PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
April 9, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday April 9, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Mike Bucko, Rick Burns, Frank Mahnic, Bob Poparad, Commissioner Larry Sheets and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Robert Detert and Mike Herzog. Staff members present were Stephen P. Nigro, Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the March 12, 2003 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read a letter from Inverness Planned Unit Development asking for a continuance until the May 14, 2003 Plan Commission meeting.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read a letter from Brigadoon asking for a continuance until a later date.

Commissioner Sheets stated what he has to say is for the Plan Commission members. He stated he is a member of the Personnel Committee, which consists of Bob Detert, Kevin Breitzke, Eric Biddinger and himself. He stated that they met tonight to discuss an issue of a Planner. He stated he would like to start by saying that we have had two advertisements for a Planner and we have interviewed two people some months ago. He stated we did not offer the job to either one of them. He stated we asked to deny all the applications and go out again. He stated what they are finding is what Porter County needs involves taking a look at and changing the zoning laws, subdivision control ordinances and the like. He stated we need someone with the experience and background that can come in and take over right away to do those. He stated after the first round of interviews there was some communication with our former Planner, Bob Thompson, in talking to him whether he had any interest in coming back. He stated they thought that Bob was a good person for the job and they were very sorry to see him go. He stated over a period of time those conversations have taken place either by phone or by e-mail. He stated Bob Thompson has agreed to come back, if we would choose to hire him, under certain conditions.


He stated first of all Bob left here and went to some place in Florida. He stated he doesn't know the name of the town or city he is at. He stated Bob was able to obtain a higher pay or higher salary and different function in a Planning environment. He stated Bob, for whatever reason, and they are personal reasons, is willing to come back to this community as the Planner if we so choose to hire him. He stated Bob is willing to take this reduction in pay from what he is getting in Florida to what he was getting here as the Planner. He stated the problem that we have is when Bob left and we went to the Council and the Council agreed that we need to replace Bob, the Council changed the salary and set it at a lower rate. He stated to ask Bob Thompson to come back at that lower rate, he is taking a pay cut to where he is now to where he was, and to ask him to go further just would not allow him to come back. He stated his personal opinion is that we would like him to come back. He stated what the Commissioner's have done is got on the agenda for the County Council to see if we could get a change in that so we can pay him his old salary. He stated first of all there is money in the Plan Commission budget to pay him his old salary and it is there because we haven't hired a Planner. He stated the Commissioners are also looking at a non-reverting fund for the Plan Commission Office made up with increased fees for that office. He stated this is how we would make up the difference in the future. He stated there would not be any request from the County Council for additional appropriations or additional funds. He stated this would come from within the Plan Commission itself. He stated the Personnel Committee has talked about this and he believes with the three members that were present, agreed to bring it to the Plan Commission tonight for discussion and hopefully if you are in agreement he would make the motion, at the proper time, that we offer the job to Bob Thompson at his old salary contingent on the Councils approval. He stated they will be on that agenda on April 22, 2003.

Mr. Mahnic asked if we could get this writing on what the conditions would be. He stated he knows when Bob left he left for greener pasture and if things don't work out, as far as he is concerned, it is not his problem. He stated he would like to see something in writing on the agreement under what conditions. He stated he does understand that no money that Bob would receive comes out of tax money or the people's taxes. He stated it is all generated from fees from people who improve their lots and improve their housing or new houses. He stated he knows that he brought up how much money we turned over to County Council. He stated he knows the money is there but he would like to see under what conditions they are rehiring someone who decided to go to greener pastures and now is coming back. He stated he will agree that Bob was a very good and very knowledgeable person and helped develop the Comprehensive Plan and was right on top of everything.

Mr. Burns stated his opinion is that we should hire him back because of his leadership and his past experience. He stated we should not pass up this opportunity.

Mr. Bucko stated in a private industry being involved at times in the hiring process, he has had people that he works with that have in fact left and there are times when things don't work out for either reasons that directly pertain to that job or that pertain to personal reasons and what have you. He stated he thinks sometimes you have to waive the benefits of an opportunity of perhaps getting someone back. He stated he agrees with Frank in reference to making it clear that Bob will accept the job based on those conditions. He stated obviously those conditions don't bind him really to anything because it is not a binding contract. He stated this is not a perfect world, as we all know out there. He stated we make judgment at times in our life, which we may want to change and may wish we had done differently. He stated he has worked with Bob for a long time and he believes that Bob is an asset and he was an asset when he left the County. He stated he can become an asset and remain an asset to this County. He stated we are going through some times and some growing pains in reference to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated we have to adopt a zoning plan, we have to adopt some transportation plans. He stated it is going to make a big difference if we have someone here who is knowledgeable and is very attuned and he is sure Bob is still attuned to what our needs are. He stated we have to be smart business people also and he thinks that we can be that way. He stated he personally supports bringing Bob back and we should consider this as an option.

Mr. Breitzke stated a lot of people probably don't realize what they have until it is gone. He stated he realized during the whole period that Bob was very much an asset to the County. He stated prior to that he worked with Bob, as Bob was a Deputy with the County Highway Department for about ten years. He stated Bob also has a Graduate Degree in Urban Planning. He stated Bob has a way with people in which he can discuss things very intelligently, although he may adamantly disagree with them. He stated at least there would be discussion and understandings going back and forth. He stated Bob is open minded enough and gentleman enough that we could accomplish quite a bit as a County. He stated we are looking at doing a large number of ordinances. He stated we are very far behind where we hoped to be when we were looking at the Comprehensive Plan and we need to quickly get back in the grove. He stated he honestly believes that Bob is the best man for the job. He stated he thinks when ever we invest as much as we did in Bob and vise versa that this should be a welcome staff addition. He stated he has no qualms about Bob coming back whatsoever.

Commissioner Sheets moved to have the Plan Commission offer the job of Planner to Bob Thompson under the conditions that he comes back at his old salary, and this is all contingent upon the approval of the County Council in that agreement. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner Sheets asked Mr. Mahnic if he had anything to add to the motion.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is in agreement on what has been said. He stated he put his opinion there for one reason. He stated he doesn't want someone to come back and say, "You established a precedent. You did this here and you didn't do it for me." He stated he wants to have what condition Bob is coming back. He stated he has no problem with Bob coming back at the original salary that he made. He stated this is up to the County Council.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 03-FP-4. Petition of Richard A. Lahey/Nicholas P. Ditoro, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Vintage View Subdivision to be located on the Northwest corner of CR 500 N. and CR 400 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 5 lots on 10 ac. Zoned RR.)

Mr. Leeth stated he is here on behalf of the petitioners, Richard Lahey and Nicholas Ditoro. He stated they are the developers of Vintage View Subdivision. He stated they are asking for secondary plat approval this evening. He stated Vintage View is a major subdivision and has only five lots on ten acres. He stated that this is located on the northwest corner of CR 500 N. and CR 400 E. He stated the primary plat was approved February 12 just a few months ago. He stated the secondary plat is consistent with the primary approval, which was received on February 12.

Mr. Mahnic asked if there is only one lot that is 144 feet across, which is a variance from 160 feet.



Mr. Leeth stated that all of the lots have the frontage. He stated to Mr. Mahnic that the 144 that you are seeing is the distance without the radius at the corner.

Mr. Mahnic asked if they were all in compliance.

Mr. Leeth stated yes.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 03-FP-4. Commissioner Sheets seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 02-P-11. Petition of Davies-Rensberger Surveying, Inc., 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Grassycreek Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 350 S. between CR 725 W. and SR 2 in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 25 lots on 43.83 acres. Property is zoned RR. The Public Hearing is closed.)

Mr. Leeth stated he is appearing before you on behalf of Al Jones. He stated Mr. Jones is the developer of Grassycreek Subdivision. He stated as indicated they are returning to the Commission from a public hearing on November 13, 2002. He stated at that time there were basically two large concerns of this Body that were raised from the public comments that were received at that time. He stated those were drainage concerns and traffic concerns. He stated at that meeting on November 13, the Commission directed them to return to the Technical Advisory Committee to address both of those issues. He stated they have done that and are now returning to the Commission after those meetings with TAC. He stated he would like to discuss the drainage issues. He stated if the Commission will recall there was a significant number of individuals here that were discussing the drainage concerns, the water that flows in and through this subdivision. He stated there were some concerns of ponding throughout the community as a whole. He stated after that meeting they returned to TAC and on December 6, Harvey Nix from Soil Conservation was there at that meeting assisting those same remonstrators. He stated there was a large number of those remonstrators that were here on November 13 that were there on December 6, at TAC, and they reiterated all of those concerns. He stated their engineers, Earl Uban and Bill Rensberger, from Davies-Rensberger, were both at TAC and were addressing some of the concerns. He stated at that time, TAC charged them and the remonstrators with going back and investigating some of the information and data further. He stated on the next day the office of Davies-Rensberger received a call from Mr. Nix, but the remonstrators had basically indicated that they had made some mistakes in their calculations and that they were satisfied with


the drainage plan that was prepared by Davies-Rensberger's office. He stated they returned to TAC on December 20 and reiterated that conversation. He stated there was a discussion at TAC about the drainage issues. He stated there was some give and take between the engineers that were present, but essentially all of the drainage issues were resolved at TAC and he believes to the satisfaction of the remonstrators, TAC and their proposal and project as well. He stated he believes that drainage has been 100% satisfied. He stated with regard to traffic. He stated on the board is the plat that they are asking for approval. He stated the southern boundary is CR 350 S. He stated as you recall SR 2 is 660 feet to the east of the entrance drive for the proposed road that it intersects with, which is CR 350 S. He stated the concern was traffic exiting SR 2 onto CR 350 S. He stated he had provided to you at the November 13 hearing the National Safety Council stopping distance data that shows the stopping distance of an automobile given driver reaction time and braking distance. He stated at 45 mph the braking distance in the 15th to 85th percentiles, which is the way this is broken down, is 132 to 153 feet. He stated at 65 mph, which is 20 mph over the posted speed limit on SR 2, the stopping distances 268 to 317 feet. He stated they still have 20 feet, the stopping distance from the intersection to SR 2. He stated he believes that this is certainly sufficient safety in that particular intersection. He stated they cannot, with their limited frontage on CR 350 S., move the road any further to the west. He stated as you can see they have already done that. He stated this plan was before you and denied in November of 2000. He stated at that time the road came straight down here. He stated one of the changes was to move the road further to the west to supply that additional distance. He stated when they were directed by the Commission to return to TAC one of the things that TAC asked them to do was to contact the property owner to the south on the south side of CR 350 S. He stated the purpose of that was so that they would ask the owners if they would cooperate in the dedication of land so there would not have to be a taking of property so that they could reconfigure the intersection at CR 350 S. and SR 2. He stated TAC asked them to do that and they did this. He stated they received what they anticipated and that was a "no." He stated they were not willing to cooperate with the developer or the County in dedicating land sufficient in order to reconfigure that particular area. He stated also at the TAC discussions there was a review of the Sheriffs Department records with regards to traffic accidents in the area. He stated if the Commission will recall on November 13 there was a significant amount of evidence presented as to how dangerous CR 350 S. was. He stated on December 20 when they were forwarded back to the Commission from TAC, Mr. Schelling, who is your County Highway Engineer, made the following two comments.


He stated he is reading directly from the minutes of that meeting. He stated that it states, "Mr. Schelling stated there were some issues about accidents out there and frankly it is really not a high accident area compared to a lot in the County." He stated later on at that same meeting Mr. Schelling stated "One accident is too many, but there are a lot of roads in the County that have a lot more accidents than this one." He stated the reason Mr. Schelling was able to make those statements on December 20 is he e-mailed the Sheriffs Department. He stated the Sheriffs Department responded to him with an e-mail that he is going to provide to the Commission and is already in the TAC record. He stated in this electronic correspondence back from the Sheriffs Department to Mr. Schelling it indicates "I have pulled all of the reports back to August 13, 2000. There are only five crashes that were found." Mr. Leeth stated then he itemizes those. He stated only one of those was a personal injury accident and the other four were property damage accidents. He stated that he doesn't believe that any of these accidents are a result of the issue regarding the intersection of CR 350 S. and SR 2. He stated what they have done is locate that road as far to the west as they possibly can to give as much distance as they can given the limited frontage that this property has on its only public access. He stated the property is properly zoned for residential use. He stated the County's Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Control Ordinance allow for a subdivision in that zoning classification and the plat complies with the Subdivision Control Ordinance. He stated the only variance that they are asking for is one of block length. He stated if that road were to come straight down they wouldn't need that variance. He stated only because they have to turn the road does this road then become too long under the ordinance. He stated the variance is actually necessitated by the safety concerns that the Commission had in November of 2000.

Commissioner Sheets stated that he wasn't here at the last meeting so he is only going to make a comment about the drainage. He stated one of your clients that you represented here was Tom Harrison in Yellowstone. He stated his conversation with Mr. Harrison had to do with the Drainage Board and he just spent $22,000 or $23,000 of his own money to repair damages to his ditches and that water came from the north. He stated there is a drainage problem there and it doesn't start on this particular property. He stated it starts to the north and Mr. Carlson is doing a fine job to help out. He stated there is in a watershed area a problem that has to be solved and he thinks that the Drainage Board, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Carlson and others are working to solve that. He stated this is the concern that he has. He stated because he wasn't here at the last meeting and he was looking at the agenda some time ago and he was talking with Steve


Nigro about what we had coming up. He stated Steve told him that this was coming up again. He asked Steve why is this coming up again. He stated his opinion then is still as it is today. He stated even though you present us with breaking footages and the like this is not realistic. He stated he will tell you and he will admit publicly that when he uses that road coming off SR 2 several times a year, he breaks the law because just coming off of SR 2 and your traveling 55 mph, you don't make a right turn. He stated you just veer right onto that road. He stated it takes him a while to get this small brain to kick in and say, "Hey dummy you got to slow down." He stated while he is confessing this to you he can do this because his wife does the same thing. He stated this is not a personal thing whatsoever. He stated it is a safety thing. He stated that he can tell you that coming off of SR 2, while it doesn't show it on here, the people who live in the house in the triangle, the cars coming off of there when there are campaign signs there they run right into them because they are traveling too darn fast. He stated he would suggest that some of these accidents take place further down the road to the west. He stated these are safety reasons. He stated he can't support this because people are going to get hurt and unfortunately killed and he doesn't want to see that happen. He stated these people are going to continue to fly there.

Mr. Leeth stated with regards to the traffic issue, they can solve the drainage concerns and he thinks that they have. He stated if someone in the public doesn't agree with the statements that he made then they will revisit this. He stated with regards to the traffic concerns, his client has directed him to solve the problem, but there is no solution. He stated this is the problem. He stated they went to TAC. He stated their solution was they needed land on the south side to reconfigure that intersection, but the County doesn't condemn property. He stated to do that they contacted the owner of that property in order to have a donation to the property. He stated Mr. Jones would then be obligated to pay for the roadwork or have some kind of cooperative effort to pay for that roadwork outside of public funds. He stated they couldn't secure the land so we can't do any configuration there. He stated what his client can do is move that road as far off of the intersection as they can. He stated this road hugs the western property line. He stated this property has no access. He stated this is its only access to a public street. He stated it is landlocked and cannot be developed. He stated if you are telling me that there is no way that this property can be developed he thinks that you have some serious legal problems with that determination.

Commissioner Sheets stated he can understand where you are coming from and he doesn't want to use the terminology as if he doesn't care if we get sued or not. He stated he doesn't mean that. He stated he does understand. He stated he also understands, like Mr. Schelling says, there are other areas in the County that have far more accidents. He stated this does not allow us to allow a development to go in just because some other place has more accidents than that and allow these potential accidents to take place. He stated he knows that they moved this as far to the west as they can. He stated it is not that much further. He stated his final comment will be to you and they say this very, very seldom, not all land is developable. He stated it doesn't mean that because there is land there it should be developed. He stated in this case the only reason that he objects is that he is scared that someone is going to get hurt or someone is going to get killed. He stated he takes that position very seriously.

Mr. Leeth stated your charge in reviewing plats is to hold it up to the light of your Subdivision Control Ordinance. He stated if it doesn't meet the Subdivision Control Ordinance you deny it and if it does you don't have any discretion you have to approve it under the law. He stated that this is the law. He stated his answer to you with regards to the distance to the intersection is that the ordinance has a standard for that. He stated they exceed it by three to four times.

Commissioner Sheets stated his last word would be that besides the ordinance we are obligated to the health, safety and welfare of all the people in Porter County and he will stand on that.

Mr. Leeth asked Commissioner Sheets didn't he think that the County's ordinance does that in its standard.

Commissioner Sheets stated that not everything in life is covered in there.

Mr. Poparad asked if there were any homes between the driveway and the intersection on SR 2.

Mr. Rensberger stated that there is a driveway right over here.

Mr. Bucko stated there is a driveway that almost comes right out at the intersection where the curve is and this way there is a driveway that comes out that almost intersects at the intersection. He stated there is another one about 100 feet further east then that. He stated between there and their roadway there is nothing on the north side.



Mr. Poparad stated that he is new at this but he has to echo what Larry says.

Mr. Rensberger stated he would like to add something. He stated during the TAC meeting your County Highway Engineer, Mr. Schelling, said in his opinion this is one of the safest intersections in the County.

Mr. Poparad stated he sees all of the accident information. He asked if there are residents here from the area. He asked if anyone had spoken to the State Police.

Mr. Leeth stated not from his clients. He stated they spoke with the Sheriffs Department.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is in a win/win situation because he does agree with the Commissioner and he does agree with the attorney. He stated the attorney has presented a case that is in line with all the ordinances. He stated he has cooperated because back in November he suggested to them to go back to TAC. He stated they did that. He stated they did move the road to give it a little more room in order to get that. He stated we have twenty-five lots and fifty cars will be coming out onto that road. He stated he is concerned with this safety. He stated even though you say you have met all the obligations of the ordinance, one of the jobs he is directed as a member of this Committee and it is in the write up for what his responsibilities are and that is the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. He stated he is concerned with that road. He stated it has nothing to do with that ordinance. He stated outside of that ordinance he is concerned with more traffic coming in there and the crazy drivers. He stated the point is that they met all the provisions of the ordinance and he has to agree with you. He stated he can't see any legitimate or even legal where he can defend in denying a recommendation for the primary approval. He stated he does agree totally with the Commissioner that we need to be concerned with the safety and we need to be concerned that you will not dump more water offsite than you do on site. He stated someone downstream is going to be affected by the amount of water that has been designated that each owner gets part of the responsibility of the pond. He stated those concerns do bother him and he would like to see an obligation on the part of the developer to say if we do have an adverse affect downstream and all done by the engineer to show that you would be responsible for your portion for what damages occur downstream.

Mr. Bucko stated this was just handed to him this evening some added information from incidents and weather conditions to give you some ideas about what takes place at that intersection or directly adjacent to the intersection. He stated you can also see the condition of the road will have an impact on that subdivision and that entrance well after you've left that highway intersection. He stated he thinks that this is the most dangerous portion and that is the fact that once you left the highway at the rate of speed that he spoke of last time we met people simply don't follow the rule and he would bet you that they don't follow the chart. He stated in addition to that if in fact you purchase property from the individual, if that were the case and that was in fact a doable thing, was there or is there an issue then with the State and its right-of-way and how it is affected by the change that you would make in there. He asked if there was any negative impact there from the State or anything or conversations that may have taken place there.

Mr. Leeth stated that they didn't get that far. He stated if they would've had a more responsive communication return from that property owner then of course the engineers would have been charged with trying to redesign something and of course the Department of Transportation would be very much involved in those discussions. He stated because they didn't even get the land there was never that next step.

Mr. Bucko asked if there was any effort made by your organization that you are representing to go to the west side and talk to the property owners there where the intersection is at CR 700 W. to purchase the land there. He stated that if this hasn't been done he, in his mind, can't feel that they have done all that they could as a developer to try to find a method of solving the problem. He stated his problem was always the traffic and how it intersects with not only the highway but the whole traffic pattern up and down that road. He stated that nothing has really changed his mind and he voted against it before.

Mr. Burns stated he also has an issue with the traffic safety.

Mr. Biddinger stated he would like to point out something. He stated his background is as a scientist and a statistician. He stated that when you point out something that uses between a 15% and 85% normal that is 70% of the time. He stated accidents don't happen 70% of the time. He stated they happen when the conditions are at the extreme ends of the statistics. He stated this is not measurable. He stated as much as he respects scientific and statistical data he thinks that when you start relying on it in cases like this you have to think outside of that for the public safety. He stated he knows this is probably what the State uses, but when something is going to happen it is not going to be according to a nice set of statistics. He stated it is going to be when someone is looking down brushing lint off his or her pants and look up and see somebody is there. He stated there is no stopping distance for that. He stated he thinks that the roads are too heavily traveled. He stated concerning the drainage issue he really appreciates the efforts that these folks have gone to correct that. He stated that was his very first meeting on the Plan Commission when you introduced that and he was a little overwhelmed with it. He stated he feels much like Mr. Mahnic. He stated he agrees with you but he also has that duty for the safety.

Mr. Breitzke stated there was a lot of confusion brought on by an agency not dealing with the whole picture. He stated there is a huge amount of water coming down into this area and further south. He stated all the way from Windy Oaks, which is north of CR 250 S. going down a mile and stretching out easterly better than a mile. He stated the water that they are dealing with locally was just a small portion of that affecting the neighbors east and to the south. He stated we are trying to figure how to deal with these issues and none of it is regulated drain where the Drainage Board can really step in and manage it. He stated it is a huge drainage area. He stated the developer's engineers took fairly conservative measures in hand. He stated we continue to discuss that. He stated he doesn't see this as an issue but it just really confused a lot of people when they brought up things that really weren't pertinent to this specific development nor the other one to the immediate north. He stated one of his comments is that he was the one who suggested that the developer go in good faith and make a purchase offer or do something of that nature. He stated he got a very irate call from a land owner who he believes she was not approached in such a manner as just to make an offer to purchase with the idea to deal with the roadway and that issue. He stated typically in highway design and what would improve the overall situation here would be to bring the road down more at 90º or what we call make it radial to the curve of SR 2 and use some of the existing pavement for a decel lane so all the highway issues would be solved. He stated at the same time he would have probably talked to the State Highway too. He stated he thinks that they would have much preferred a little bit different road design. He stated we are not in the business of condemnation and they told Mr. Leeth that they can't be involved in that capacity. He stated this would have to be purchased property. He stated he feels that could have been a solution. He stated there was another solution was brought up by Mr. Bucko. He stated they could have gone to the road to the west and see if the adjoiner on the west would deal with them. He stated this is a very difficult piece of land. He stated the standards don't always apply. He stated we try to make something, and he hates to use the word minimum with standards, because standards are standards, but it is the least you can do. He stated he thinks that our expectations are off and to do a little bit more and to make it a little bit better and safer. He stated that this is his concern. He stated the sun sets low in this direction right off of SR 2 which makes it even so much more dangerous when coming off of SR 2. He stated he agrees with Mr. Sheets. He stated typically people turn off there at a high rate of speed. He stated one of the things we seem to be here for is for public health, safety and welfare. He stated he thinks that there is still some remedy but he hasn't seen it yet.

Mr. Mahnic stated he would like to see the traffic on SR 2 slow down but unfortunately it is not his job as a developer of his land to go down there and tell them that they have to slow down. He stated this is a Highway Department responsibility and those questions can be directed to the Highway Department. He stated he is concerned but we played with this case for a year or maybe longer. He stated it has gone through TAC who is the advisory committee to the Plan Commission who is full of engineers. He stated these people are knowledgeable of what is going on. He stated it is there full time job. He stated they advise me or us. He stated these folks have come back to us and we gave them recommendations and they went back again to TAC. He stated TAC looked at it again knowing that the water and the road disturbed us. He stated the developer has done everything that is in our ordinance. He stated if we deny this, which we can, our attorney will have to defend this in order for us to deny it. He stated if they don't buy it we will be in litigation. He stated he is not afraid of that. He stated this is not his job to handle litigation. He stated every provision of the ordinance has been met. He stated our own people who do these things said all conditions have been met. He stated he doesn't know how he can deny it on the basis that people are going to fast down that road. He stated when time comes he would be willing to recommend that we approve this case.

Commissioner Sheets moved to deny the primary plat for Case 02-P-11 on the grounds of health, safety and welfare specific to traffic. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - No Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Mahnic - No Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Public Hearing:

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.

Case 03-P-3. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Aaron Estates Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 W. between CR 750 S. and Hwy 8 in Boone Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 12 lots on 19.98 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Rensberger stated he is from Davies-Rensberger Surveying. He stated what they are requesting here is primary plat approval for 12 lots. He stated CR 400 W. runs here, north and south, SR 8 runs east and west here. He stated all of the water will drain into a detention pond they have here and then out into Kellar Ditch. He stated each lot is well over an acre. He stated there is a NIPSCO easement running through here. He stated they are going to be putting a drainage tile in the back to serve sanitary sewers. He stated they had all of the lots tested and he believes that they all require a perimeter drain and this tile will service all the septics for the storm water runoff. He stated there will also be a swale built along the county road.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets asked if the developer owned the land to the west.

Mr. Rensberger stated yes he does.

Commissioner Sheets asked what is the intent of the developer for the rest of the acreage.

Mr. Freyenberger stated he is farming it.

Commissioner Sheets asked if he had any intent in the future to develop it.

Mr. Freyenberger stated no.

Commissioner Sheets stated this is exactly the reason we did away with metes and bounds so they wouldn't sell one lot at a time and we wouldn't have the opportunity to deal with the drainage. He stated that this is a case where you do meet the ordinance and he doesn't see a problem.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no comment.


Mr. Mahnic stated he agrees with Mr. Sheets and everything is in order.

Mr. Bucko stated he has no questions.

Mr. Burns stated he has no problem.

Mr. Biddinger stated he does echo the fact that this is not exactly what we had in mind under the plan but again there is nothing that is out of the ordinary or anything that is objectionable about it.

Commissioner Sheets move to approve Case 03-P-3 for primary plat approval. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-P-4. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Wood Duck Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 E. between CR 600 N. and CR 500 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Rensberger stated what they have here is a 3 lot major subdivision because there has been a minor subdivision done about a quarter of a mile south. He stated in order for him to get 3 lots he has to go through the major subdivision process. He stated this sits on CR 400 E. in Washington Township. He stated the front lot is one acre and the middle lot, the owner plans on building on is 3 acres and the back lot is about 3.6 acres. He stated what they are requesting is a variance on the county road standards so he can put a private drive through here rather than build the road to county specifications. He stated the soil tested good.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Jason Fliege stated he lives at 567 N. 400 E. He stated that they are saying that there is going to be a private drive. He asked if the easements on that road will affect anyone who would build around there or will there be any other houses built around there. He asked if this is just going to be a 3-lot subdivision. He asked if any easements would apply to that road being a private drive and not a county road. He stated he is bringing it up because he is sure the Commission is aware of


Timothy Jones and 75 S. with a pole barn and the easements involved with the subdivision that went in there and how restrictions of building and his property were affected because of the subdivision going in.

Mr. Rensberger stated the easement is an ingress/egress easement and utility easement and also a drainage easement. He stated it will service all three lots and it will stop at lot 3. He stated as far as what they can put on it, it has to meet the county ordinance. He stated if they decide to put up a pole building on any of the lots he thinks that the maximum size is 30 feet x 40 feet. He stated he is not sure. He stated this easement is just to service these three lots. He stated it won't continue on through lot 3. He stated it will be a ten foot wide gravel driveway. He stated they are going to put underground electric going back to lot 3 when the time comes to build there.

Mr. Fliege stated he doesn't think Mr. Rensberger understands the question. He stated the subdivision is going to go in whether he likes it or not. He stated they got a letter saying a subdivision is going in near their house. He stated that Tim is a friend of his and he really does not like seeing what is happening with that. He stated he doesn't want to see this subdivision affect any of the neighboring land. He stated as far as anything within the subdivision off of the private drive that is up to their standards and everything else and they need to abide by that. He stated he is more worried about any neighboring property around it. He stated he wouldn't think that it would hurt any property around it. He stated that you have a potential of three houses. He stated he doesn't see any adverse affect.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets asked what is on the south side of the private road.

Mr. Rensberger stated there is a fifteen-acre parcel and he believes there is going to be a one family home there.

Commissioner Sheets asked if the petitioner owns the property to the south side of him.

Mr. Rensberger stated no. He stated it is 15 acres just purchased maybe six months ago. He stated this whole area was divided up into ten fifteen-acre parcels.

Commissioner Sheets stated someone who has fifteen-acres to the south of that got a letter to be here tonight. He asked Mr. Fliege if he owned the fifteen-acres to the south.

Mr. Fliege stated he does not.

Commissioner Sheets stated the people who own that if they are here haven't spoken up so they evidently don't have a problem. He stated the concern he would have is how is this road going to be maintained.

Mr. Rensberger stated it will be maintained by each individual property owner. He stated there will be a road agreement between each property owner to maintain that.

Commissioner Sheets asked what happens if owner number one of the first lot agrees to it and signs it and then they sell.

Mr. Rensberger stated it runs with the land.

Commissioner Sheets stated when you say it is going to be a private road we have been starting to ask people to put in a good base. He stated we can't make you but we ask you to put in a base to consider putting in a base the meets county standards. He asked what kind of base are you planning to put in.

Mr. Rensberger stated that he didn't know. He asked what did the county require.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this it ten inches. He stated he thinks that what Mr. Rensberger is asking for a variance for the requirement of building a County spec road. He stated this is a private road, which won't be subject to the building lines etc. if it were a county dedicated road. He stated this will be a private drive easement servicing the three houses at this time.

Commissioner Sheets stated he is not asking about width or the surface. He stated he is just saying if they put in a good base this makes for a good start in a long-term road. He stated if he doesn't care to do it he can't make him do it. He stated it is to the petitioner's benefit and to his neighbors benefit to have a better base in there.

Mr. Rensberger stated he will strongly suggest that he do it.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no comment.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has a problem with the road also. He stated they want a variance from 96 feet. He stated he thinks that they have the acreage there and they can make that road wider. He stated he thinks that they have the wherewithal if they want to develop this to be able to put a base in that is basically what are standards for our public road calls for. He stated from his experience of sitting on this Board for the past twelve years eventually we have cases coming back here where people complain on these privates, that this neighbor or that neighbor is not doing what they are suppose to do, even though they have an agreement. He stated we, and our county does not go to court over a private road. He stated these people always argue about who is going to maintain the road. He stated he feels that if you have enough room here and are a pretty sharp developer you should be able to put a standard type road in there with a good base.

Mr. Bucko stated these are three lots deep and the drive at the end of this private road is going to be ending as an access into a driveway.

Mr. Rensberger stated this is correct.

Mr. Bucko stated he does see people bicker and find fault and they have problems. He stated that he doesn't see this driveway without having any kind of a turn-around and other things with that becoming a road that would have to make us require any kind of a requirement for a base. He stated it is a suggestion of Mr. Sheets and he concurs on what he says.

Mr. Burns stated he has no comment.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has nothing new to add.

Mr. Breitzke stated they are not doing a minor subdivision and they are creating three fairly large lots of better than three acres each on this parcel rather than doing a publicly improved road and doing a series of parcels, probably eight or so. He stated one of the comments he would have is that this private road doesn't affect it would if it were a County dedicated road, which by necessity would have some building setback lines. He stated the private road is actually an easement that pertains to the utilities, drainage and ingress/egress specifically for these individuals. He stated we will not plow it. He stated their expectations are that the school buses won't go down it. He stated mail delivery will typically be right at the street where the County would take care of CR 400 E. and that would be the extent of what our maintenance would be. He stated as long as that is clearly understood that we don't go in and plow this street. He stated that he feels very comfortable in knowing that they are going to have a driveway maintenance agreement. He stated we stress these things and many times they don't get done and it leaves for bad neighbor relations.



Commissioner Sheets moved to approve the primary plat for Case 03-P-4 and that at the final plat approval the road agreement for the maintenance of the private drive is in place, and the variance for the county road standards. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-P-5. Petition of Aberdeen Limited Partnership, 225 Aberdeen Drive, Suite D, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Aberdeen Phase "I" to be located on Larwick Circle, between Division Road and CR 100 N. in Union Township and Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 44 lots on 13.411 acres. Property Zoned PUD.)

Barb Young stated she is President of Benchmark Limited. She stated they are developers of Aberdeen. She stated this plat shows you the entire development of Aberdeen. She stated Phase I is the last phase to complete the development and this is the area that they call the "Fairways." She stated to the north the area is called the "Links." She stated it is 44 lots. She stated they have been before the Commission on a couple of occasions so the Commission is very familiar with this area. She stated because of the unusual manner in which Aberdeen has come before you, the original Aberdeen was developed as a Planned Residential District before the PUD ordinance. She stated this one little segment is a standalone ordinance because the ordinances have changed since this has been started. She stated the basis though of the entire development and the incorporation of the 44 lots is really considered part of all of Aberdeen. She stated density of residential units in Aberdeen is less than if it were developed as an R-1, Single Family neighborhood. She stated these are small lots to be developed as single-family villas. She stated the ordinance has been passed by the County Commissioners and the plat, as presented to the Commission, does comply to all of the standards that were established by the PUD Ordinance in regard to front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks. She stated they have incorporated the preservation easement, which was something that was a concern to the other areas in Aberdeen, which they worked out with the County Commissioners. She stated they have also incorporated the landscaping requirements and the architectural control requirements, which is very similar to the rest of the neighborhoods in Aberdeen and they share with the Commission the covenants and restrictions for this area. She stated this is serviced by all public utilities, Valparaiso water and the Nature


Works Conservancy District. She stated the storm water drainage system is all incorporated into the overall storm water drainage for all of Aberdeen and they have been before the County Drainage Board for a second time in this particular area to make sure that they are satisfied. She stated that this does come to the Commission as approval from the Porter County Drainage Board. She stated this does come to the Commission with approval from TAC. She stated Bob Palm is here to answer any engineering questions.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Eric Mehlbeger stated he lives at 295 Larwick Circle in Aberdeen. He stated he spoke at the last meeting when this subdivision came up for review. He stated his question is have they increased the lot size. He stated that the PUD Ordinance is 11,000 square feet. He stated these lots were shown at 7500 square feet. He stated there was no attempt to even come close to being that. He stated there are other lots in Aberdeen that are under the old PRD but they are more centrally located and surrounded by other lots that are of larger sizes. He stated on the opposite side of this road is a different school district and right across the road is R-1, bigger farming type lot. He stated his question is he would like to see larger lots to have a gradual transition between the home sites that are there and the farmland.

Dave Burger stated he lives at 279 Durness Court. He stated we all have been here before and he agrees with what was said by Mr. Mehlberger. He stated unfortunately the spokesman for their neighborhood had been out of town on vacation. He stated one of the things in the Highland Villas their houses are quite large. He stated a number of the neighbors who back up on the 4th fairway when they were sold their homes were told that the area across the fairway would not be developed. He stated Ms. Young stated that this has always been in the plans. He stated they are concerned that the value of their homes is such that having houses that are half the value or a third of the value going up across from them is a determent. He stated they would like to see larger home sites. He stated they have agreed to preserve a few trees but if you look at the 4th fairway that side has a lot of trees on it and it is a very picturesque hole. He stated he would hate to see that deteriorate. He stated where some of those houses are going to be located along the 4th fairway, he could go walking where those houses are going to be and he can find ten to fifteen golf balls almost anytime he wants. He stated he was out there the other day and found four or five where houses will actually be placed. He stated he is concerned about a safety factor here and some house is going to get hit.

Ron Zdrojewski stated he lives at 87 N. 325 W. He stated he has been here before. He stated he lives on the property that is directly to the north from the little tongue of the property that is being developed. He stated that one of the first things that he wants to mention is that during the last committee meeting Mr. Sheets passed a motion and recommended that the plat be taken back and reworked based on what was felt to be improper lot size. He stated he believes that by the looks of the new plan it really doesn't come anywhere to the PUD recommendation of 11,000 square feet. He stated he is sure that the setbacks also are beyond the normal recommendation. He stated he still has an objection the way it is presented. He stated he feels that the lot sizes are a bit consistent with the adjacent property in particular with his property to the north and the property to the west and to the south. He stated he doesn't believe it should be approved and it should be sent back. He stated they should come back with a plan that is more consistent with the adjacent properties.

Mike Cole stated he lives at 290 Turnberry Court. He stated he lives across the golf course from the proposed development. He stated he would like to echo what everyone has already said. He stated he has a problem with them changing the lot sizes and lowering the requirement after he purchased his property. He stated they purchased property there with the understanding of what the standards were and now after they purchased they hear the developer wants to change those standards.

Ms. Young stated the smallest lot is 8500 square feet, which is the lot size that the Commissioners approved in the PUD ordinance. She stated all of these lots conform to the minimum lot size, which was approved as part of the PUD ordinance. She stated there never was an ordinance for Aberdeen that said 11,000 square feet. She stated there has been a tremendous misunderstanding about the standards in Aberdeen. She stated Aberdeen was not developed as a PUD. She stated it was developed as a Planned Residential District. She stated there are lots significantly smaller than 7000 square feet throughout Aberdeen. She stated the 11,000 number comes from the County's ordinance and from the previous PUD for the "Links" which does not apply to any other portion of Aberdeen. She stated it is confusing. She stated it is confusing because they started under one County ordinance and these last two parcels have come in under different ordinances. She stated you tend to look at one small component instead of looking at the whole thing. She stated when you are dealing with the Planned Unit Development or Planned Residential


District you have to look at the entire area because the idea is to cluster density and offset that with open space. She stated as you can see throughout Aberdeen every single shaded lot here, she believes, was 7500 square feet. She stated every shaded lot is less than 11,000 square feet and the area directly across from this Phase, the "Highland Villas," there are 12 lots in that area alone where the lots are less than 11,000 and there are some that are less than 8500. She stated the gentleman, Ron, who lives in this area already has small lots that adjoin his property in the "Links," which was already approved as part of Aberdeen. She stated for you to look at Phase I as it fits into all of Aberdeen. She stated it is consistent the way that they have developed around the golf course. She stated she would be the last one to say that a golf ball will not hit a house. She stated she lives on the golf course and she knows golf balls can go any which direction. She stated the golf course was designed with certain safety standards and the width of their fairways and the width of the rough areas are in full conformance to the standards of golf course construction. She stated it was always planned that there would be residential development along this area because this area up to here was included in the original Aberdeen development. She stated the only thing that they added is this little seven-acre parcel. She stated this was part of the original development. She stated the way they have controlled values and they are very concerned about the quality of construction and the retention of value from this neighborhood. She stated it is through their architectural control and through the neighborhood development standards, which they have for every single neighborhood. She stated the standard in Phase I are the same exterior construction and landscaping as in the "Fairways" where Eric and Mike live. She stated these will be smaller dwellings and this is a different kind of lifestyle product but that doesn't mean that the architectural standards are going to be different. She stated there never was an ordinance for Aberdeen that said 11000 square feet. She stated they now have an ordinance just for Phase I, which has already been approved and passed by the County Commissioners with the minimum lot size of 8500. She stated that everything that is on the plat before you conforms to the PUD Ordinance for this particular phase.

Mr. Mehlberger stated she has shown the plat with smaller lots shown throughout there, but it is not smaller lot next to smaller lot. He stated it is smaller lots interspersed within the larger lots in those areas. He stated the area that Ms. Young is showing it is consistently smaller lots.

Mr. Zdrojewski stated his property does not have any property adjacent to it that has small lot sizes. He stated it is all farm ground around his property. He stated all the


properties adjacent to his property are all R-1. He thinks that Aberdeen needs to be sensitive to the fact that they have rural people living there too as well as just the Aberdeen neighborhoods.

Mr. Burger stated he would like to point out one thing. He stated if you look out from the "Villas" back towards the "Fairways" along the 3rd fairway the houses there are basically custom built. He stated the exterior of the back and front is basically different from every other house. He stated there is a different aesthetic value. He stated if you look at these houses they are almost postage stamp from living in New York. He stated the only thing different is the elevations on the front. He stated the rear is all vinyl siding and it looks the same. He stated you are going to go along that fairway and they are all going to look identical. He stated it will not look like the same caliber of all of the other houses.

Mr. Cole stated he believes that the PUD amended part of the PRD and when that was done it changed the requirements at that point. He stated he still objects to changing requirements after a purchase it made.

Ms. Young stated she would like to point out that they do have an area almost identical to the lining on hole #4. She stated on hole #2 are essentially the same size lots. She stated they are actually duplexes as opposed to individual single-family lots. She stated it is the same product and the same kind of line up along the hole. She stated they did the same thing along Tower Road. She stated it is very consistent and has been in the plan from the very beginning. She stated you have to look at the whole Planned Residential Development. She stated it is consistent with what was approved by the BZA and the Plan Commission back in 1996.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets stated before we got into the PUD ordinance it came out of here with a negative vote. He stated the Commissioners approved it with certain changes. He stated one of those changes was that a preservation agreement would be in place. He stated he thinks that there was going to be some removal of the trees and we have an agreement that they have to be committed to and that is that those trees will stay. He stated the other thing is they did change the size of those lots. He stated with those two that is why the Commissioners agreed to it. He stated those people who are suggesting that they built houses on lots compared to either their lot or other lots, that is fine, but in a PRD or a PUD that is exactly what it is and that is to have different size lots. He stated there are reasons for that. He stated give and take. He stated this is the idea of a PRD and a PUD. He stated they certainly have done that and the beautiful golf course is the benefit of that, which you people take part in. He stated people who have big lots and would like to have the other lots the size of their lots, there are other lots within this development that are the same size. He asked if they are building houses there now.

Ms. Young stated no.

Commissioner Sheets stated they are talking about the kind of houses you are going to put there and how do they know that.

Ms. Young stated they have a single builder that has developed a product that they have gone to Crown Point to look at. She stated they have not seen this exact product.

Commissioner Sheets asked if the builder is going to build the same type that he has there where they could've gone to see.

Ms. Young stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no comment.

Mr. Mahnic stated he can't change anything. He stated this is already an ordinance and it has been approved. He stated this is the way it is going to go in. He stated he doesn't agree with it. He stated it doesn't mean that he doesn't agree with some of the things that the Commissioners do but they have a right to that. He stated he was a proponent for denying this and it carried. He stated he has not agreed with the PUD since it was approved. He stated we allow a developer to just tear the ordinances that we have in a defying way of doing things and do what they want. He stated he doesn't think enough thought was given in considering the ordinance. He stated he is going to tell you folks why. He stated under the PUD District it says, "A PUD District may only be established for parcels of real property whose original zoning classification were AG, RR, R-1, R-2 and R-3." He stated it doesn't say anything about a PRD before that or a PUD before that. He stated it goes on to say "at the time the application for establishment of a PUD district was filed."

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Mahnic that he brought this up before and we understand how you feel about the PUD and being a problem as far as he is concerned with the ordinance. He asked Mr. Mahnic if there were specific issues with Aberdeen.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has a right to express how he feels. He


stated he has a right to pick out these things for they are a matter of record to say what and how do they differ from this. He stated there is nothing he can do about the ordinance. He stated it is passed. He stated he has a right to comment on it just like the golfer did and just like the developer did. He stated he will take less time then some demonstrators out there. He stated to Mr. Breitzke if you want him to keep still just say, "Frank, shut up."

Mr. Breitzke stated we have discussed this before and he respects Mr. Mahnic's opinion. He stated we have a long agenda tonight.

Mr. Poparad stated he would like to hear what Mr. Mahnic has to say. He stated he is new to this Board.

Mr. Mahnic stated that he would like the record to indicate that he was asked to be quiet.

Mr. Breitzke stated he did not ask Mr. Mahnic to keep quiet.

Mr. Mahnic stated the time it took to argue with him he could've been done.

Mr. Breitzke stated he apologizes but we need to keep moving.

Mr. Mahnic stated we are here because we have different opinions and we are here to express them. He stated he is here to represent the golfer, the homeowner who bought a big house. He stated he cannot do anything about that. He stated he has a right to say here are the things that this is deficient in. He stated this is the reason he doesn't like the PUD ordinance. He stated this is the reason maybe Thompson will come back and help us change the ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are not debating the PUD ordinance. He stated we are talking about this specific ordinance.

Mr. Mahnic stated this specific ordinance violates a lot of this. He stated he can't do anything about it because it is approved. He stated he can tell you the dissatisfaction just briefly. He stated there are only four lots in this development that meet the width requirements of the ordinance. He stated not this ordinance but the PUD ordinance. He stated there are only four lots that meet the square footage. He stated we allow, not only this developer, all developers to do what they want and he thinks it is wrong.


Mr. Breitzke stated he apologizes to Mr. Mahnic.

Mr. Mahnic stated he apologizes to Mr. Breitzke.

Mr. Bucko stated he has no comment.

Mr. Burns stated he has no comment.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no comment.

Commissioner Sheets stated what he hears Frank talking about is not this particular item. He stated what he hears Frank talking about is the PUD Ordinance and that it ought to be changed. He stated this is why we need a Planner to do that and he agrees with Frank 100% on that. He stated when Frank sits here to show his displeasure with the PUD that is fine. He stated Mr. Mahnic has done this several times but it has nothing to do with this, other than Frank's displeasure. He stated the PUD has a proper place in Porter County. He stated as we went through two or three years of meetings on the Land Use Plan and a PUD is part of that. He stated there is a good reason to have a PUD in his mind. He stated he and Frank can clearly disagree on it but there is a good reason for it.

Commissioner Sheets move to approve Case 03-P-5. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Bucko stated he would like to ask just for clarification. He stated that he understands that the ordinance is passed. He stated his concern is when we discussed this the last time he made the comment on the shaded areas and there were points being made in the favor of the fact that we do have smaller lots then 11000 spread out across the entire development. He stated he felt that this was a stance made by the developer to show favoritism toward the fact that there are lesser lots in there and would standing on the fact that there wasn't 11000. He stated there was in fact an 11000 square foot standard but there were variances in that standard as it was spread out. He stated his personal feeling is and the reason he denied it the last time was the fact that there was a continued larger roll than normal and the entire piece being larger than normal with consistent smaller lots. He stated as Frank and as Commissioner Sheets has pointed out the PUD Ordinance allows for lots that size and we can't turn around and say that this can't be done. He asked if he was correct in assuming that.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.


Mr. Poparad stated he is a little confused on why we are asking for a vote. He stated this has already been approved by the Commissioners. He asked if that is all we are doing is rubber-stamping it.

Mr. Breitzke stated what we are approving is the primary plat. He stated that this is now a subdivision.

Mr. Poparad asked what happens if this is turned down.

Mr. Breitzke stated then they go back to the drawing board.

Commissioner Sheets stated if you have the legal basis for it and we vote it down then they have to take that plan back and make some changes and come back at a proper time and present it. He stated they also have the right to go to court but they don't normally do that. He stated they normally go back and revisit the plan.

Mr. Breitzke stated the bottom line is that they have to follow their ordinance and we have to have findings of fact if they don't follow it.

Mr. Poparad stated it is a concentration of small lots like Mike said.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to make it clear. He stated we don't really disagree with Frank. He stated we have met a few times already. He stated the County Attorney, our Plan Commission Attorney, a couple of other attorneys, Mr. Nigro and himself have met on amending our PUD Ordinance and supplementing with some of the issues that we are discovering with experience. He stated this ordinance was written before most of our time. He stated in some respect he guesses we are off the hook but then on the other hand we have the benefit of learning on how this works. He stated he thinks that we can approve it. He stated for Franks benefit as well as for the rest of us we are working on it.

Attorney Schaefer stated unless you can point out some substantial deviation with what she has in the ordinance.

Mr. Poparad stated if they meet the ordinance, he is not denying that, he disagrees with the ordinance and he disagrees with the way they are applying this ordinance to this development. He stated we have their own residents in here about the concentration of small lots. He stated as far as he is concerned they are putting up a trailer park and the only thing that they don't have is the wheels.



Mr. Biddinger stated the PUD Ordinance is designed to allow a developer to basically a reword system. He stated if they leave so much area open as green space, such as the golf course or the wooded lot that has been added in since the last time this came through. He stated a way to compensate for that is smaller lot sizes. He stated there is demand for the product. He stated it has been illustrated before. He stated he thinks that this is outside of the Master Plan. He stated it might be outside of some people ideals but it still fits within the Comprehensive Plan of the County. He stated he can definitely see both sides of the story here.

Motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - No
Mahnic - No Poparad - No Sheets - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard at the May 14, 2003 meeting.

Case 03-P-6. Petition of Brooks Development, LLC, 308 E. 316 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Brooks Industrial Park to be located on the West side of CR 325 E. between CR 300 N. and CR 400 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 7 lots on 13.5 acres. Property zoned I-1 and I-2.)

Don Bengel stated this is the balance of the industrial property between Evans Avenue on the south and Deerfield Park Subdivision on the north and ISK manufacturing is on the east side of CR 325 E. He stated on the present site they have their own office building and shop that is located on parcel E. He stated they would like to sell the other six parcels. He stated they are asking for one variance and that is to allow a private road that will be built according to county standards. He stated the road itself will be part of parcel E. He stated the maintenance on that road will be done by either Brooks or the five owners inside and same thing with the drainage. He stated it will be maintained by Brooks with a proposed retention pond. He stated the outlet for that pond goes south to an existing pond. He stated the land is zoned I-1 and I-2. He stated the north 495 feet is zoned I-1 and was rezoned. He stated at one time the whole parcel was zoned I-2. He stated the south approximately 117 feet is zoned I-2. He stated the nature of the subdivision is pretty well laid out already along Evans Avenue and along CR 325 E. with Light Industrial and Commercial buildings going up. He stated the best thing about this piece of ground is the drainage. He stated it is awfully good sand out there and they have had no problems from anywhere from the lots along Evans Avenue or CR 325 E. creating any drainage problem. He stated they have very good absorption. He stated it is some of the best ground for septic systems.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Steve Dolak stated he lives at 397 N. 325 E. He stated the gentleman was talking and said he wanted an easement. He stated he could not hear him very well and he wishes he could explain it again. He stated he has a concern on the load on the road out there and the traffic on that road. He stated right now with the existing developments they have out there and the truck traffic trying to come into that area off of the By-Pass coming down CR 400 N. they try to make that bend onto CR 325 E. and the semi truck's keep running into the yards there. He stated they have the road on the south end of CR 325 E. destroyed. He stated the road won't handle additional load that is going to be put on it.

Carl Nowlin stated he lives at 328 N. 325 E. He stated he is concerned with the traffic up and down that road. He stated it is very, very busy now. He stated they are proposing to put a road in and it looks to him like it has already been subdivided. He stated there is a map with for sale signs up. He stated everything is in already. He stated when they put the road in he didn't see any silt fences in or any construction things to maintain all the water on the property. He stated he is very concerned with the additional traffic and the road being torn up. He stated they like to walk on CR 325 E. and the traffic on there right now makes it very hard to do with the business's already in there.

Pat Sweeny stated he lives at 371 N. 325 E. He stated he has concerns with the added traffic. He stated the road now is pulverized down to the base, which is coming through. He stated the entranceway out of CR 400 onto CR 325 E. is narrow and you have shrubbery on one corner and a utility pole on the other. He stated they are cutting the corner on properties. He stated he is concerned about the added traffic. He stated he would like to see the traffic being controlled either by coming in off of Evans and SR 2 and be kept away from the residential areas and concentrated down towards Evans Avenue for the industrial areas.

Wayne Swanson stated he lives at 310 E. Long Prairie, which is the road just north in that subdivision. He stated his property adjoins this property. He stated he doesn't know what they are going to build. He stated he knows it won't help his property value. He asked is it going to be clean, is it going to be noisy and is there going to be any kind of a buffer in there. He stated Mr. Bengel said something about a pond. He stated he has never seen a pond on this property.

Frieda Jones stated she lives at 344 Long Bow Court. She stated there is 35 plus houses in their subdivision. She stated it comes into one road that is real close to the entrance and to where these buildings could possibly go up. She stated she would like to know what is going to go in there and she is also concerned about the road. She stated with so many more trucks coming out onto CR 325 E. it proposes a problem with all of these cars out of their subdivision. She stated there is also the landscaping business there too. She stated she wanted to know what was going to be butted up to the subdivision. She stated the lots in the subdivision are half-acre lots and she is the seventh house down from the back of this property.

Bill Goodrich stated he lives at 320 Long Prairie. He stated that Mr. Bengel said the pond doesn't hold water but many of times that pond has been full. He stated they came down here once and talked to the County Surveyor back then and the surveyor made a remark about coming and taking a picture of it because he was told it wouldn't hold water and there was water up into their yard for about one week. He stated with that pond their perimeter drain goes in there and they haven't even finished developing the pond. He stated they were supposed to have stopped the builder at one point from going on to Section 2 until he finished it. He stated he started working on it and they let him go onto Section 2. He stated it is still not done and they are going to have more water going into that. He stated there is an old drain tile lying out there. He stated they buried his perimeter drain. He stated they extended the rest of it when they were redoing the pond. He stated with regards to CR 325 E. he can't see where this can handle any more traffic as it is. He stated he has a thing here from the Highway Engineer where they gave him a report and it says it is barely adequate for the traffic that there is now. He stated when they moved into their home in 1996 they were under the impression along Evans there could be pole barns and business's. He stated they were under the impression that the other part was going to be developed as housing. He stated the front of his house faces north but the main windows in his house are all on the south side looking right out on this development. He stated whatever they put back there is going to be the main view out of his house all the time.

Ray Smutniak stated he lives at 333 Deerfield Road. He stated he has a three year old and if he walks out in any direction he can see a school, a junkyard, a factory and a church. He stated they put this development in there and they have already built one huge building and they did nothing to put some type of barrier so when they walk out they see all this. He stated also he has noticed an increase in traffic and he is concerned about the safety of the people. He stated there are only three roads and three cul-de-sacs in this subdivision.

Ron Montague stated he lives at 318 Long Prairie Road. He stated his property abuts up to this. He stated he thinks that about four years ago they started to subdivide the front part of this. He stated if he is not mistaken at that time there was a road that came in off of Evans into that section of this plot plan. He stated now Smalls came in and bought all the way across the back. He stated now you can't come in off of Evans. He stated he doesn't know how that was done. He stated now you only have one back there. He stated last time we talked you said I-2 and I-1. He stated Mr. Leeth was the representative then. He stated he said they may possibly put in apartments on the back row that faces their property. He stated this is what they led them to believe at that time. He stated now he knows you can't believe what is not written out. He stated as far as the tree line, they should put some kind of buffer zone of trees along there. He stated they should have done that to begin with when they did this before. He stated this drain pond does not drain like it did before. He stated they went in there and messed it up. He stated it does hold water and it gets to four or five feet in some spots. He stated the drain pond in that subdivision is where Small has his land. He stated there was a pond dug and the trench went down CR 325 E. and back into the pond. He stated their pond goes into CR 325 E. ditch and Mr. Good went out there and dug the ditch himself to get it deeper so it would go down. He stated it was to go into the pond too. He stated they still have water. He stated Mr. Small uses another parcel of land to get into their back gates.

Cindy Moriarty stated she lives at 312 Long Prairie. She stated her property backs up and faces the ditch. She stated there is a line of trees there and she is concerned whether those trees are going to be cut down. She stated she is also concerned about the traffic on CR 325 E.

Jay Ramn stated that he lives at 340 Deerfield Road. He stated he has concerns about the road. He stated when there is enough snow and the snow melts there is enough ice on Evans Road that right after Inman's going into Valparaiso the road is absolutely clear. He stated when you come on this side of the road it is completely iced up and it is not taken care of. He stated this is a problem because when you think about CR 325 E. being iced up and you get trucks traveling on that road if there is going to be any amount of increase in traffic this is a real hazard to this town and the people that live in this subdivision. He stated we do have major problems in terms of trying to stop especially on the road that goes from Evans onto CR 325 E. He stated the other concern is you are going to have an industrial park close to a residential area. He stated some of his neighbors are going to have backyards facing into this and he thinks that this is completely unacceptable. He stated the terms of a standard of allowing people to live in nice homes you can't have that kind of an industrial complex coming so close to a residential area.

Joyce Alexa stated she lives at 337 Deerfield Road. She stated she has questions on what is going to be going in there and how is it going to affect all the comments from the neighbors, the road and the noise.

Todd Mera stated he lives at 333 Long Bow Court. He stated the road is a major issue. He stated they are all on wells out there and if the industrial companies are coming in he is afraid of getting toxic problems out there.

Tabitha Evans stated she lives at 345 Long Bow Court. She stated she has only been in the subdivision a little over a year. She stated within a years time, especially with the landscaping business, there are a number of trucks there now. She stated she understands that the semi-trucks can't go through town so they have to go onto SR 2 to get to Evans to the Industrial Park. She stated if they go to CR 400 they are going across the houses. She stated there is a telephone pole on that corner that they will either wipe out in someone's yard, which has happened already, and go through pass the houses that are there. She stated there was some done by a telephone pole. She stated they did some kind of work in the ditch there. She asked if this was part of the drainage. She asked where this was going. She asked if the amount of industry that comes in here will take some of our well water that we have and if her mind serves her correct Valpo is having to look at future water sources and where is it coming from. She stated if their wells dry up because of industry to the south, water travels south. She stated we already have a landscape business that runs water quite often. She stated this is taking up some of our wells already. She stated if we have bigger industries coming and there are rumors around of what they are it is going to increase the water outtake of what they have or the clean water that they have already. She stated her concern is what is going in there and what is it going to do to our subdivision that we live in.

Ralph Heavilin stated he lives at 331 N. Deerfield Road. He stated this is directly north of the property that they are talking about. He stated his main concern is what kind of industry is going in there as far as noise, air pollution and how is it going to affect property values.

Rob Jones stated he lives at 335 Long Bow Court. He stated he thinks that if you are going to approve a subdivision for where their subdivision is then you should not approve an industrial park right next to it. He stated this is not right.

Mr. Bengel stated he would first like to talk about the zoning. He stated to his knowledge this piece of ground has been zoned I-2 well before Deerfield Park ever went in. He stated he did Deerfield Park for the developer. He stated this property was always zoned I-2. He stated after some of the development started on Evans Avenue the Leffew's or Runk's came in and had the north part zoned I-1, which is a down zoning and helped the subdivision out. He stated this property has always been zoned I-1. He stated anyone who bought in that subdivision should have been aware that the present zoning was there at the time. He stated he is not sure what type of buildings will be going in there. He stated his assumption is that it would be similar to what has gone in there along Evans Avenue and CR 325 E. He stated anything that goes in has to conform to the I-1 zoning on the north side of the road. He stated on the south side of the road has a little bit of I-2 zoning on the very back of the ground. He stated most of that ground will be taken up by a proposed detention pond. He stated the water from this subdivision will not go into the pond in Deerfield Park. He stated it would have to run up hill. He stated Deerfield Park drains into their pond and then out to CR 325 E. across CR 325 E. and then east along Evans Avenue. He stated the water from this subdivision will drain into the proposed pond. He stated that pond now will go into on Small's and then there is an outlet that goes out to CR 325 E. and it follows the same course that Deerfield Park follows. He stated as far as the traffic on the road the best that this subdivision will do is that they have signed a road agreement and that was negotiated with the Commissioners and he believes that they are going to build an all weather road from Evans Avenue along the frontage at least of this subdivision. He stated he didn't realize that there were trucks going up CR 325 E. and then over. He stated it seems to him that the quality of the roads would say that trucks come in on SR 2 to access this area. He stated this is a policing matter between the Sheriff and the Commissioners. He stated when he said the pond didn't hold water he was talking about the pond on Small's property. He stated the pond for Deerfield Park holds some water and if it was dredged out and maintained he doubts that it would hold water very often. He stated someone was talking about an easement and what they are asking for is within the subdivision and that the private road will be on an easement but that easement will be owned by Lot E, which is owned by the developer. He stated this will be a private road just for this development. He stated normally they expect the uses that come into this subdivision will not be big water users. He stated they will also have wells. He stated there is no plan to put water in at this time. He stated he guesses after hearing that comment the landscaper may use some water but most of the other buildings to his knowledge will have very little use of water. He stated he doesn't expect any manufacturing processors to go in there. He stated the access that was on Evans Avenue was proposed. He stated if the whole interior had been subdivided, there would have been a road to come out. He stated Small did buy the south half of the ground that was left and along with that Small's own the proposed access that comes out to Evans Avenue. He stated that area was never subdivided and it was never a platted road and there was never an agreement to put a road in there.

Mr. Montague stated he thinks that as far as the plat he thought the plat was shown with Evans exit. He stated he doesn't see how they can sell it. He stated you make a subdivision up and then just because someone needs more land you can go ahead and block that access if it hasn't been sold. He stated he thinks that when you come with a plat this is the way it is and you can't change the plat. He stated as far as zone I-2 this is from Evans to this new proposed road. He asked if this was correct or is it zoned I-1. He stated that there are two apartments in that building and he thought if it was zoned for business how can you have apartments in there. He stated he thinks if you approve this it should be approved with a tree barrier along the north side. He stated even a double row of pine trees to block that subdivision. He stated it must be in writing or you won't get it.

Mario Bustos stated he lives at 348 Deerfield Road. He stated he believes the neighbors along that property should have a buffer and this gentleman did not address that.

Debbie Goodrich stated she would like to reiterate what her husband Bill said and what Ron has said about the row of trees buffering. She stated when you walk into their house they have ten foot ceilings and their living room has ten foot ceilings. She stated when you walk in their front door you see directly out a huge window and that window views whatever is put there. She stated a row of trees would definitely be more aesthetic and appealing.

Mr. Nowlin stated there was nothing mentioned about the existing road that is already there. He stated Mr. Bengel is acting like there is a road there now and it is already subdivided. He stated there is a sign up offering lots for sale. He stated he thinks that this should be stopped or changed. He stated obviously someone didn't have planning put together when they allowed Small's to make it so they couldn't make an exit onto Evans Avenue. He asked what kind of business was going in there. He stated obviously they have to have some type of an idea what business is going in there. He stated their poor planning shouldn't hurt the rest of that neighborhood.

Mr. Dolak stated Mr. Bengel still didn't address the heavy equipment or trucks getting in there because right now they go down CR 400 N. from the By-Pass and they still try to make that turn on CR 325 E. He stated it happens daily. He stated there are other problems there because no one pays attention to the frost laws. He stated the semi-trucks take a short cut through town down CR 400 N. He stated they have to address the traffic situation there.

Mr. Smutniak stated Mr. Bengel said that this was already zoned for I-1 and I-2 and that was done before the subdivision was put in. He stated he thinks that this is a poor excuse because the road that he is on is only four years old. He stated if that is the case then where does he go as a person wanting to build a house to find out that lot that wasn't even there, is zoned for industry.

Mr. Ramn stated if there is going to be an agreement on trees going in the buffer zone they have to be very specific about what exactly is going in there and how many trees are going in there.

Mr. Bengel stated first of all there was no prior subdivision.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Bengel if he knew the date that this was rezoned I-1 and I-2.

Mr. Bengel stated he is not sure.

Mr. Breitzke asked what date did they do the subdivision.

Mr. Bengel stated he thinks that this was done in the late 1970's. He stated someone made the comment that I-2 went up to the boundary of the subdivision. He stated this isn't true. He stated approximately 117 feet of Brooks Development is zoned I-2. He stated he believes a buffer will be required between industrial and residential and that will be done as part of the development. He stated this is a matter of law and it is required. He stated Brooks built that road that is already servicing his office which sits all the way back on parcel E. at the west end of the subdivision. He stated they haven't finished that road and they have to do some grading. He stated they also have to put some culverts across the road and they have to put the final asphalt on top. He stated he wasn't aware that the traffic on CR 400 N. and CR 325 E. was coming there but that is up to the Commissioners and the Sheriff to be concerned about that. He stated also with the violation of frost laws this is strictly a police action. He stated Small does have two access's. He stated they have the 60-foot access down Evans Avenue and then they have their access where the building sits on CR 325 E. He stated again there has never been a subdivision there so that road was never platted. He stated it was just left as an access to the next parcel. He stated when someone buys any property it is wise to go to the Plan Commission and investigate what the zoning is of the surrounding parcels. He stated this is public record and easy to ascertain. He stated he can assure you that this was all zoned I-2 before the subdivision started. He stated as far as the type of businesses that would go in there they would mirror what is already there, small industrial and commercial. He stated the lots aren't that big to handle anything major. He stated he would say the typical sizes of these lots are about 257 feet by 200 feet. He stated Parcel E is bigger and Parcel D is bigger. He stated these are the ones that fit back in the corner. He stated Parcel E also has a NIPSCO easement going through it so there can't be too much built on that one. He stated there are still two or three vacant industrial sites north of the proposed road that haven't been built on yet but have been sold. He stated he would like to mention that the subdivision does meet the requirements of the ordinance.

Mr. Montague stated he understands the industrial zone was there but Deerfield Park, Mark Good bought it, he thinks there was a grandfather clause in there. He stated this has to go back ten or fifteen years. He stated the first part of the subdivision had Long Bow Court and that's all it was and went back to CR 325 E. He stated the first two lots north of Deerfield Park Road was included in that subdivision. He stated there was supposed to be a deceleration lane there and they never got the deceleration lane because of the grandfather clause. He asked when they say there is going to be a buffer zoned when are they going to do the buffer zone. He asked if they are going to do it now or as they sell the property off. He stated if it is then you are talking about another five to ten years. He stated he thinks that the trees should be at least five to ten feet tall before they start.

Mr. Smutniak stated he was going to say something about the buffer zone too. He stated they made mention that doing that park they would almost have to put a buffer zone in there. He stated they already have one building in there and they haven't done anything yet for a buffer zone. He stated we will need something written to say that they are actually going to do it.

Mrs. Evans asked was their driveway originally suppose to be on Evans Avenue and Small's came in and bought it. She stated she doesn't understand this. She stated as for the road that is going back to Brook's she would like to see how much more work they are going to do because it looks pretty good to her right now.

Mr. Bengel stated for them to talk to Mr. Schelling because he doesn't think the road looks all that good. He stated it doesn't have the final asphalt on it yet. He stated it will look better than what it looks now. He stated there will be two culverts inside to carry the drainage from the north to the south. He stated he doesn't know about any grandfather clause. He stated when Deerfield Park was platted the entire subdivision was platted all the way back to CR 325 E. He stated the first street that was built was Long Bow Court. He stated when Mr. Good picked up the subdivision he put that street in. He stated with the second phase he put the next street in and the cul-de-sac. He stated he has one more phase to go. He stated the primary plat of this subdivision was done all at one time. He stated the whole subdivision has been final platted but hasn't all been constructed yet. He stated Brooks did not put in a buffer zone because the piece of property that they bought for their building was separate from the rest of the land. He stated their piece of property does not abut the north property line; otherwise they would have put in a buffer in at that time.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets stated he has been in the subdivision and there were some problems with the developer, Mark Good. He stated based on your phone calls to him they finally got him to move and get things done. He stated he knows you appreciated this because you called and told him so. He stated the general comment that he will make is that this is already zoned I-1. He stated a lot of things can go in there on 13 acres of I-1. He stated a lot of things you don't want. He stated when you subdivide that into smaller lots there is less. He stated you will find that when they subdivide this industrial park from 13 acres down to two or three acres there is less of an unsightly or unwanted venture going in there. He stated let him suggest that you are better off rather than have thirteen acres of one industry because that industry could be something you really don't want. He stated we have a road agreement. He stated the Commissioner's have negotiated with Mr. Brooks. He stated they have agreed that they are going to pay over $1350 a lot. He stated you people who have moved in recently and got a driveway permit paid $750. He stated he thinks that developments pay that amount.

Mr. Bengel stated he didn't think that Deerfield Park paid that much because that was some time ago.

Commissioner Sheets stated that is correct. He stated the reason that we have asked them to contribute $1350 is that this portion from the far property line to Evans Avenue will be improved once they give us their money, not your tax dollars, to an all weather road so the traffic can go in and out of there. He stated as far as the traffic and trucks going on the rest of the road there is a possibility, and he is not promising you a dog gone thing, because he is not sure what is exactly there and the County Engineer has to take a look at it, but there are potentials. He stated it may be posted and if it is then we can enforce it. He stated if our engineer requires or recommends it, we can post to limits and keep heavier trucks off there. He stated he can't promise anything because maybe there is a reason for it that he doesn't know about but it is something that can be investigated that CR 325 E. can be posted with weight limits enforced. He stated he expects the heavier traffic to use Evans Avenue rather than CR 325 E. He stated he heard a couple of people say that CR 325 E. is not in good shape. He stated we are now putting together our list on what roads the County is going to do. He stated that if it is not on the list he will get a hold of the Highway Superintendent tomorrow to get it on the list and to get out there and inspect it. He stated we do have some money. He stated we don't have money for government but we have money for roads. He stated if the road needs it we can get out there and do it. He stated when they will do that it might be in conjunction with doing the all weather road. He stated you said the owner in there now, Mr. Brooks, owns a lot and he is going to be responsible for maintaining the private road. He stated we need to have this in writing. He stated Mr. Brooks may sell his own lot and we have to have something in writing, a covenant, that says who will take care of it. He asked if there was any way that they can get onto Evans out of there.

Mr. Bengel stated no.

Commissioner Sheets stated that it is required by Ordinance that they put in a barrier. He stated he wants specifically if the law will allow it to require them to put mature planting in there. He stated do this at the proper time of year and spring is coming. He stated he needs to know when and maybe they can have it in there when they come for final approval. He stated also if any of these plantings die you have to replace them.

Mr. Poparad stated he agrees with the berm thing. He stated we have a residential subdivision surrounded by industrial zoned land.

Commissioner Sheets stated it is abutting the industrial zoned land.

Mr. Poparad stated you have residential subdivision abutting industrial zoned land. He stated how did this get passed.

Mr. Breitzke stated we inherited it.

Mr. Poparad asked what was there first. He stated someone allowed a subdivision to abut up to industrial zoned land.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes or vise versa. He stated they said it was 1975 was the original Deerfield Park and then it got rezoned to the south with Runk and Leffew.

Mr. Bengel stated he is not sure how the subdivision was zoned at the time. He stated at the time he doesn't think you needed rezoning. He stated you could put a subdivision in AG land, if it was AG land at the time. He stated the industrial zone to the best of his knowledge was always there. He stated it abutted Evans Avenue. He stated to the east you have the former INDOX plant and now it is ISK, which has a big piece that goes past the folks in the subdivision.

Mr. Mahnic stated there was six items to be approved on February 28 when it went out of TAC. He stated it was subject to the road agreement, Drainage Board approval, keeping the pipe down, upsizing the pipe from 12 to 24, a note on the plat regarding zoning, and an emergency overflow on the pond. He asked if this was all complete.

Mr. Bengel stated yes. He stated they just turned in the road agreement and it is signed by Mr. Brooks after discussion with Mr. Sheets. He stated everything else was taken care of. He stated they were at the Drainage Board on Monday and due to a technicality they didn't take final action. He stated they said they would not require a regulated drain since the owner is not going to do the maintenance.

Mr. Mahnic asked if they are in agreement with the six recommendations.

Mr. Bengel stated the one recommendation was a suggestion that if it needed it to increase the size of the pipe.

Mr. Mahnic stated it says "upsizing the pipe from 12 to 24 inch."

Mr. Bengel stated it is 24 inch on the plat.

Mr. Mahnic stated if he makes a motion to approve this he certainly will make sure all six of those items are in there as part of the motion. He stated as far as from I-2 to I-1 he looked briefly at what you can do and you cannot put up a slaughter house in I-1 or I-2, or a dump in there. He stated when we see what you are going to put in there we still will have to approve what is going to go in there.

Mr. Bengel stated each development or each lot that is purchased and a proposal for a site has to come to TAC for a site review.

Mr. Bucko stated the only portion of this that is I-2 is the eastern portion of it.

Mr. Bengel stated just the south 117 feet.

Mr. Bucko stated everything else is zoned I-1. He asked if he is right in saying that if you are zoned I-1 that you are restricted to any outside storage and you are not allowed to have outside storage.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this is correct.

Mr. Bengel stated there could be outside storage on the south 117 feet.

Mr. Bucko asked if there is anything in the ordinance, rather than a berm being developed at ground level, if there is a mound created and then you have an instantaneous six, eight or ten feet of mound that then has evergreens that are mature size on there and that cuts down on this the site. He stated he would suggest that they put in something like this.

Mr. Burns stated he would like to make the same comment. He stated he would like to see a berm with trees or greenery on top of it. He stated this would also help the noise level too.

Mr. Biddinger stated you guys are going to hate me because I'm going to say don't use the berm. He stated being a Horticulturist if you plan on a berm, especially if they use the sandy soil that exists in that area, he will be out looking at those trees within about five years. He stated the roots will dry out. He stated there are ways to do it and there are ways to put those trees in on a raised bed that could be a benefit. He stated that a lot of the comments that he was thinking have been addressed at this point. He stated he has a copy of Title 17 Code book and looking at what is allowable under an I-1 zoning and almost anything that is allowable under C-1 zoning is also allowed under I-1 zoning. He stated this is a pretty versatile piece of property and it can be more than just what you picture as being industry. He stated he would like the neighbors to keep that it mind as it progresses as well.

Mr. Breitzke stated he agrees with Mr. Biddinger and the buffer is a requirement. He stated he thinks that we need an engineer bonded solution so that we know that if the trees die or have to be replaced that they will be replaced for the protection and screening of the people out there. He stated unfortunately this isn't a zoning hearing because some of the concerns that he would have is the lighting, hours of operation, the noise and any noxious smells of the business's coming in. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Sheets. He stated there is going to be severe limitations on the nature of the businesses. He stated these are going to be smaller facilities and they won't be able to accommodate a manufacturing type of business in most cases. He stated as far as drainage he is still not pleased with the way things worked out in Deerfield Park. He stated if there was a possibility of having some kind of overflow from the pond through the property he thinks this is still worth investigating, from Deerfield Parks pond just to help alleviate that. He stated they fulfilled that design requirement of having an outlet. He stated it was about three feet above the bottom of the pond. He stated this never really pleased TAC and this might be an opportunity to help take care of that too as well as protect your property should we have some problems with that pond. He stated they have discussed at length your developer is going to put up money for an all weather road. He stated that this is one of the problems with CR 325 E.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 03-P-6 contingent on the basis that the recommendations made by TAC are included and working out a buffer plan. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-P-7. Petition of Cindy Hall, 2003 Old Oak Dr., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Rah's

Subdivision to be located on the West side of SR 49, between CR 400 S. and CR 500 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 4 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Eric Banschbach stated he is representing Emil Beeg Land Surveyor, Inc. as agent for Cindy Hall. He stated they are requesting a primary plat approval for a four lot major subdivision. He stated the reason they are here in front of the Plan Commission instead of going through a minor subdivision is because a previous parcel included with the parent parcel that this parcel was included was previously developed into a minor subdivision as shown on the plat, the ten acre parcel to the south. He stated both developments will utilize a single access off of SR 49, which was required by the State Highway Department. He stated the access to their four lots will use a separate driveway utilizing that single access, which they are requesting a variance on the county dedicated road requirement and propose a private road built with County spec base and width but not with the asphalt lifts and sealer. He stated this is shown on the cross section on page 2. He stated there will also be a driveway maintenance agreement on the final plat for the agreement between the four lots to maintain the driveway. He stated the parcels are consistent with the surrounding developments to the south and to the north as well as the metes and bounds parcels to the west.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no comments.

Mr. Burns stated that he has no problems with this.

Mr. Bucko stated he sees no objections.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has a little problem with meeting the county standards on that road. He asked if this is a private road.

Mr. Banschbach stated that it will be a private road.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is sure that they understand and the people who build in there will understand that they are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the road. He stated when the road goes in he would like to see a good base go in.



Mr. Poparad stated he is fine with it.

Commissioner Sheets asked if there will be covenants to show who will maintain the road.

Mr. Banschbach stated there will be a driveway maintenance agreement.

Commissioner Sheets moved to approve Case 03-P-7. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-Z-3. Petition of Bank Calumet Trustee No. 5011, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential, to R-1, Single Family Residential to allow for a major subdivision to be located on the Southwest corner of CR 500 W. and CR 100 S. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of the petitioner, Bank Calumet Trust and the beneficiary of that Trust, Gemini Development who is developing the property as a major subdivision as was indicated. He stated they are seeking a zone change for the 126-acre parcel that is located on the south side of CR 100 S., which is this location. He stated their frontage is right in this area. He stated this is the railroad right-of-way and the corner piece, the corner proper, is not part of the petition. He stated CR 500 W. forms their eastern boundary, where the access to the subdivision would be located. He stated you might recall that last December this property was the subject of a rezoning petition, which was favorably recommended and adopted by the Board of Commissioners. He stated when his office, along with McMahon and Associates hired to represent the petitioner for this plat, during that time discovered that there was an error in notifications last year for the rezoning petition. He stated now they have returned to the Commission with a new filed zoning petition with the proper notice, they believe, now given to the all of the property owners. He stated he personally searched the records himself to arrive at the list and notice has been given pursuant to State Code and the County's zoning ordinance. He stated given the fact that this has already been through the process there may be some members of the public here who were not invited last time that may have questions.



No one spoke in favor of this petition.

David VanDenburgh stated he lives at 131 S. 580 W. He stated his concern still remains about the water table with that number of homes going in there all on wells. He stated in addition to all the meetings he has been to he didn't know Indiana Department of Environmental Management did not have any indication whatsoever that Lake Eliza Conservancy District has requested an approval to accept all of the affluent that would be generated here. He stated he is concerned that this entire subdivision will be served by Lake Eliza Volunteer Fire Department. He stated the only two real exits will be on CR 500 W. not in the ideal area for traffic.

Tom Kleban stated that he lives on 143 S. 500 W. He stated he has the same concerns as his neighbor. He asked if they consulted with a hydro geologist to make sure that there is adequate water supply there. He stated you are looking at 200 homes. He asked if Lake Eliza District actually is capable of handling this. He stated he has seen the records and according to their data they say yes. He stated if you walk back there and looked at it, it is not very much of anything. He asked what would be the environmental impact of the discharge that goes into Ludington Creek. He asked if this has been considered. He stated you have two entrances and one of them is almost right across the street from his house. He stated they figured 2.5 cars per household. He stated they are looking at 195 houses. He stated they are in the neighborhood of about 500 cars a day going down that road. He stated the Highway Commission has designated CR 100 S. and CR 500 W. as a bicycle route. He stated his concerns are safety. He stated his little daughter stands out there to catch the school bus and now we are going to have a couple hundred more cars a day coming by there. He stated he would like to see the zoning stay the same and not go to R-1, so that there is less density. He stated then we wouldn't get 200 houses in there. He stated it would be more like 100 houses. He also wants to know what kind of covenants and what type of subdivision are you looking at. He asked if there are going to be modular homes allowed. He stated he doesn't want to see his property value go down.

Cathy Kleban stated she lives at 143 S. 500 W. She stated she works in the Boone Grove District Schools and the Wheeler District Schools as a substitute teacher. She stated she is also concerned with the many children that are being picked up by the school on CR 500 W. that have to cross CR 500 W. to get on the school bus. She stated also across the street are tons of wildlife.



Mr. Leeth stated first of all there have been a lot of names associated with this development. He stated this is the corporate reality of a sophisticated and large developer, which is his client. He stated they have associated different names with different groups and different corporate entities that they do business under in their areas of development. He stated that they have used different names for different purposes and the petitioner that is on this particular petition is in fact the true and legal title property holder. He stated this is the name he chose to file the petition under. He stated obviously a Bank Trustee Company isn't going to be the one that builds the roads, streets, detention ponds and so forth. He stated this is going to be Gemini Development or one of the other entities that he has referred to. He stated he wanted to answer all of that because he didn't want the public or the Commission to think that there has been some change in ownership and different people involved. He stated the Lake Eliza Conservancy District will be providing sanitary sewer for this subdivision. He stated they have granted them a letter and this is part of the record. He stated Indiana Department of Environmental Management was referred to as not knowing anything about this. He stated they will not know anything about this until they file an application to extend the sewer line from its terminus to this subdivision. He stated this requires an IDEM permit. He stated to his knowledge this has not been filed. He stated what has been filed and approved by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is the permission to have the sewer utility service this 126 acres. He stated this is called a Certificate of Territorial Authority. He stated this has been approved by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, so this property is in the service territory for the conservancy district. He stated obviously to go through this process requires proof to that entity that there is capacity and that they can service this development. He stated the gentleman is correct. He stated the current plan is to provide for individual water wells within this development. He stated Indiana American Water Company is about one and a half miles away. He stated this has always been an alternative and frankly maybe some time in the future. He stated that's all he can do concerning traffic is tell you that there are within close proximity to this a couple different subdivision. He stated Summer Tree is not too far away to the west on CR 100 S. He stated located across the street is another subdivision as well. He stated he thinks that you should know that just north of CR 100 S. this land in this area and to the east of CR 500 W. on the east side is already zoned R-1. He stated it is not much of a stretch to provide for this as a natural extension of those already existing R-1 developments. He stated his client is in the business of building homes and developing subdivision. He stated they will provide him at some point, the comprehensive restrictive covenants. He stated he doesn't know and he can't tell you at this time, what those requirements are going to be. He stated with regards to school bus safety issues and school children accessing the school buses, at least for this subdivision because of its size, the school buses will actually enter into the subdivision so that the school children will not have to be gaining access to the school bus out on the county road. He stated they will be internally located within the subdivision. He stated he does not want to go into a whole lot of detail. He stated he doesn't have the project engineer with him this evening on a zoning change request. He stated the reason for that is, assuming they have approval from this Body and the Board of Commissioners, they will be back to the Commission next month at the May meeting asking for primary plat approval for this subdivision. He stated at that time the Subdivision Ordinance and all of the development issues are most appropriate. He stated right now the issue is trying to confirm the error that was made in the notices in the earlier adoption of the zoning change. He stated he wanted to focus on the use of the property as single family, R-1, development.

Mr. Kleban stated the property on the east side of CR 500 W. is rural residential already. He stated he doesn't know where the R-1 is located. He stated he is not sure of the subdivision to the north of that but everyone on the east side of CR 500 W. is rural residential already. He stated that his question was not answered if they ever consulted a hydro-geologist to see if there is enough water over there. He stated as far as the school children, they are not talking about the school children in the subdivision. He stated they are talking about existing school children that are on CR 500 W. today.

Mr. Leeth stated as far as a hydro-geologist, he doesn't know if the project engineer, who is McMahon and Associates, has done that. He stated again we are here on a use issue or a use question. He stated the engineers will be here to answer those specific questions, assuming they can get past the zoning issues and back to the plat issues at the May meeting. He stated that there was a question on the zoning classification for the property on the east side of CR 500 W. He stated he is referring to the Porter Township zoning map. He stated this map is a 1983 map and he assumes that it has been that way since the adoption of the current zoning ordinance for Porter County and probably even pre-dates that back to 1974. He stated the current zoning map that he has shows the west half of section 7, which is 2600 feet, which is the western portion extending over to this property is all R-1 as is everything north and everything to the west along the north side of CR 100 S. He stated as you extend the railroad right-of-way north there is a pocket that looks to be less than 1000 feet north of CR 100 N. that is even commercial, C-4, which is the most intense commercial zoning that there is. He stated this can't be more than 1000 feet or more from the northern property line of their property. He stated he thinks that there is a significant argument to be made that this is a natural extension of the R-1 zones that are build all on the north side of CR 100 S. and the east side of CR 500 W.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated he voted in favor of this the last time it was before the Commission. He stated at that time, he would tell you, that he saw an original plat that he knows was preliminary. He stated it had 21 lots less than this one does now. He stated his concerns can then be addressed better at a later date in the process of the platting. He stated his concern is that it is growing even before it has been accepted as a primary plat. He stated he voted in favor of it before and he doesn't think that we had as much opposition back then. He stated since that point in time he has become a Township Trustee Advisory Board member and he hasn't gotten any objections about this. He stated he doesn't see a reason at this point in time, unless he hears something different from his colleagues that would change his mind on this issue.

Mr. Leeth stated he would like to respond on the increase in number of lots. He stated at the earlier meeting Mr. Ron Lowe was here on his company's behalf. He stated Mr. Lowe represented to you at that time that there was between 170 and 180 lots. He stated there are 191 lots on the plat that they are going to ask for approval on.

Mr. Burns stated that he has no problem with the rezoning. He stated there are some mixes out there now, RR, R-1 in the same area. He stated he does have a concern about the number of lots.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no concerns regarding the rezoning.

Mr. Mahnic stated he heard a remark about not liking the number of lots out there. He stated the way to stop the number of lots is not to rezone it. He stated then the lots have to be one acre. He stated in that area we have eight subdivisions that are in RR and nine subdivisions in an R-1. He stated that there is also one subdivision in agricultural land there. He stated one way to make the developer make bigger lots is not to rezone it and go along with the eight subdivisions that are already there that have to comply with the RR zone. He stated he is really not in favor of rezoning this.



Mr. Poparad stated he has a couple of questions. He stated just coming off a sewer project in Burns Harbor; he asked if they had an IDEM letter granting a permit for the collection system and permission to get into Lake Eliza. He stated he doesn't want to hear about the IURC because this is a territorial thing. He asked if they had an IDEM permit, a discharge point, to Lake Eliza.

Mr. Leeth stated no that is not true. He stated they are discharging...

Mr. Poparad asked if they had permission from IDEM to go to Lake Eliza on paper.

Mr. Leeth stated the only permit they need from IDEM is to extend the structure, the collection system, to their plant. He stated this is the only permit they need.

Mr. Poparad asked if they are on a time line for this.

Mr. Leeth stated absolutely, yes.

Mr. Poparad asked if Lake Eliza applied to IDEM.

Mr. Leeth stated he doesn't believe that Lake Eliza needs to apply to IDEM.

Mr. Poparad stated that is Mr. Leeths opinion. He stated he just came off a sewer project that took him two years to get a permit out of IDEM for the Town of Burns Harbor and he doesn't know how many trips to Indianapolis and they are a governmental agency. He stated all he is saying is that he is not in favor of rezoning this u