter County through the school corporation, it will affect the entire county if the County Council reimburses us for our over $800,000.00 loss of property value if this property were to be rezoned. Fourth, denying this petition preserves the property value of the greater area. Buffers help preserve property values. We are providing that both for the neighboring residents and for our own future home owners. We are the largest residential property owners in the area as we own the Augustine Subdivision. It would be financially irresponsible of us to build something here that would negatively affect residential property values. You are going to hear tonight from Larry Hitz on how changing the zoning would decrease residential property values and how maintaining the current zoning would not affect residential property values. Changing the zoning on this property tonight sends a message to companies looking to locate in Porter County that you cannot trust our authorities. What motivation would a company have to try and buy property here if you establish a precedent tonight that you will rezone property out from under them against their wishes? Fifth, denying this petition supports responsible growth and development. The petitioners confirm that it would take four years to use up the current supply of approved residential lots and also confirm that no shovel ready sites exists for businesses to locate in Porter County. How can it be considered responsible growth and development to rezone what would be one of the only available sites for businesses to locate in our county. The current ordinance and the new UDC calls for buffers between uses. Our plan calls for building a buffer that we have been told exceeds what the present and new ordinance requires. We believe that responsible development is to leave this zoning I2 for this land. Finally, please consider that 9 men and woman of the Plan Commission spent over three hours listening to many people on both sides of this issue giving their testimony. We presented them with a list of 24 questions for consideration. We are also submitting them to you tonight because when answered truthfully, the answers support not rezoning this property. The Plan Commission, as petitioners, confirm that if this property were rezoned, it would not achieve the stated goal. And would in fact move residential zoning closer to the heaviest industrial uses in the area. The Plan Commission confirmed that the petition to rezone our property occurred after we appeared in front of the Technical Advisory Committee with our development plans. Some of our other questions went unanswered by the Commission, such as, whether they researched letting the I2 boundary north instead of south which would achieve the same effect but would be beneficial to Washington Township and the school system of East Porter County and is what the largest adjoining residential property owner desires. Also unanswered was whether the Commission had discussed taking our property through recently expanded eminent domain rulings nor why they would seek to rezone property located in an economic revitalization area. Some residents express concerns about increased traffic. There will be increased traffic when this property is developed under any zoning. But, based upon the Plan Commission’s own staff reports, there will be 42% more traffic if you rezone this to residential than if you leave it I2. At the Plan Commission meeting there was a motion made and voted on to separate the school’s property and just rezone the Bucher’s. That motion was defeated. Make such a motion tonight and all you will accomplish is to rack up higher interest and attorney fees that we could use to plant trees and waste valuable time of both the Plan Commission and here with you Commissioners. While some neighbors voiced concern we would like to point out that almost 70% of those that spoke in favor of the rezoning were from outside the public notice area. Now let me be clear, we are not saying they should not be heard. Our point is they were not afforded the opportunity to attend the meeting that we had with neighbors to discuss our proposal. Of the 25 people that attended our neighbors meeting, only 2 spoke at the Plan Commission. One supported the rezone, the other said our plan looks good and said we should be allowed to build it. We believe this demonstrates that the people most affected by this business park after sitting down with us are comfortable with our business plan. In addition to all the legal reasons you should not approve this rezone, lets look at a few common sense facts. What are your concerns with a business park on this property. Protecting the residential neighbors? Remember, my partners and I are the largest residential neighbors. Are you concerned with like noise and the types of businesses that can locate in our business park? We’ve taken care of those concerns in the covenants that we will submit tonight. They are enforceable and will be enforced by our property owner’s association. Why? Because we will maintain ownership by locating our headquarters there and to protect our property values we must enforce the rules. Any new business must first get approval from the state, on top of that, any new business must appear before your Plan Commission and receive their approval. I can tell you from experience, such approval is no easy task. They are tough, and the rules that in place ensure that this will be a quality business park. Our plan is good for Porter County, it is good for the neighboring residential community, it is good for the neighboring industrial community, and it is good for the school. Thank you for your consideration.”

Todd Etzler, “I am Todd Etzler with Burke Costanza and Cuppy, 57 Franklin Street, Suite 203, Valparaiso, Indiana, 46383. I represent Cathay Pigments USA. They are property owner immediately south, well not immediately, but south of this and north of Evans in the old ISK Factory that is located there. Cathay Pigments has been at this location since 1968 and has an outgrowth of one of our industries from 1908 here in Valparaiso. They are zoned I2 along with the adjacent property that is immediately next to Highway 2. Cathay objects to the rezoning of the properties shown here from I2 to RR because they are right now an industrial property. They understand that having additional residential property abutting up to right next to their industrial property is not the best thing for the two property owners. The residential and the industry. One of the natural things that occurs when residential comes into an industrial area such as this, is the people who come into the homes and start living there, and they then decide that the industry that is now in their neighborhood, is no longer wanted in that place. It doesn’t fit any longer because now it is a residential neighborhood. That is a problem that is not only recognized in the hearings that we had in December where we had the people that came into the new residential neighborhoods next to this objecting to the industrial that is around them or was there before they came, but also our state legislature has recognized this is a problem. You may have heard of right to farm laws in Indiana where someone builds a residential neighborhood next to a farm and the residential neighbors decide they do not like the smells coming from the farm so they make complaints to the county and the county seeks to rezone or change the use of that property. Well, the same statute applies for industrial property and it provides a defense for neighbors that come in and develop next to an existing industrial facility and they decide they no longer like having an industrial facility next to them. That’s a defense. That’s not adequate remedy for what is going on in this situation. You have the ability with that situation, there has to be a lawsuit filed and the industry then has to raise this statute as a defense to say we were here first, these residential neighbors knew that we were here, they came in and developed next to us and now they say our operations are not wanted in their area. That is an expense for the industry and it is also a problem for the residential people because they now have to file a lawsuit. We do have the ability to keep these law suits from happening by not rezoning this from industrial to RR. As an adjacent land owner, we also sympathize with Mr. Bucher’s argument about buffer zones. In this situation, if there were a light industrial area between the two heavier industrial facilities there, that then puts the buffer area between the existing residential and gives an area of comfort between those residential and the heavier industrial facilities. Lastly, as Mr. Bucher said, your new ordinance, the comprehensive ordinance you wish to pass, has a provision in it that provides what are acceptable adjacent property uses and in this situation of your ordinance and I2 areas, it says that residential is not an acceptable adjacent use next to industrial or residential. By rezoning this and even before your new zoning ordinance comes in, you will be violating the very thing that you wish to enact here in your new ordinance. So, Cathay Pigments asked that you follow the guide of the Plan Commission and decide not to rezone this property to rural residential. Thank you.”

Com. Harper, “Thank you. Next, speaking against the rezone.”

Jim Jorgensen, “Good evening, my name is Jim Jorgensen. I am an attorney with Hoeppner Wagner & Evans. Our firm represents Powder Processing Technologies. It is the industrial business located immediately next to Cathay Pigments, and also on the southern boundary of the property to be rezoned. Our client and its predecessor have been there for many years, have made many capital investments to create and retain quality industrial jobs and it strongly opposes this rezoning simply because it has the potential effect and perhaps the inevitable effect of diluting the investment that is made in that area that has been zoned I2 since 1959. I can only imagine the human cry that would arise if someone tried to put 40 acres of industrial use into the center of rural residential. There would be comments that those uses are inherently inconsistent; that it would create controversy and acrimony between two uses. If that position is at all true, it is also true in this case. Allowing a residential use to immediately abut against it into existing industrial and commercial use retards the effort to create quality jobs in Porter County. It invites a dispute between property owners because the use of the property is inherently inconsistent. This area has been used successfully for economic development to create jobs that set the businesses that have located there have been good corporate citizens and I would urge you to defeat this attempt to rezone the property. Thank you.”

Clark Holsinger, “Attorney Clark Holsinger. I represent North Star Stone. We are up against Mr. Etzler’s client’s property. We also oppose this rezoning. Mr. Jorgensen’s comments, Mr. Etzler’s comments, Mr. Bucher’s comments, we would concur with. Thank you.”

Larry Hitz, “I am a broker-owner of Century 21 Executive Group. 2612 N. Calumet Avenue in Valparaiso. This packet will show you how or how it will not, Arbor View Estates, or Arbor View Business Park will not affect neighboring properties. The first two photographs you have show the Marsh building located on Evans Avenue. This is directly across the street from Old Orchard Estates in Valparaiso. Old Orchard Estates has, this is the view they have across their street. It is an industrial area with a chain link fence. What is proposed in the new development is an attractive buffer with evergreen plantings and so forth. Now the next thing you have is a chart which shows what is happening in Old Orchard Estates since 2001. You will see the dollar per square foot value in the homes of that area have continued to go up. They have gone up from $64.00 a square foot to $95.00 a square foot in 2006. As a matter of fact, on the next page, from 1997 to 1999, the average sold price of a home in Old Orchard Estates was $163,100.00 and from 2000 to 2006 the average price has risen to $210,988.00. Now what happens to the current owner if this is rezoned to RR. Raw land, I2 has recently sold as raw land in the neighborhood of $28,000.00 an acre. RR on comparable sites to this would sell for less than $10,000.00 an acre. Developed land, I2, the Eastport Business Park, which you are all familiar with, currently offers sites for a range of $74,000.00 per acre to $78,000.00 per acre. The Deerfield Subdivision across the road from Arbor View is selling it’s remaining one acre sites for approximately $30,000.00 to $35,000.00. So, it would cause a 50% decrease in the value of the property from it’s current zoning. Thank you.”

Todd Leeth, “Good evening, my name is Todd Leeth, I am here on behalf of one of the owners of the property in question for rezoning, EBL Development. You heard from one of the principals of that organization, Mr. Bucher. Mr. Bucher and his organization has asked me to address not necessarily the factual aspects of it but the legal aspects of what you are doing tonight. The petition tonight is governed largely by state law and requires you to pay reasonable regard, that’s the words of the statute, to five things. They’re factual issues and as you heard tonight this property and a large portion of a swab of Washington Township was originally zoned I2 when the first zoning ordinance and zoning map were adopted by Porter County in 1959. This land was part of that Washington Township industrial zoning and has for all those 48 years maintained its industrial zoning. There was a reason why the Board of Commissioners in 1959 created this land and its community industrial. It has a lot to do with the rail spurs in close proximity to this land. It has a lot to do with the highways and the road infrastructure. There was some planning done for that purpose, and as Porter County over the years adopted new zoning ordinances, this I2 zoning classification has continued and has continued without interruption until you, or actually the Plan Commission corrected Mr. Thompson’s office to file the petition that we are here on tonight. It wasn’t until that time that there was any sense that this was incorrect, that there was something wrong with the zoning classification. Why did that happen? Well, it happened back in August as I indicated in direct response to public comment that was received by the Plan Commission for Mr. Holsinger’s client, North Star Stone. When they came in front of the Plan Commission for their public hearing to receive a building permit or improvement location permit at that time. It was at that time that the Plan Commission directed Mr. Thompson’s staff to file this petition. As I indicated my client has recently acquired this property. It’s 41 acres in size, tomorrow night the Porter County Plan Commission will hold a public hearing on the primary plat for an industrial business park on this property. They have and are moving forward with their development plans of this and Mr. Bucher indicated all of the things he and his organization are doing to protect the neighbors. They don’t have any better investment than the Augustine Subdivision that their organization also currently owns and is developing immediately to the north, a residential subdivision. They would not do anything that would harm financially, that investment, when they are developing the business part on this 41 acres. We are talking about enhanced buffering, enhanced screening, trees, all of the things that responsible developers and the Buchers as you well know in their other developments in Porter County certainly fall into that category, would do in order to protect their investment and enhance the salability of their developments. I wanted to go through with you the five things I mentioned that you have under state law to address. Number 1 is the Comprehensive Plan. The only person tonight to raise the Comprehensive Plan at all was Mr. Bucher. He submitted to you the points out of your own Comprehensive Plan, a fairly recent document adopted by the Board of Commissioners, after several hearings with the Plan Commission, township meetings, that Comprehensive Plan incorporates and encourages and suggests that the I2 zoning continue. It doesn’t suggest in any way that Washington Township is in this industrial area is in any way the future of land use in Porter County. Number 3, current conditions and the character of current structures of uses in the district. You’ve heard from the neighboring industrial users that this has been a long standing industrial area. Mr. Etzler testified that his client and the predecessors were there in 1908. This is an industrial area that has over the years allowed some encroachment on residential but it is not the reverse. This is not industrial coming in and asking to encroach upon existing residential, it’s frankly, the reverse. The third of the five items is the most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted. Again, I think you have heard testimony primarily from Mr. Bucher that this is best suited for the industrial development and how he is going to protect the neighboring property owners in their use and enjoyment of their property that’s been developed residentially under your zoning ordinance. The fourth item is conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction. There I would focus on the word jurisdiction. That means county wide. The preservation of property values county wide. Mr. Hitz provided to you information and testified tonight that the impact on the Bucher’s financial investment, recent as it was, after investigation of zoning maps, is catastrophic in their investment backed expectations. Those are key words. The property values of the residential neighboring properties, it is in comparison of the Old Orchard Subdivision, with the Marsh building, I think is illustrative of the impact that may result from the Deerfield Subdivision and the neighbors who are in favor of this rezoning would have with the business park. In fact, this would be further away and there will be enhanced screening from the photographs of the Marsh building you can see there is simply no screening at all and the property values continue to escalate in Old Orchard Subdivision. The last item of the four that you are to pay reasonable regard to is orderly growth and development. I simply don’t know other than what is apparent to me that the impetus of this petition was the public sentiment, it’s not in my opinion, based upon orderly growth and development but public sentiment. Those simply are not valid reasons for rezoning property. They are not valid reasons to make zoning decisions, you are under the law, required to focus on those five things and we believe in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and all of the information and record from the Plan Commission, that the Plan Commission’s unfavorable recommendation is meritorious, we would urge your adoption of the unfavorable recommendation and defeat the rezoning application. Thank you.”

Chris Gates, “I am a Washington Township farmer and businessman. You’ve heard from all the developers and you’ve heard from the industry that is already there. I want you to consider this from a pure property rights standpoint. Many farmers own ground for their whole life, maybe through two or three generations, never intending to sell but knowing that at some point in time that will be in their back pocket to be able to cash in on for retirement and part of the value of property as you all know, is zoning, water rights, mill rights, location, infrastructure around it, and when you take one of those things away from a property owner, which in this case would be the zoning that they bought or they might own. This is more about someone like me who owns ground, and doesn’t want the precedent set that you can change zoning that negatively impacts the value of the ground. And if you do that, I don’t see how you could do that ever without compensating the person or the land owner in some way because its very similar to out and out stealing the value to a piece of ground. If you have good public reason to do that, like eminent domain and take the ground and pay for it, but if you’re just going to rezone it because some people complained, you guys sit here and listen to complaints all the time I know that, but really consider what you are doing to the integrity of this system all across the county because people trust what you guys do. They know that if they buy a piece of property or if they own a piece of property that the integrity of its zoning allows them ten years later, to know that they still have that value. You take it away here, and you are going to disrupt the economic flow money in and out of the county with people wanting to buy property here. They are going to think twice before they buy property that you guys have control over. They are going to think, guys like me that already own property are going to maybe not elect you again because you messed with property values. Just some things you want to think about just from, I am surprised there are not more property owners here just across the county that might have something to say about this because you would be setting a very bad precedent, I think. Thank you.”

Rod Gardin, “I am superintendent for East Porter County School Corporation. The address is 502 East College Avenue, Kouts, Indiana, 46347. The East Porter County School Corporation owns that Section 4 which is adjacent to the Bucher’s property. That represents about a little more than eight acres. Currently, that property, as you can see from the picture, has an expansive frontage on Route 2, which could be very attractive industrial development or commercial development. Also, city water runs right through that property and runs to Washington Township Schools. So, water is already located there. Another attractive feature of that property. Also, its in an area that has high trend value so people would be attracted to there to develop business. As Mr. Hitz said the value of that land is approximately $28,000.00 an acre. If that is rezoned from I2 to RR the school corporation will lose assessed valuation and as you know school corporations received their funding based on the AV. And if AV goes down so does our funding, but when the AV goes down, the school corporations are then forced to raise taxes. And we don’t want to do that for our constituents in our school corporation. As Mr. Bucher said, it would not only affect the residents of Washington Township but it will affect the residents in Pleasant Township, and Morgan Township as well since East Porter County School Corporation serves all those areas. Currently we rent that property out. It is used for farming. We don’t have any plans to move onto that property and build something at that location. It is too far away from the present campus. As Mr. Gates said, what we rely on is its value because of what is currently happening throughout our school corporation. We will need to build something at each one of our campuses in the next five years. Currently Kouts Elementary and Morgan Elementary are packed. They are beyond capacity. Washington Township has some capacity left and when I came to speak with you in the summer about Augustine, that stuff won’t have much impact on us because it has homes of higher value, which won’t generate as many students, however; since that time other subdivisions have been approved like Mill Hollow, Red Hawk which has now been changed to Inverness, and Turtle Run. Just those three subdivisions have created seven to twelve new single family units. And out of those units, depending on what the value is, it could be anywhere from 500 to 600 students. So that if that land is changed to rural residential and creates more housing units, it is going to create more strain the school corporation as well. If its rezoned not only will it change the amount of houses that are there, it will also change the value that we have in that property. As it stands now, if we sell it as I2 we can sell it for a much higher price than for rural residential. Even though we are not going to build on that, we could sell it again and use that money for capital expenditures like adding on to our schools or furnishing our schools or renovating them. So what I am asking tonight on behalf of our school board and the constituents of our school corporation is to not rezone that property. It’s not consistent with the way that entire area is used. The land stop of us is industrial. The land across the street is industrial, the land to the side of us on the west side is industrial. I am asking you to keep it at I2 mostly for the value it has for our school corporation which not only benefits our school corporation but benefits our constituents within our school corporation as well. Thank you.”

Com. Harper, “Anyone else? Okay, then I ask for those people that want to speak in favor of the rezoning. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor of the rezoning?”

Chuck Leshay, “I live at 340 N. 325 East. I live directly across from the property that’s in question and I feel it is probably necessary to rebut a few of the things. If we are trying to prevent industrial and residential from being side by side, it looks like two-thirds of the property currently is bordering residential. If it were rezoned to residential, just the strip along the bottom would have the two areas in conflict. Also, there is no access to that property from Highway 2 so any traffic in and out would have to use 325 East which is in my opinion, (inaudible)…. Mr. Gardin talked about the value of his property, I2, in Unit 4 getting $28,000.00 an acre. Mr. Hitz said Deerfield Park is $30,000.00. So if it were zoned residential, I think the property would go up. But I don’t think Mr. Gardin’s property is a dispute right now it is in a bigger area. The Bucher’s made a lot of statements and from everything I have heard, they stand by their word. But the people that develop south of us also made some statements which was no fault as far as buffer zones, trees, something to buffer the areas. So, the border has no oversight as far as making sure the people do what they say unless there is a way of preventing the property from being developed until those commitments are met. It seems like the property that is directly north of the Bucher’s are developing and will probably sell for more than $30,000.00 an acre. So the property value should remain high and if he develops this property as residential, which he already owns, he could probably get much more than the $28-30,000.00 which was thrown up by Mr. Hitz. I had some other thoughts but they escaped me right now. I know traffic on that road is heavy now and can only get heavier. I know the Bucher’s have an excellent reputation but they can’t control who buys the property after they have initially sold it. Years from now after they have passed on, and I really don’t know how they would have oversight over all of that and in the future we are going to have to put a lot of money into the road that I live on if it is going to support that kind of traffic. These are all thoughts that you have to consider before you say we can’t rezone that to rural residential.”

Robert Jones, “I live at 335 Longbow Court which is directly behind Chuck, directly behind him and I feel the same way as him. When they approved the industrial stuff here, they didn’t follow through like they said they were going to do and they said they made a mistake. The Commission said they made a mistake, well, Larry Sheets said they made a mistake when they allowed a subdivision to be built right next to an industrial park in the first place. Now this entire industrial part right here goes the entire length of our whole subdivision. And like Chuck said, two third’s of it is already I2 butting up against residential. So we are going to have the same problem. Right now we have a nursery that is jetting water out to the road, it is draining their retention pond out to the road that they use for irrigation. It is flooded all the time. All the time during the day you listen to Mexican music, you can’t listen to your own radio in your own yard, and I understand he’s got a point, I understand his point. When he bought the property it was I2, I understand that. When I bought and built my house there, there was nothing there but farm land and I understand it is my responsibility to look and see what it is zoned. Well, I was a punk kid and I didn’t know better. I am looking at a subdivision and I am thinking I am not buying a lot right here so that I can have goats next to me. I am building a lot in a subdivision so I can live in a subdivision. Next thing I know, I am living next to an industrial park that used to be a corn when I moved in. Now I am dealing with Mexican music that is turned up all the time and dogs barking because there is a kennel right there and a nursery flooding the road and that is just bordering it. This whole thing is going to be all along the entire subdivision. It’s already bad enough as it is and I understand his point but I think there was a mistake made when our subdivision was allowed to be put in. So that is the circumstances that as far as Chris is saying, that’s the circumstances I am talking about that is a public responsibility. There’s circumstances there. The subdivision shouldn’t have been there. It is. Can’t change that. This is something you can change; the subdivision is already there and it’s already got a lot of people living there. That’s all I have to say.”

Com. Harper, “Alright, Robert, I know you haven’t been asked any specific questions but is there any thing that came up that you want to respond to?”

Mr. Thompson, “No.”

Com. Harper, “Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak to the Commissioners? John?”

Com. Evans, “Have you ever done this before? Has the County of Porter ever had a petition?”

Mr. Thompson, “Not since I’ve been in the director’s position, no; however, I guess a couple Plan Commission members that have been around for awhile have said yes, it had been done. And I don’t know what specifically or where or when or what were the reasons behind it, but they did mention it had been done before. The two that did speak up was Liz Marshall and Bob Detert.”

Com. Harper, “Carole, do you have any questions?”

Com. Knoblock, “I just had a comment about the last speaker that spoke. I looked too and it is RR all the way around and it’s two thirds and it bothers me with the subdivisions.”

Com. Harper, “Before I close the public portion of this meeting, number one, I am going to list some things that have been put in the record. The exhibit by Mr. Hitz has been made part of the record. The Bucher’s submission of the Porter County Land and Thoroughfare Use Plan and the rest of their submission is part of the record. Do we have, and if anyone else has filed one that I don’t have, and all the Commissioners have had a copy of a letter in support of the rezoning from Rick and Carol Skaggs, from John and Joanne Downey, from Juanita Jones and from Tammy Evans. Have you received any other correspondence that I haven’t gone over there as part of the record?”

Mr. Thompson, “Not since the Plan Commission hearing”

Com. Harper, “All the Commissioners were provided with in advance of the meeting the minutes of the meeting of December 13, 2006 when this petition was heard as Plan Commission and I want to make that part of the record. I also want to make part of the record the May and July meeting minutes of the, I think the May meeting was a primary plat on Augustine and July was the secondary if I am correct. I would also like to make part of this record the minutes from the petition hearing on North Star Stone which was the August meeting. What was the date of that, Bob, can you give that to me? I have the minutes here if I could take time to look at them. Can you help us with that?”

Man in audience, “August 10.”
Com. Harper, “Okay, August 10. So I would like to make all those minutes part of the meeting. I would also like to ask you a couple questions, Bob. You provided us with a map, in fact I am going to mark it Map 1. As I look at this map and as I look at this 40 acre parcel, not counting that parcel at Washington Township Schools, that 40 acre parcel is bordered on one side by Augustine Subdivision, is that correct?”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “And the other side, the north side, by Deefield Park Subdivision?”

Mr. Thompson, “On the west side, correct.”

Com. Harper, “And on the other side land that is zoned RR with the exception of Washington Township School.”

Mr. Thompson, “For the most part on that one, correct.”

Com. Harper, “If this land is not rezoned there will be three borders of this land that border next to mostly residential subdivisions, is that correct? If it is not rezoned?”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “And if it is rezoned, there will be one border that will be and a little bit of another one that will be next to I2, is that correct?”

Mr. Thompson, “Repeat that one.”

Com. Harper, “If it is rezoned, rather than have three almost full borders next to RR, there will be one border and a small part of another that won’t be next to RR, is that correct?”

Com. Evans, “What’s North Star Stone zoned?”

Mr. Thompson, “I guess I am confused with that. North Star Stone was left out.”

Com. Evans, “What’s it’s current zoning?”

Com. Harper, “I2.”

Com. Evans, “And Washington Township is zoned industrial, will be I1 on the left, it is 3 and 3.”

Mr. Thompson, “I see what you are saying. You are considering that if that was done, then yes, North Star Stone is essentially, that parcel of the northern boundary or the southern boundary of this 40 acre parcel is pretty much even with the southern boundary of Deerfield Park going across so I guess the answer to that would be yes.”

Com. Harper, “So basically we would only have one major border with I2 if the rezoning went through?”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “And Map 1, this is the map you provided everybody with copies of and is this map correct in that area?”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “And it was part of your submission?”

Mr. Thompson, “Yes, it was, with the (inaudible)…”

Com. Harper, “Mr. Hitz, I would like to ask you a couple questions if I could. As I saw your, and I make your display part of this, I wonder if you gave all the township assessor a copy of these land values, also, I hope not. You’ve taken some land values from Old Orchard Estates to show the square footage in Old Orchard Estates increased. Isn’t it true that many subdivisions in Valparaiso the square footage has increased in the last few years?”

Mr. Hitz, “Yes, sir.”

Com. Harper, “So, it’s not just Old Orchard Estates?”

Mr. Hitz, “No, the point of that was that they had not gone down in value, that the current property owners on 325 are concerned about their property values, this is a good case that says that shouldn’t happen.”

Com. Harper, “When you compare Old Orchard Estates to Beauty Creek and some of these areas, have there been areas that have gone up more than Old Orchard Estates?”

Mr. Hitz, “Beauty Creek would not have because there is not a resale …..”

Com. Harper, “Are there areas in subdivisions, say, Forest Park, where the square footage has gone up?”

Mr. Hitz, “Not really, there’s not any more significantly as this. Because the lower the price gets in the marketplace, the more those properties have gone up in value. Incrementally, those have gone up faster in value than higher prices properties have, residentially.”

Com. Harper, “Now saying that the neighbors property won’t go down in value, you are assuming certain things. One, that an I2 zoning is going to be allowed in and two, that certain kinds of businesses are going to go in and three, that there’s going to be trees and so forth to protect neighbors from that site. Are you putting assumptions in that?”

Mr. Hitz, “I put no assumptions in that because if you look at the photographs that I gave you, across the street from Old Orchard Estates, it is wide open with a chain link fence. In full view are two different facilities that are industrial. The Marsh building is one that shows up in that photograph and McGill had another facility at one time. So even if they didn’t put it up, you shouldn’t be harmed, but their intention is to create the buffer.”

Com. Harper, “Well, let me ask you this. You do acknowledge that this man that spoke here, and we have had this come up many times before that has the I2 next to him, where the dog kennels are outside and the dogs come out and bark, that would affect adversely the price of his property, wouldn’t you say?”

Mr. Hitz, “I don’t think they have a dog kennel planned in this project.”

Com. Harper, “Then you are making some assumptions. One of your assumptions is they won’t have a dog kennel in this project.”

Mr. Hitz, “First of all I make no guarantees on anything that I ever present. This is actual data that is going on in the marketplace today. This is real data.”

Com. Harper, “I understand that.”

Mr. Hitz, “Also, I want to make one clarification since you got me up here. One of the gentlemen was talking about the property values and he was confusing developed land with raw land. When we were talking about $28,000.00 an acre for industrial land, that was raw land. And then he brought in residential land at $30,000.00 an acre, that’s developed, there’s a big difference in the cost of raw land and developed land. Okay? Thank you.”
Com. Harper, “One other question, that reminded me of something. Did you have the values that were actually paid from this land by the Bucher’s?”

Mr. Hitz, “No.”

Com. Harper, “Do you know how much they paid for it?”

Mr. Hitz, “No, I do not.”

Com. Harper, “Okay. Bob, before I close the public portion session I would like to, even if we have to take a few minute break we will, I would like to have the exact dates of the first hearing on preliminary plat approval on Augustine and the secondary and even in fact, the third hearing because we had a third hearing on it if you remember we came back on the open space. And also the date of the hearing of North Star because I want to make it part of this record, the minutes from those meetings. I have them here if I have to dig through them. Will it take you a few minutes to get them?”

Mr. Thompson, “Yes, it would.”

Com. Harper, “Before I close the public session, is there anyone else here now that would like to speak before the Commissioners make their comments after I close the public session and before I close it, is there anyone else? Okay. Do you think it will take you a couple minutes to get them?”

Mr. Thompson, “Since we are in the process of moving and I have no idea where North Star Stone is.”

Com. Harper, “Can we accept that date of August 10th?’

Mr. Thompson, “I will grab the minute book and it is just going to take me some time to look through the minute book.”

Com. Evans, “Can I ask a request as well? As long as you are going to have to do some research and find a few things, can you find for me the number of times maps have been changed since 1959, how many times the maps have been redrawn? In that area, how many times has the maps been changed.”

Mr. Thompson, “That is going to take me awhile.”

Com. Evans, “Okay, forget it.”

Mr. Thompson, “If I had the zoning map here, just to point it out and explain it. This here is zoned I2 in this area here since 1951, this was zoned residential in 1951. This has been added. In 19893 it was changed from AG to RR, this has stayed residential, this was changed over to Industrial in this area here, I can’t remember the exact date, either in the 60’s or 70’s.”

Com. Evans, “Changed from AG or from RR?”

Mr. Thompson, “I think, I would have to go back and research, I can bring it back and show it to you if you want.”

Com. Evans, “That’s all right.”

Com. Harper, “While you are getting that, Bob, I would like to read a couple things into the record on some of these minutes. Can you go check out the dates for us? First, I would like to read into the record some of the comments by Mr. Bucher at the meeting, I believe it is the May meeting, and Bob is getting the minutes of the primary plat on Augustine. The reason I am reading the minutes is because I think that out of Mr. Bucher’s own mouth they demonstrate the current conditions and character per structures in this district and which goes directly to number 2, and some of his comments go to all of these requirements that we are to consider. And here is what he said. He is talking to us about Augustine and he is telling us about the surrounding property. He states, and as I read this I have to tell you that this is transcribed and sometimes is a little rough. He stated I would like to introduce the surrounding areas so as he is bringing Augustine, which is this RR subdivision that borders one side of this land in question, here is what he said to us in the Plan Commission meeting. He stated, and he is pointing at the map, this would be CR 355 East, this would be CR 400 North and this would be CR 400 East. He stated when you look around this subdivision and come north toward the proposed subdivision you would first encounter Deerfield Subdivision. Then he is pointing more things out on the map, he’s saying to us this is Whispering Hills Subdivision which comes right in here and curves back to Pratt’s Road. He said Pratt’s Road is CR 275 East so it is a half of mile from here. He stated the city has annexed up to that point. He stated the city’s annexation is just half a mile from this property. He stated this is East Wood Hill Subdivision, he stated this is 4/10’s of a mile back to this cul de sac. He stated single family homes, one acre lots, two rows with one connection in the middle. He stated the newest subdivision that is actually being built is Valley Run, which is the corner of 400 North and 400 East. He stated this has all been built out. He stated that it extends both north and south over where 400 North stops out around here. He stated when you look around us, he is talking about Augustine, when you look around this, what an urban planner would call this is a built in subdivision. He stated there is building all around it. He stated we are bordered on the south by the Washington Township School. He stated this is their property that they hold for future expansion. He stated and this is the only reference, in May, a few months before this rezoning comes up, he stated there are some I2 land here that is not developed. Not that we have some I2 land here, and we are planning on developing it, or we are going to be coming back in three months with North Star Stone and putting industrial in. When he made this presentation, he said that there is some I2 land here that is not developed. Now, whether or not he should have told us at the Plan Commission is another issue, but he and his own description of this property clearly describes this area the way I would describe it as an area that reeks of subdivision and that is why I believe we are here on this petition. And I believe the fact that it is surrounded by subdivisions that if this was rezoned, it would be surrounded by RR or a school on three sides and would limit the subdivision up against an I2 on just one side where if we go ahead here, we are going to have I2 up against a bunch of subdivisions that the only sensible thing for the Comprehensive Plan and the current conditions and the conservation of property values is to rezone this property. We can speculate all day about what might go into this I2, it’s not even come up for a vote yet or anything, but we do know this I think, that the people that are living in the subdivision across the street that had this one industrial park built next to them and have dogs barking outside and were promised a buffer and the builder went broke and it was never built, that I think one thing we know is that their land values have not been helped by this. I also would like to point out that at a later meeting, and I believe it was one of the minutes down here, and he stated, now this was just three months ago, I think he said we own some I2 land and that business decision has not been made. So, I think we didn’t have and weren’t given all the facts but I feel out of his own mouth, that he is indicated when he came in for the subdivision plat that he has indicated what the surrounding land is like. John, do you want to take about a five minute break until Bob gets back down? Do you have anything else you want to say? We will take a five minute break until Bob gets back down here. We should be over pretty quick.”

A FIVE MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN WAITING FOR MR. THOMPSON TO RETURN

Com. Harper, “Bob, do you want to give us the dates?”

Mr. Thompson, “Augustine Subdivision primary plat was approved at the May 24, 2006 public hearing in Plan Commission and secondary plat for Phase I of Augustine was originally heard at the August 9th meeting and was continued to the September 13th hearing. September 13th hearing, the Plan Commission approved Phase I of Augustine Subdivision, secondary plat. North Star Stone, the hearing date was July 2, or July 12th, excuse me, July 12, 2006 and it was denied at that time.”

Com. Harper, “I would like to make those minutes a part of this record and they will be available. Is there anything else you want to put in the record?”
Mr. Thompson, “No.”

Com. Harper, “Is there anything else anybody else wants to put in the record? Any other comments? Then I want to close the public portion of this meeting and before I call on for any motions, I want to call on any discussion that the Commissioners have. John?’

Com. Evans, “I have no discussion.”

Com. Harper, “Carole?”

Com. Knoblock, “I have nothing.”

Com. Evans moved to deny the petition

Com. Evans, “I appreciate you putting all the records and all the minutes into the record and taking heed to make sure everything is in there. I don’t appreciate the editorialization and the pontification in the making sure that the point that you want to express is also clear. I don’t think the county’s minutes met its five requirements, I don’t think that the county is in a position to change zoning and take land without the eminent domain statute being evoked. People buy land and sell land to make a profit, there is nothing wrong with that. As the last gentleman spoke, Mr. Jones, said the county made a mistake when they zoned that portion of land for the subdivision and two wrongs don’t make a right so I hereby move that we deny the petition.”

Com. Harper, “I am not hearing a second, motion fails. Let me just say a couple things in response. I think as I go over this map and I have sat through all these hearings and I want to make the minutes available, and it is really clear and I think Mr. Bucher made it really clear when he came in and talked about Augustine, that this piece of property right here is surrounded by residential on three sides and if its rezoned it will only have, and everyone agrees on both sides of this issue that it is not good having residential up against I2 and if its rezoned, it will be rezoned to RR like the surrounding property on three sides and it will only have one side up against the industrial. We’re caught here with what we are caught with so many times and that is because of years and years of, I don’t know, lack of planning, or maybe things happening so fast or whatever, we’ve got areas that present serious problems to us. We all know there are many times that Plan Commissions rezone in bulk areas when it is good for the Comprehensive Plan. Hopefully it is in line with the current conditions and character structures of each district. That’s what I think the people in the Plan Commission try to do, it’s the most desirable use of the land in which the district has adopted and it takes the conversation of property values and when we talk about property values, we are talking about all the property values here, not just the value of the land being rezoned, but the value of all these neighbors around and even the petitioner here was the one that owned this land for twenty months, came in and petitioned for this RR on one whole side of this. And anyone that sat and listened to the neighbors from Deerfield Subdivision know that having that I2 next to them has not helped their property values. They’ve had barking dogs and no buffer zone and everything so I don’t think its at all clear that it would help property values to continue that I2 zoning. I got an email which I referred to before, that is sorted of resented, that said we listened to the pesky neighbors, well, we try to listen to everybody involved and it seems to me that the vast majority of the people involved here are in RR areas surrounding this piece of property and that this is the best solution. Now, I feel that the parcel of Washington Township School borders on Highway 2 and is a different story. It is out there on Highway 2 and I personally feel that by rezoning this it will be more in line with our Comprehensive Plan and it is definitely more in line with current conditions and current structures and uses in the district and even Mr. Bucher’s presentation on Augustine makes that clear. It seems to me that it’s the most desirable use of land in the district, especially behind that school, I mean to continue I2 right behind that school just doesn’t make a buffering on that school, where they plan to build that school, doesn’t make any sense. I think that by trying to salvage this area and making this line, drawing this at least one line rather than four lines, drawing just one line across probably helped all property values in the area. And by creating a piece of property with only one buffer line between the industrial and the residential I think will promote reasonable growth and development in that area and help everybody’s property values. So, I feel that we should rezone this parcel to RR not including that parcel that the school has on Highway 2. Carole, do you want to say anything?”

Com. Knoblock, “I just have one comment. I think it is unfair to the subdivisions with the subdivisions the Bucher’s are putting in. I think it is unfair to put the industrial site in the middle of them.”

Com. Knoblock moved to rezone the property from I2 to RR excluding the school property, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried 2-1 with Com. Evan voting against.

Com. Harper, “Any further business from the Plan Commission?”

Mr. Thompson, “From the Plan Commission? No.”

With no further business the meeting was recessed.


BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

Robert P. Harper
John A. Evans
Carole M. Knoblock


Attest: James K. Kopp, Auditor