Porter County Government - September 10, 2003

PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
September 10, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Mike Bucko, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Frank Mahnic, Commissioner David Burrus, Bob Poparad and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Mike Herzog. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson and Patricia S. Gibson. Staff members absent were Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the August 13, 2003 Plan Commission minutes and approve them as corrected. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 03-PUD-3. Petition of Accent Homes, Inc. & New Crown Development, Inc., c/o Todd Etzler, Burke Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin Street, Ste. 203, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development to be located on the Southwest corner of McCool Road and CR 750 N. in Portage Township, Porter County, Indiana. (con't from 8-13-03 mtg. Public hearing is closed.)

Todd Etzler stated he is here with John Kremke and the developers are here also this evening. He stated to Mr. Mahnic he would like to explain and clarify the situation for the funds. He stated the $60,000 is a separate payment from the per lot payment that they were talking about. He stated the $60,000 will be put down at the beginning of the project and they have determined that probably at final platting would be a good time to be looking at that. He stated at first phase it gets final platted would be the time the $60,000 would be distributed. He stated the

second part of the financial situation is the one that deals with the Community Foundation. He stated the Community Foundation has nothing to do with the $60,000. He stated they will have $100 per lot paid in to the Community Foundation as the lots are sold. He stated during the first five years that they are selling off lots no distributions will be made by the Foundation. He stated that money will be paid in and the money that is in there will accumulate and hopefully grow to a nice sum by the time they get to five years. He stated thereafter there will be annual distributions from that fund equally to each of those three non-profit entities that are in this area. He stated if any of those entities happen to not exist any longer the money is split between the two and then if ultimately they end up with none of those entities it goes to further use of parks in that area. He stated this is the financial arrangement that they had discussed last month. He asked if there were any questions on that.

Commissioner Burrus asked on the Foundation Fund will that be paid out interest only or will it be paid out principle.

Mr. Etzler stated the Foundation will not pay out principle. He stated it will be their earnings and what they do is target a 5% payout, meaning 5% of the value of that fund. He stated if the fund makes 7% or 6% only 5% will still be paid out. He stated the rest gets rolled over into the fund. He stated if they don't make 5% then 5% is not paid out. He stated there will not be principle paid out of that fund.

Commissioner Burrus asked at the end of five years will the developer still continue to pay in for any lots that are sold after that time.

Mr. Etzler stated the developer will continue to pay in until the last lot is sold.

Mr. Detert asked Mr. Etzler to explain how the $60,000 is going to be distributed.

Mr. Etzler stated they have three non-profits. He stated one is the Little League, one is the Township Trustee for the use of the large park in that area and the other is the Boys and Girls Club of South Haven.

Mr. Detert asked how is it paid out. He asked if it is paid out immediately or $20,000 a piece or over a period of time.

Mr. Etzler stated it is not equal. He stated the Township Trustee is getting $30,000, the Boys and Girls Club will be getting $10,000 and the Little League will be getting $20,000. He stated this will be paid out at the beginning of the project. He stated if they so choose rather than getting…the Township Trustee for instance, is using this money to put paths in the park so it is accessible. He stated they may choose to have the developer build the paths for them rather than taking the $30,000 and contracting that out they are doing this in that way.

Mr. Mahnic asked if we as a county will have no responsibility there. He asked if this will totally be handled by the developer and the financier and you agree to do this as part of the project.

Mr. Etzler stated this is correct.

Mr. Detert stated he still has a little problem with everyone having to wait five years to get money although there will be some up front money but this fund will have to go five years before anything is distributed.

Mr. Etzler stated if you look at the way the improvements work, improvements made in year one don't necessarily need to be maintained in year one. He stated in year five they may not need to be maintained, however, they're more likely to need maintenance in year five. He stated they are not going to be able to sell 200 lots in the first year of this development. He stated it does give time for the time value of money to work on those funds.

Mr. Bucko asked Mr. Etzler if they were able to determine whether that new money coming in to the Foundation through this fund is eligible for any matching dollars from the Lily Foundation as it has matched dollars in certain programs that they have had as the foundation was built.

Mr. Etzler stated he did not check this out. He

stated however, typically those types of foundations work on new money. He stated if there is new money coming in they can get grants. He stated if it is already a setup arrangement it is unlikely that it would be able to be matched. He stated if there is a match available it certainly would help everyone to try to get those matches.

Mr. Bucko stated if that being the case and he doesn't recall. He stated he just recalls that there were three instances were that did apply when Lily was going through the process of building the whole system and it was a very advantageous time to do that. He asked if the POA was going to maintain this.

Mr. Etzler stated no. He stated this is directly between the developer and the Community Foundation. He asked Mr. Bucko if he was speaking about the ongoing payments.

Mr. Bucko stated not so much the ongoing payments but the payoffs after five years.

Mr. Etzler stated the foundation will handle that. He stated this is one of the nice things about this. He stated once it is in the Foundation they have an entity that is used to handling money in this manner and distributing it in this manner. He stated they have the ability to do that. He stated also in the relation to the matching the non-profits in this area and in cooperation with the Community Foundation have been very good about getting the word out when there is a match available. He stated he thinks that they would leave it in each of those non-profits to say that they have this money coming in and can we increase this by a match because usually a match requires some type of grant writing and certainly our Real Estate developers are not grant writers. He stated it would behoove the non-profits to stay on top of that.

Mr. Bucko asked if there was anything to prevent the three entities, after year five from taking those dollars and combining those dollars for the efforts of leveraging a larger mass of money toward a project.

Mr. Etzler stated the propose restriction on the money there will be an agreement in the Community Foundation on

how this money can be used. He stated the proposed restriction is that this money is used for recreation purposes in this area. He stated once the three non-profits get it they are perfectly legal together and use for that type of use. He stated one could not agree to send the money East or West to some other community. He stated they could work together for something within that community.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is why he particularly appreciates this. He stated we have a community in need, three agency's that need financial support regardless of what development goes in here and the trade offs, at least appear to benefit all of the individuals and not a park for just the citizens of this particular development, but to spread the wealth so to speak.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has said this before and he will say it again. He stated he thinks that this is an innovative solution to a tough problem. He stated he knows some of the members of the Commission are a little uncomfortable with it. He stated it is something new and it is something that hasn't been tried in Porter County. He stated he commends the developer on coming up with this idea.

Mr. Mahnic stated he would like to get back to the zoning issue and whether we want to give an approval or a favorable recommendation to the Commissioners on whether to rezone this to a PUD, which is the main topic here. He stated he would like to say that in looking this thing over he knows that Salt Creek has four homes per acre. He stated South Haven has three and a quarter homes per acre. He stated he thinks that this development is asking for 3.78 homes per acre. He stated this means that they are all pretty much alike. He stated South Haven within itself does not have a ballpark. He stated this doesn't have any green space. He stated Salt Creek doesn't have any green space. He stated basically getting away from the R-1 and you folks are asking a favorable recommendation to rezone this to a PUD.

Mr. Bucko stated maybe this Commission may be considering whether we are settling for too little and the developer may be saying are we giving too much. He stated

in making this agreement does it in any way, shape or form set a precedence as to how we may handle like issues in the future in reference to size, construction types, zoning. He asked are we restricting ourselves in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Detert stated this is a concern of his also. He stated he can see developers coming in and not wanting to put any green space in.

Mr. Bucko stated he can argue the point with the next guy that comes in. He stated we have to test the ground somewhere with this. He stated if we test the ground and it works and someone else comes to us he doesn't want to be restricted by saying "well, based on some of this I don't think that is enough. Based on this, I don't think that is enough or this should be this way." He stated he doesn't want to set precedence for the fact that we did this and we stepped on new ground.

Mr. Breitzke stated because the unique nature of PUD's you have to recognize the community it is in and just the assets and everything that is locally available and the need of the residents of the new development itself.

Mr. Bucko stated what he thinks he is hearing Mr. Breitzke say is the fact that it is a PUD makes it an individual act.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is what he believes.

Commissioner Burrus stated he thinks that the fact that a PUD by its own nature is an exception to any of the existing development requirements. He stated as a negotiated set of specifications that is reached between the Plan Commission and the developer for exchange for some concession he is willing to do more somewhere else. He stated in his mind each one of these is exactly that. He stated it is an individual issue.

Mr. Bucko stated he heard that statement used in the past in relationship to other parts of PUD's but just not this particular approach. He stated it makes sense.

Mr. Detert asked if the motion should incorporate the

contingency on the basis of the representations made
tonight particularly for the Foundation, because in a rare instance he could see where maybe this developer gets out of it before it is really built and does the next guy have the same obligation for that.

Mr. Etzler stated they have provided that in the ordinance. He stated there is language in there in the ordinance concerning the green space with the arrangement that they have here. He stated they have also provided "Findings of Fact."

Mr. Mahnic moved to forward Case o3-PUD-3 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation and to include the "Findings of Fact." Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Detert - Yes
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes Burrus - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on October 21, 2003 at 1:30 p.m.

Case 03-Z-9. Petition of Bharat & Kanak Pithadia, c/o Todd Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin Street, Ste 203, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from AG, Agriculture & Open Space to C-2, Offices & Institutions to be located on the Northeast corner of Sturdy Road and Division Road in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (con't from 8-13-03 mtg. Public hearing is closed.)

Todd Etzler stated he represents the landowners, Mr. Pithadia. He stated they have entered into negotiations with several adjacent property owners to work on this water issue that is in this center section. He stated they need some more time for that therefore they are asking for a continuance until the October meeting.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 03-Z-9 till the October 8, 2003 meeting. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on the unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

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

Case 03-P-15. Petition of Timothy & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Renee Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 500 N. between CR 325 E. and CR 400 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 2.54 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Arden stated he is with McMahan & Associates. He stated they represent Tim and Helen Chupp the owners of this development. He stated this is located on the north side of CR 500 N. just west of CR 400 E. He stated the development is two lots and is zoned rural residential. He stated they are plus one acre each. He stated they went to TAC and discussed the drainage requirements. He stated because of the size of the lots the size of the proposed infrastructure, buildings and such going on it was determined that this will not need any kind of detention. He stated the storm drainage currently drains through the property and there is a culvert that goes under the road. He stated that again goes through overland system and actually goes into an arm of Crooked Creek. He stated part of their plan for this was to provide a little larger easement around it to insure that there will not be any obstructions through this drain. He stated this drain also receives water from other homes along CR 500 N. and their subsurface drains can be sent to the same culvert. He stated they do have a 5-foot no access easement to restrict the driveways. He stated there is an existing Washington Minor Subdivision and what separates the two lots is the access and utility easement to get to the back lots.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated he had no questions.

Commissioner Burrus stated he has no questions at this time.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no questions.

Mr. Burns stated he has no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no issues.

Mr. Detert stated he has no problems.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has only one problem. He stated he goes up and down that road at least twice a day. He stated he is a little concern on the water. He stated the water goes west and he is concern because it should come through a culver there on the highway. He stated the last time he was there during a recent rain it was flooded down there. He stated then it comes back around Crooked Creek. He asked if this is going to be part of a regulated drain.

Mr. Breitzke stated no. He stated this is a roadside ditch.

Mr. Mahnic stated we don't worry about the water other than it is a County responsibility.

Mr. Breitzke stated the highway ditches are the County Highway's responsibility.

Mr. Mahnic stated the fact that the ditch may be plugged is the County's responsibility too.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is correct.

Mr. Mahnic stated the other problem is any time we talk about Crooked Creek, we are in a process of regulating Crooked Creek.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is a regulated drain.

Mr. Mahnic stated we are going to impact a lot of people that will have to support the cleaning and upkeep of the Crooked Creek that are not part of that now.

Mr. Breitzke stated it has never been assessed so we can do the maintenance on the main stem to open it up to all of these other drainage issues.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has no other problems with this and actually this wasn't a problem. He stated he just wanted this clarified in his mind.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 03-P-15 for primary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Burrus - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-P-13. Petition of Timothy & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Charles Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 E. between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 1 lot on 1.31 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Arden stated on the other board shows the relationship of the two subdivisions, the one we just discussed, Renee Subdivision, on CR 500 N. He stated this one is somewhere north along CR 400 E. He stated there is 1.31 acres and it is a single lot. He stated this lot drains to Crooked Creek. He stated there is a culvert in this location, which receives the water. He stated there was an issue at TAC about site distances and they dropped off a 11x17 profile letter, which stated if you look at the worse case for stopping distance your longest distances you can see an object here 300 some feet away.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated he has no questions.

Mr. Mahnic stated there were six items from TAC that needed to be addressed. He stated they are all small items. He asked if they were taken care of.

Mr. Breitzke stated they were all taken care of.

Mr. Poparad stated he has a general question. He stated this is a one-lot subdivision. He asked if this falls as an oxymoron.

Mr. Breitzke stated no because of our subdivision ordinance itself they are created pretty regularly.

Mr. Thompson stated they have done a four-lot minor subdivision so they used up all of their minor subdivisions on this parcel. He stated they have 13 plus acres over there and so there is still other land remaining so they can subdivide on this parcel. He stated they just chose to do one lot here and two lots down CR 500 N.

Mr. Poparad stated why can't he just sell the land to someone for the purpose of building a house.

Mr. Thompson stated any time you split land for the purposes of residential development by the County's code you must go through the subdivision control process.

Mr. Poparad stated if he wanted to sell his dad one acre off of his ten-acres he can't.

Mr. Thompson stated it has been like this since 1983.

Mr. Poparad stated that this doesn't mean it is right.

Mr. Mahnic stated you can get in the problem individually of not taking care of drainage and then when you put them all together you have a drainage problem for a whole group of houses.

Mr. Detert stated the reason for this is exactly what he said. He stated when we did the minor subdivision we said what is to keep guys from coming in and doing a minor subdivision over and over and never addressing the drainage of the whole parcel. He stated this was done on purpose.

Mr. Breitzke stated to reflect that we had a person who was selling off one lot and over a period of 20 to 25 years ended up having 30 individual lots. He stated this created traffic problems, utility problems, drainage problems and it wasn't quite right with all the neighbors around it.

Commissioner Burrus asked what is the total acreage of the entire parcel that is owned by this developer.

Mr. Arden stated there is a little over 13-acres.

Commissioner Burrus asked Mr. Arden to show him on the drawing where that parcel is in respect to what he is doing now.

Mr. Arden stated what the developer owns now is everything up in through here and there is a piece off of here. He stated once he goes to subdivide this he will have access off of CR 400 E. and then there will be more discussion on drainage.

Mr. Bucko stated he has nothing to add.

Mr. Burns stated he has no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no questions.

Mr. Breitzke stated he has no questions.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 03-P-13 for primary plat. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Burrus - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-P-14. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Dakota Creek Estates Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of SR 231 and Lake/Porter County Line Road in Boone Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 10.355 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Bill Rensberger stated he is with Davies/Rensberger Surveying. He stated this is SR 231 and County Line Road is located here. He stated the Town of Hebron is about a mile down the road. He stated there has been a four-lot minor subdivision approved by the Plan Commission about one year ago. He stated it is located right in here. He stated they are now attempting to make three lots in here.

He stated this lot will front on County Line Road and these two lots will front on the State Road. He stated there has already been a driveway permit issued for these two lots. He stated the lots will take perimeter drain systems. He stated the perimeter will empty into the ditches here along the State Road. He stated there is an unnamed tributary to Cobb Creek. He stated at the TAC meeting the TAC members requested 60-foot rear building lines. He stated when they take it back to TAC for secondary plat they are going to try to eliminate that. He stated this is zoned R-1.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Burrus asked Mr. Breitzke what was the discussion at TAC for these three lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated they dedicated additional drainage easement on the back to the regulated drain. He stated TAC determined that they didn't need detention on this property. He stated TAC was satisfied with the large size of the lots.

Commissioner Burrus stated the question he had was that we are looking at three lots here in addition to a previous four lots. He asked if there was any concern about the load on Dog Lake Ditch.

Mr. Breitzke stated he didn't think so.

Mr. Mahnic stated he would like to read the TAC minutes concerning this. He stated that the minutes state, "Mr. Breitzke stated that he just wanted them to be aware that Dog Lake Ditch has had its problems and it is not a regulated drain until further south. He stated that some residents have filled in the ditch."

Mr. Breitzke stated in that case further south maybe about 1000 to 1200 feet we had some problems with some individuals but it was an unregulated portion but the water wouldn't affect them here. He stated what they have done is dedicated easement for us throughout so in the long term we are better off.

Mr. Bucko stated he has a question about the lots. He asked if they are talking about two driveways coming off a State Highway.

Mr. Rensberger stated there is one driveway coming off the county road and two coming off the State Highway.

Mr. Bucko stated he travels that road a lot. He stated there is a lot of traffic at that intersection, County Line Road and SR 231. He stated it is very busy in the mornings and very busy in the evenings. He stated for the most part after that he doesn't know.

Mr. Breitzke stated we really don't have any control over highway access and permitting on SR 231. He stated we are encouraging a joint driveway but we have no way of controlling that. He stated this is up to State Highway. He stated likewise on Lake County Line Road that isn't our jurisdiction in the State of Indiana. He stated the counties control what is east and south of them as far as roadways. He stated technically they don't get a highway permit for entry on the Lake County Line road either. He stated what we have done is restricted access around that curve. He stated we will not be issuing driveway permits.

Mr. Bucko stated at TAC you suggested that the access to County Line Road is as far back as possible.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is correct. He stated we encouraged them to do that but we have no control because we don't issue the permit.

Mr. Bucko stated he would strongly suggest they minimize the driveways to two.

Mr. Detert stated he travels that intersection quite often and what Mike said is true.

Mr. Burns stated he has the same concerns that Mr. Bucko has.

Mr. Mahnic stated he agrees with Mr. Bucko and we ought to send a letter to the State Highway Department to take a look at that.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 03-P-14 for primary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Burrus - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-Z-13. Petition of Douglas A. Wilks, 195 S. 325 E., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from AG, Agriculture & Open Space to C-2, Offices & Institutions District to be located on the West side of SR 49, between CR 325 S. and CR 400 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Douglas Wilks stated he lives at 195 S. 325 E. He stated together with other family he is an owner of Jake's Feed and Garden. He stated Jake's Feed is in its 13 year of business in Morgan Township. He stated they established it in that rural area because it is a good location as it is close to many of their customers and it is conducive to transporting and warehousing some of their commodities such as grain and hay, which might be problematic in an urban setting. He stated they provide the farmer, hobbyist, 4-H'er, bird lover with supplies and accessory's. He stated they have added on to their building twice and that space is now inadequate. He stated they cannot add on to their existing building because of setback requirements. He stated they are seeking to rezone a one-acre addition to their 1.5-acre property, 60-feet to the west 75-feet to the south so that they can build a warehouse. He stated currently they have some products stored temporarily in semi-trailers and they prefer to house these in a building. He stated they currently employ five people and the anticipate hiring more people in the future. He stated they feel that they have been a responsible and considerate neighbor to those around them and many of the neighbors have actually supported them. He stated the building that they are seeking to build will be a steel sided post structure consistent with their existing building and would be built by the same builders, FBI. He stated if money permits they will also be dressing up the exterior of the existing building with some cosmetic remodeling.

Kim Westfall stated she lives at 360 W. 400 S. She

stated she is in favor of this petition. She stated she has done business with Jake's for many years and she agrees that they do need more space.

Pat Capps stated she lives at 358 W. 400 S. She stated she also does business with Jake's Feed. She stated she finds them to be an asset to their community.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Burrus stated he would like to echo what Mrs. Capps just said that Jake's Feed and Garden is a very strong asset to Morgan Township and to the South County community and it would be a very appropriate addition to their business.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no questions.

Mr. Mahnic asked if granted this petition will the access still be off of CR 325 W.

Mr. Wilks stated this is correct.

Mr. Bucko stated he has no questions.

Mr. Burns stated he has no problems.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no problems.

Mr. Detert stated he has no questions.

Mr. Breitzke stated he likes what he heard about the removal of the trailers that they have been using. He stated it would be great to have a commitment that they wouldn't have the trailers anymore.

Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 03-Z-13 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Burrus - Yes Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on October 21, 2003 at 1:30 p.m.

Case 03-M-2. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to Porter County Code, Chapter 17-96 (Solid Waste Disposal Methods.)

Mr. Breitzke stated he is going to caution the audience. He stated what we are discussing tonight is an ordinance and not a particular business. He stated we are doing this without prejudice or preference. He stated we are addressing what we believe was a problem with our ordinance that could be challenged in court.

Mr. Thompson stated he is going to start with a brief history on this. He stated our 1983 Ordinance allowed commercial sanitary fills, dumps and waste and disposal plants in AG, C-4, I-1, I-2 and I-3 Districts with a special exception. He stated as you all know we have changed our ordinance and this was done last year in March or April. He stated he would like to go back to the 1983 ordinance. He stated in those districts municipal or commercial sanitary fill had to be on 40 acres within those districts. He stated a garbage disposal plant only required two acres from the 1983 ordinance with a special exception in C-4, I-1, I-3 and AG. He stated the very first week he was back Lily Schaefer told him that she was requested to draft up an ordinance and wait until he got here to proceed with looking at a transfer station and the fact that the 50-acres is excessive and that we need to possibly look at 10-acres. He stated Mrs. Schaefer had a draft ordinance drawn up for this. He stated 10-acre, special exception, still kept the I-2 and I-3 Districts with the same setbacks. He stated she did remove some language in there and it was within the amendment. He stated one of them he can recall right off hand and it basically was the closing costs for a sanitary landfill. He stated when they would go through the procedures of capping off and closing out a landfill we are asking for a bond. He stated Mrs. Schaefer thought that this was not necessary for a transfer station. He stated the main thing was reducing the acreage for it. He stated he was requested to give you two ordinances to consider tonight. He stated one would be to amend the existing ordinance as

stated. He stated there are a few setbacks that have been amended but the major amendment is changing the acreage required for a transfer station from 50-acres down to 10-acres. He stated all other solid waste facilities will stay at 50-acres and they will stay as a special exception. He stated the second one that is in front of you and is the longer ordinance is one that took transfer station out of the solid waste facility ordinance and made it's own separate ordinance for a transfer station. He stated it still has to be in an I-2 and I-3 zones, dropped the acreage requirement from 50-acres down to 10-acres, a couple of setbacks were changed and another change was that it would not be a special exception in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals and that it is an allowable use in I-2 and I-3 zoning. He stated with it being an allowable use in I-2 and I-3 zoning the only thing that would be required is a Technical Advisory Committee site review for commercial and industrial development. He stated TAC would have to review the same requirements as in the other ordinance with a special exception that the BZA would look at. He stated he was requested that you review these two ordinances, one keeping it as a special exception and the other one taking it out of a special exception.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Kim Westfall stated she lives at 360 W. 400 S. She stated she is just here to say that she is against this.

Pat Capps stated she lives at 358 W. 400 S. She stated she is against this too.

Karen Herlitz stated she lives at 494 S. 250 W. She stated she is against the transfer station.

Sherry Herlitz stated she lives at 494 S. 250 W. and she is opposed to the transfer station.

Barbie Herlitz stated she lives at 494 S. 250 W. She stated she is against the transfer station as well.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is a rather long list of names here. He asked if there is anyone here with comments rather than to say that they are against the lift-station. At this time Mr. Breitzke read off the names of those that

are against this petition. They were Rob Herlitz, Sharon Casbon, 376 W. 550 S., Phil Casbon, 376 W. 550 S., Betty Roeske, 339 W. 550 S.

Erma Summers stated she lives at 10 S. Cherrywood Lane. She stated she is a concerned citizen. She asked what is the reasoning behind this Commission wanting to look at the consideration of reducing the 50-acres down to 10-acres. She stated all of the facts that have come before this Commission tonight from what she has seen is conducive to this County's Master Plan and productivity. She stated that everything is for its growth. She stated she doesn't understand why this is even an issue that with all of this going on in this County, the growing, the building and all of these families that live here that there would even be a consideration to reduce 50-acres for a transfer station of solid waste, which will draw rats and seagulls. She asked where will they transfer this garbage to. She stated most of the landfills are full from what she has heard. She stated once this starts and they get this through and this garbage starts coming into our County, where are they going to take it. She asked if they will then ask if they can go back to Boone Grove right by our children and put a landfill in. She asked if the Commission is going to say, "Let me look at this." She asked where is the lady who recommended reducing this. She stated she is not even here and why isn't she here. She asked if she is in favor of this….

Mr. Breitzke stated Ms. Schaefer has a very ill child. He stated she has a family situation and a very bad situation.

Mrs. Summers stated that the facts that have come before the Commission tonight are all conducive to the growth of this community. She stated that's all you are going to do is give a foot hole to these landfill company's to come in and put a dump by our school. She stated it is all a question and money. She asked what is the Commission's reasoning for reducing it from 50-acres to 10-acres.

Mike Summers stated he lives at 10 S. Cherrywood Lane. He stated he is against this petition. He stated he is a Porter County resident and is the Business Agent for the

Ironworkers Local 395 throughout Northwest Indiana. He stated he represents about 1000 to 1200 people and out of those 1000 to 1200 people about 600 of them are Porter County residents. He stated since he has found out about what we are talking about here tonight and reducing this down to 10-acres he has tried to contact a lot of those 600 members. He stated everyone he has contacted as of this afternoon about 5:00 p.m. he hasn't found anyone who is in favor of this yet. He stated as a Porter County resident he is against this. He stated he doesn't want to turn Porter County into a garbage dump. He stated as an elected officer and official for a Labor Union he would like to look at these things in a different direction, not just selfish for himself because he lives in Porter County, but if we change this down to 10-acres are we going to end up with a transfer station on every 10-acres around us, 2: Is this going to bring jobs into Porter County. He stated he doesn't think so. He stated if it did bring jobs into Porter County would they be jobs paying living wages with benefits, health care and pensions. He stated this is very important to everyone in Porter County. He stated the next thing is and we all know right down the road within five miles of a possible transfer station is Wheeler. He stated Wheeler is contaminated. He stated most everyone sitting here knows you can't give a home away in Wheeler. He asked what happens when we reduce this down to 10-acres and we turn up with a transfer station on every 10-acre parcel throughout Porter County and he knows he is exaggerating. He stated then the wells start to get contaminated. He asked who is going to be responsible. He stated he knows the answer and he is sure these things require bonds. He stated he doesn't think anyone or any company could possibly be solvent enough to get bonded to cover that type of damage. He stated the people in Porter County that live around these possible 10-acre sites where transfer stations could go, who would be responsible for the value of their property declining. He stated we have a beautiful county. He stated Porter County is the county that people moved from Illinois to and from Lake County to. He stated lets not do something that is going to change that county.

Joe Littell stated he lives at 760 Walter Dr., Hebron. He stated he is also the President of the Porter County Conservation Club. He stated their biggest concern here is like everyone else, 10-acres is not enough especially when

you get to South County. He stated there are 10-acre parcels all around the town. He stated he believes that there is I-2 zoning everywhere around there. He stated they are concerned about the wetlands. He stated they are also looking out for the county in general. He stated the reason he believes that the transfer station was set at 50-acres is that we had a rash of transfer station companies coming in here and trying to pick up probably the last three to four years. He stated if this drops down to ten he thinks there will be more people coming in for that reason.

Luann Hoyt stated she lives at 167 W. 75 S. She stated she is against dropping the acreage for the transfer station from 50-acre down to 10-acres.

Wayne Herlitz stated he lives at 418 S. 200 W. He stated he thinks that we made a law a while back simply to keep transfer stations from coming in and making a fast buck then move out and leave us sitting. He stated with 50-acres there doesn't have to be a plan involved. He stated the 50-acres is important because he has seen too much. He stated we need to actually raise the acreage. He stated this can be a huge building. He stated he hasn't seen a clean one yet.

Sue Hoagland stated she lives at 399 W. SR 8. She stated she is opposed to this petition.

Morgan Vitoux stated she lives at 329 N. 250 W. She stated she is against this petition because they are just building a new house.

Sam Raich III stated he lives at 400 Sturdy Rd. He stated he has a statement that he would like to read to the Commission. He stated about one and a half years ago he was involved with the Earth II proposed transfer station. He stated Earth II proposed transfer station was to be located on the Landgrebe site at SR 130, which required a special exception. He stated this special exception was denied by the Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals. He state currently at that same site Regional Industry's now operates a trash collection company. He stated neither his organization or himself are currently involved in a transfer station operation, or the pursuit of potential

facility. He stated he has read two different drafts of the proposed ordinance, and one of them seems to address solid waste facilities, which includes landfills. He stated the other draft only addresses transfer stations. He stated he is very familiar with the waste industry and he would like to offer to the Commission that a landfill and a transfer station are two very different facilities and should be treated separately for zoning and oversight purposes. He stated looking at the drafts in their current form caused him to raise the question whether the proposed Boone Grove Landfill and the Regional Industries facility, formerly Landgrebe, would meet the criteria outlined in these drafts and begin the development of these facilities without a public hearing. He stated if so, the County would be doing itself a disservice, as there are legal actions as well as much public concern surrounding these issues. He stated he would like to address some other issues surrounding the drafts of the proposed ordinance. He stated the ordinance appears to make an effort to structure parameters and standards, which will then be reviewed by the County TAC. He stated if the requirements are met a solid waste facility could then operate if permitted by the state. He stated he believes it is not the mission or within the capacity of TAC to hold public hearings. He stated this protocol would allow for these sensitive zoning issues to go un-debated and unchallenged due to the absence of a public hearing element in the proposed ordinance. He stated however, the effort to structure, define and quantify parameters for a solid waste facility do make sense, but should be more clearly written and measurable. He stated once these parameters are clearly defined and are measurable, they would no doubt be of assistance to the county BZA at a special exception hearing, because the petitioner would have a standard to manage to and remonstrators would have many of their questions pre-addressed. Mr. Raich stated some of the topics he would like to see this proposed ordinance address in a specific and quantifiable manner are as follows: odor, fugitive light, fugitive dust, waste water handling and storage, hours of operation, environmental impact, vector control, public health, bacteriological and viral control, terrorist issues and traffic. He stated while some of these topics are currently included in the drafts they are not clearly defined and are not quantifiable, also, where studies and surveys are called for, a third

party is not required. He stated third parties with the proper credentials, which also need to be defined, are essential to the integrity of the management for these parameters. He stated the special exception should absolutely remain a part of this ordinance so that the public voice is heard, the public health is protected and that future conditions, which may not exist now, but which may exist at some point in the future have a chance to be addressed. He stated this proposed ordinance allows for transfer stations and/or landfills on any property, which is zoned properly and has met the conditions of the ordinance without a public hearing. He stated therefore, all sites in Porter County, which meet the prescribed criteria, could be developed into a transfer station or a landfill. He stated Porter County does not have the authority to regulate how many transfer stations exist in the County, or where the waste comes from. He stated the number of solid waste facilities could be numerous and out of state garbage certainly will be handled and/or deposited in these facilities. He stated this is not a likelihood. He stated this is an absolute. He stated out of state garbage will be essential to the many transfer stations operating throughout Porter County without local waste streams available to support their capacity. He stated this potential for excess competition also has the potential to cause operators of these facilities to go out of business. He stated a clean up bond should be required in the event of a business failure. He stated keep in mind that a 500-ton per day failing transfer station, which collected material for ten days and didn't transfer that material would have 5000 tons in a two-week period. He stated at $30 per ton this disposal alone would be $150K. He stated this would be an addition to other pollution and damage mitigation. He stated annual inspections of facilities should also be mandatory by County Officials to review compliance with an accepted ordinance. He stated the inspection punch list should be developed for an inspector by a third party qualified organization to include parameters of the ordinance and the spirit of public health. He stated the facility operator should bear the cost of these inspections and the fee should have an element built into it to pay for the advice of third party experts. He stated as he personally has studied the economics of transfer stations in the past, a fee of $30K-$40K would hardly be noticeable relative to the total

revenue and profit generated by a properly operated transfer station of reasonable size. He stated it is his understanding that the County may not impose a tipping fee on a transfer station, though it certainly may encourage one. He stated the most appropriate forum to ask or suggest if the transfer station will be offering a tipping fee would certainly be a public hearing. He stated the proposed ordinance also includes language for legal and unlawful non-conforming use. He stated since Able Disposal is the only licensed transfer station in Porter County at this time, the language in this section of the proposed ordinance is unnecessary, and if left in simply rewards illegal behavior. He stated facilities should be required to ask the County's permission before acting, not beg the County's forgiveness after acting. He stated as he had mentioned earlier, when Earth 2 was denied a special exception to operate a transfer station by the Porter County BZA, their legal counsel advised them that if they were to appeal the BZA's decision they would likely win. He stated they decided even though they would win legal approval, they did not want to operate in an adversarial environment with their local would be neighbors. He stated this decision of theirs not to pursue the appeal was based almost solely on the community opposition. He stated the only reason the opposition of the community was heard by County Officials and the Executives of Earth 2 was the public hearing. He stated in conclusion he would offer the following: 1) Separate the transfer station and landfill issues completely, 2) table this proposed ordinance for review and rewriting and 3) keep the public hearings an element in this ordinance.

Tia Wilks left the meeting.

Doug Wilks left the meeting.

Robert Cauffman stated he lives at 112 W. 450 S. He stated obviously in 1983 when this was proposed or the ordinance was written it said 50 acres. He stated if you think of a 10-acre parcel…

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Cauffman that in 1983 it was at 2-acres and then in 2002 it was changed to 50-acres.

Mr. Cauffman stated if you look putting something as

such on a 10-acre parcel this could be set in the middle of the lot and still be encroaching on your neighbors property. He stated if you put this on 10-acres these could pop up anywhere in the county. He stated we have to maintain some type of control on where they are and when they are. He stated if you take out the public opinion where do we stand as far as concerned citizens. He stated he feels that it needs to maintain public opinion.

John Schnurlein stated he lives at 353 Glenellen Dr. He stated he is having a little problem here asserting why this is coming up. He stated he sees it as the possible help of justifying the landfill. He stated if that is the purpose then he would certainly be 100% against any change. He stated don't make it any easier for the landfill to happen. He stated if it is not related as the gentleman who just spoke suggested, it would seem to him that some of the same individuals names were mentioned into his paper article. He stated this makes him think that maybe there is a relationship and maybe there is a reason for this change. He stated he has witnessed in his lifetime, the 49er Landfill, the Wheeler Landfill, the Pines Landfill and different organizations that he has been involved in NIPSCO's fly ash, hot chemicals coming into the other two. He stated he has witnessed Kouts having their ditch where they dumped their garbage. He stated he has witnessed Valparaiso where they had a small landfill right at the edge of town. He stated not one of those five landfills have ever been run efficiently, correctly or properly. He stated if you can prove to him that what you are doing here trying to decrease 50 to 10 is going to make for a better use in handling of garbage then he would say have at it. He stated so far he hasn't heard anything like that.

Robert Harper stated he lives at 238 W. Joliet Road. He stated he came here tonight as a citizen and he still sits here as a citizen but he got a call from a fellow named Dan Whitten who has been involved in the landfill situation to also come here for him. He stated Mr. Whitten had an emergency he had to handle. He stated because of this he was handed the remonstrance against the change in this ordinance that he would like to pass on to the Commission. He stated he doesn't think that anyone could have said it better than Mr. Raich. He stated he didn't come with a prepared statement. He stated he stated he

heard with interest where Mr. Raich mentioned specific individuals and so forth. He stated he sort of feels that you were arrogant when you said that we couldn't mention specific things because all of us have read the papers and they know that there is litigation going on, that there have been people that have moved for a landfill and this affects not only that landfill. He stated to tie their hands not only makes him feel that it is an arrogant move but also makes him feel that this group has not already made up their mind. He stated he read some comments in the paper that sounded like that.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Harper that he thinks he is reading more into this. He asked to please proceed to what the problem is with the ordinance and not the individuals.

Mr. Harper stated the problem with the ordinance is that it is going to allow a waste transfer station in the Landgrebe location and it is going to put all the heavy trucks over that road. He stated he doesn't think that you did a study on how much truck traffic and how it is going to affect that area. He stated you are taking that road between Valparaiso and Hobart and you have an outside semi storage already just down the road. He stated you put in a Crazy D's across from a subdivision where people have built. He stated the whole area is going to look like Whiting before you get done. He asked how are the trucks going to get to that. He stated CR 250 is the only road coming from U.S. 30 and it has a weight limitation on it. He stated this gentleman down here asked about the last subdivision and he asked if it was going to cost Porter County anything. He stated every move you make is going to cost Porter County things. He stated this is going to cost a lot for Porter County. He stated the best argument against it is this one that this man gave. He stated if you vote for this tonight without having a chance to have an open public meeting, people come and study this and give different ideas and so forth, then he questions your motives. He stated he would like to tell you why. He stated a former County Official named Lance Hodge has been out soliciting money, $75,000, for investments from people in this county for a land transfer and has been telling them that he has County Officials already talked into this thing and he has the County Commissioners. He stated the Times Newspaper wrote a story about this and some of those

people that have been investing or that Mr. Hodge has asked to invest have recorded those conversations. He stated if you don't believe him the Times reporter is here that has listened to those conversations. He stated whatever you are doing involves this litigation that is going on with this one company and that Landgrebe. He stated they refused to even tell you who owns it. He stated he doesn't think that there is any reason…and if they don't tell you who owns it then how do we know if there are any conflicts that perhaps members of this Commission have. He stated your voting is going to affect that Landgrebe's spot. He stated you know it and he knows it and you have said it in the paper. He stated he asks you to do what this man says. He stated slow down here and don't go passing this thing until we find out does it means every place in the county. He stated you guys don't have all the "t's" crossed and "I's" dotted and this is why we have all this litigation going on over that landfill. He stated don't make the same mistakes. He stated this is public business and we are entitled to know who owns what and who is going to put what in where. He stated don't try to tell these people that this doesn't involve Landgrebe because they aren't that dumb.

Michele Hurst stated she lives at 205 Kimrich Circle N. She stated she lives a half mile from the Landgrebe transfer station. She stated she was here at the last meeting when you considered it. She stated you voted that it was a bad idea then and she doesn't see what has changed that would now make it a good idea to have a transfer station there.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Ms. Hurst that this was the BZA that denied it. He stated the BZA is a different Board.

Patricia Reinhold stated she lives at 304 W. SR 8. She stated last year you said 2-acres, then you said it has to be 50-acres. She stated all of a sudden this year you are going to 10-acres. She asked why did we go from such a large change in one years time. She stated as she understands it a transfer station means that the garbage is not going to stay there it is going to be transferred. She stated it has to get there. She stated she has been through Porter County this summer and you spent a lot of money on new roads. She stated they are gorgeous and they

are wonderful for bike riding. She stated they are not going to be if that is going to be used for transfer.

Ned Kovacivich stated he lives at 259 Danica Dr. He stated he has a couple of things that he would like to talk to the Commission about. He stated first of all you said that in 1983 a transfer station would be allowed on 2-acres. He stated he would disagree. He stated the ordinance didn't address a transfer station in 1983. He stated he thinks it addressed it in 2002 when Bob wrote that amendment and it was passed by the Board of County Commissioners. He stated he followed that amendment and the interesting thing about that amendment is that this Plan Commission, you 9 gentlemen, recommended that amendment to the Board on 50-acres and I-3 zone only. He stated this is the way it went to the County Commissioners. He stated he was at that meeting and they decided to include I-2. He stated the way they justified that was they said there wasn't enough large parcels of land that were zoned I-3 to include that. He stated they felt that at that point in time there would be a legal challenge to that. He stated if you are going to reduce this to 10-acres and you are dead set on it, he would put it to you that there are parcels of land zoned I-3 or the reduction to 10-acre should only allow waste transfer stations in the I-3 because the Commissioners were really blunt about that justification. He stated the other thing he would like to talk about is the 50-acres. He stated Bob Thompson is a pretty prominent planner and he does a lot of research. He stated he can't imagine that Bob just pulled that number, 50-acres, from the air. He stated he is sure Bob had some justification for that number. He stated he would like to know what is so excessive about 50-acres and is not excessive about 10-acres. He stated you can have a legal challenge to anything. He stated you shouldn't necessarily just jump because somebody is going to challenge you legally. He stated they can challenge any development standard in your ordinance but he doesn't see you jumping for that. He stated he doesn't know how you define a farm, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 1000 acres. He stated do you change that number because you feel that you can be legally challenged. He stated if there was a case filed then you may want to look at that. He stated there is nothing filed. He stated he agrees with Attorney Harper that you are tailoring your ordinance to fit a particular situation.

John Whitcomb stated he lives at 2059 SR 2. He stated he is not sure if he is for this or not. He stated he is sort of against this. He stated he doesn't have any information so he can make a decision. He asked if the Commission has Lily Schaefer's draft on the proposal. He asked if there was any information on it. He stated these other gentlemen have said it quite well.

Bill Tanke stated he lives at 290 N. 250 W. He stated on page 1, B, it states, "temporarily stored and stockpiled, and ultimately placed." He stated he thinks that the word "temporary" needs to be defined. He stated he thinks that the ordinance is a little vague in that area. He stated if you go to (c)030, if you would eliminate out of there the I-2 and just leave the I-3 for the transfer sites he thinks that it would fit into the heavy industry more so. He stated he thinks that it is more compatible with heavy industry than general industry. He stated under (C)030 a. it states, "owner and proposed operator of the facility." He stated it states this about seven times. He asked who is the owner and proposed operator of the facility. He asked are they one in the same or can they be two different people. He stated that it states, "must be prepared by a licensed Indiana perpetual engineer." He stated he thinks that it should be broaden that to land surveyor also. He stated under O. Landscape Plan, it states, "a six (6)-foot high solid painted fence with an evergreen screening placed between the fence and the right-of-way. He stated you should specify what the right-of-way is. He asked if there is a violation who pays the owner or the operator. He stated this needs to be cleaned up. He stated under P. Maintenance Plan, it states, "Plans detailing the manner in which the grounds and publicly visible portions of the facility will be maintained." He stated he hopes that this is subject to an annual inspection or how do you find out. He stated next is (E).050 C. who is the applicant. He asked if it is the owner/operator. He stated there are too many different terms in there. He stated D. "If access to a major thoroughfare is a county-maintained highway." He stated he would like to see thrown in there the proposed right-of-way for the thoroughfare plan be dedicated to the County.

Lee Anna Stanley stated she lives at 324 W. 550 S. She stated she is against this.

Jim Bock stated he lives at 378 Laramont Trail. He stated he has property that borders CR 250 W. He stated he has spent 30 years in the Steel Mill and everything he has is in his house. He stated he had it built 7 years ago. He stated some people are worried about a little bit of traffic and you have another guy who is worried about a little bit of water on the road. He stated he is going to have to deal with the stink, the mess from the semi's going down the road, all the papers blowing around and listen to heavy equipment. He stated you should increase it to 100 acres. He stated someone is going to make money and maybe it is you. He stated he heard some guy say that you guys are in on it.

Dr. Kellar stated he lives at 4421 15th St., Hobart. He stated he is in the process of building a house in Porter County. He stated his new address is 119 S. 200 W. He stated it seems to him everyone here knows exactly what a transfer station is except him.He asked if someone could tell him besides the words transfer station, what does it mean, what does it do, what does it accomplish and in no place does he see any health consideration addressed. He stated he is really concerned about health.

Mary Woodworth stated she lives at 262 N. 550 W. She stated she agrees that it should remain in I-2 and possibly I-3. She stated she would like to see it stay at 50-acres. She stated if you do reduce it, she would not like to see it reduced to anything less than 30-acres. She stated the one thing that she has seen in the last couple of years is a lot of special exceptions on the zoning. She stated the thing she hasn't heard mention tonight is area, location in relation to a school. She stated she thinks that an important factor is that there should never be one allowed within a one-mile radius of any public school.

Monica Locknere stated she lives at 283 W. 600 S. She stated her back window of her house looks right into the newly planned dump. She stated this would add more garbage to their area.

Mr. Thompson stated the first thing that he wants to get clear here immediately is that Lily Schaefer our attorney did not recommend to this Commission to change it from 50-acres to 10-acres. He stated Lily was requested to

amend the ordinance or look at amending the ordinance. He stated where that came from he doesn't know. He stated Lily handed him the ordinance and he was told to review it and prepare it for the Plan Commission at 10-acres. He stated this was not a recommendation from Lily Schaefer. He stated he wants to make that clear. He stated Lily is the attorney. He stated Lily does not make recommendations to the Commission other than dealing with law that they are making a decision on. He stated what a transfer station does if you see the neighborhood trucks that go by and pick up your garbage and the packer trucks, which they are normally referred to in the waste management business. He stated these packer trucks then go… He stated he is going to use Abel Disposal. He stated Abel Disposal has a transfer station adjacent to downtown Chesterton. He stated it is around 2-acres. He stated the trucks you see going around collecting trash for Abel Disposal, the little packer trucks, take them up and they dump them inside of a building. He stated they dump the garbage on the floor and then from the floor it is picked up and put into a semi-truck. He stated from the semi-truck they ship it to a landfill. He stated where they go he doesn't know. He stated he thinks one of the places they talk about sending it too is possibly Michigan. He stated everyone is concerned here that they don't want the trash. He stated Michigan Governor came out and said they didn't want out of state trash either but there is Federal Commerce that does not allow them to stop interstate commerce. He stated this is what a transfer does. He stated it takes the garbage from the garbage trucks dump it inside of a building on the floor. He stated it has to be picked up within 24-hours. He stated it is then put into a semi-truck and taken to a landfill. He stated a lot of the regulations as far as public health that you are speaking of is govern by IDEM. He stated IDEM has a long list of items that they have to have for a permit. He stated a permit is reviewed every five years for a transfer station. He stated one of the things that they have to do is supposedly clean and scrub floors and keep items clean. He stated what is interesting is one question that did come up and a Plan Commission member asked him this, is if one of the neighborhood packer trucks was running late can they come into the yard keep the truck over night in the yard and then take care of the business as far as dumping it and transferring it. He stated he asked the question to our solid waste people and

they told him no they cannot. He stated not at a transfer station. He stated at a transfer station they must take the garbage as soon as they get in and dump it on the floor. He stated there it has to be picked up within 24-hours and taken out. He stated this is a definition of a transfer station. He stated what brought the recommendation from 50-acres down to 10-acres he does want to clarify one thing. He stated our 1983 ordinance did state and it is under the special exceptions section of our code 17.60.060. He stated a special exception is required under the "Table of Uses." He stated it does talk about a public or commercial sanitary fill or refuse dump and also a public and commercial garbage disposal plant. He stated in the special exception chapter it separates them out. He stated public or commercial sanitary fill or refuse dump requires 40-acres. He stated a public or commercial garbage disposal plant requires 2-acres. He stated this is from the 1983 ordinance. He stated in 2002 yes, he did change the ordinance to all solid waste facilities had to have 50-acres. He stated researching that 50-acres, he found a number of municipalities in the State did have 50-acres for solid waste facilities. He stated did he get in particular at that time to break it down to see if transfer stations were included in that. He stated he will be honest. He stated he included everything at 50-acres. He stated that is why the 50-acres is in the present ordinance. He asked why did he select I-2 and I-3. He stated first I-2 and I-3 Districts does not allow residential development. He stated yes I-2 Districts there are residential developments close and that is why we are trying to have some setbacks with it. He stated the selection of I-2 and I-3 was because of no residential development is allowed within those two districts. He stated originally he had it at I-3 and keeping it at I-3 the question did come up that there is not very much I-3 property in the County. He stated this is correct. He stated there are a couple of acres in Malden and there are a couple of acres up towards Bethlehem Steel, which might be incorporated by Burns Harbor. He stated there is very little. He stated by saying I-3 it could have been looked upon as the County doing what is called "exclusionary zoning." He stated we must find a spot for the use and have a zoning that would allow uses in there no matter how contentious they are. He stated otherwise we would be considered doing "exclusionary zoning" which the Supreme Court of the United States said

is unconstitutional. He stated as far as the zoning districts go he has tried to work out the best zoning districts he could. He stated I-2 and I-3 do not allow residential development in there. He stated he kept it with the transfer station. He stated someone brought up the fact of Wheeler and they called it a transfer station. He stated out there by Wheeler is a sanitary landfill. He stated he does not believe that Wheeler had a facility out there for a transfer station. He stated that was a landfill where they actually took the garbage and dumped it. He stated this is the intent of a transfer station is to collect it from there and find a landfill to take it too. He stated they are not creating a landfill on their site. He stated the one comment he has to Mr. Tanke about dedicating the right-of-way with this. He stated the Supreme Court of the United States has come out and said that the County cannot require dedication of a right-of-way for a permit. He stated this is called "takings of a land without just compensation."

Mr. Detert stated he is the one that called Mr. Thompson on the overlay parking. He asked Mr. Thomspon if they are telling you that any garbage dumped inside has to be picked up that same day and moved out or can they load it up on the semi and leave it there overnight.

Mr. Thompson stated what they are is if the packer truck came in late and they were not unloading garbage the driver of the truck can not just go in and park and leave the garbage in the truck overnight outside in the yard. He stated they must take the packer truck inside the building and actually dump the garbage on the floor.

Mr. Detert stated the semi-truck now picks up the garbage puts it in the back of the semi-trailer. He asked can he sit there overnight.

Mr. Thompson stated they could inside the building or they can sit the garbage inside of the building overnight.

Mr. Breitzke stated what needs to be emphasized that at a landfill and a transfer station are two different animals. He stated the transfer station takes the refuse internally. He stated often they will do recycling effort
and sort the garbage internally and then take it from the

smaller packer trucks and put them either into railroad cars, provided they have a siding, or to much larger trucks to haul off to where the waste stream goes these days. He stated right now if the trucks don't go to the transfer stations they have to run as a packer truck all the way to Michigan. He stated some he's been told go down to Kentucky. He stated he believes we still have some deliveries to Newton County but there are questions about that. He stated there is a possibility in a few years that garbage will be hauled to Joliet. He stated with a transfer station it decreased necessity and likelihood of a landfill necessary in proximity. He stated the purpose of a transfer station is to haul the waste in larger vehicles doing less damage environmentally then all these other trucks on the road. He stated plus the savings to all the people who have services or the municipalities, which provide the service through our taxes. He stated one of our big problems is money gets tight and times get tight and people don't pay their refuse collection service because the bills are getting bigger and bigger. He stated then the County Commissioners get calls to clean up ditches in the roadside and other public places. He stated we have a fairly clean county through the efforts of the Commissioners and it is not unusual still to make up these cleanups unfortunately. He stated we have had some issues in some of our communities where there isn't a taxed based garbage collection rather by subscription or people have had their choice. He stated unfortunately that leads to very unhealthy circumstances too. He stated Mr. Raich is familiar with IDEM's requirements and they deal with a lot of the vector issues.

Mr. Raich stated a transfer station is a permitted facility and so the State permit requires that you move the material from the transfer station on a daily basis. He stated however, it also allows the operator of the transfer station to sort the reusable materials from that waste stream such as wood, aluminum cans, steel and so forth. He stated the minute that they are pulled away the balance of the garbage has to be removed daily but that material can then be stock piled because it is a raw material like stone or a junk yard would store metal. He stated there is no time limit on that and that can be at the edge of the ten acre property. He stated it wouldn't really be subject to
the setbacks because it would be out of the transfer

station permit. He stated ten-acres might not be enough to hold as much material as can very quickly be sorted. He stated there is somewhere in the county right now where there is a lot of material being stored.

Mr. Bucko stated in relationship to the storage of these sorted materials that you are talking about, you said that there isn't any time period defined by IDEM or anything.

Mr. Harper asked is it true that if we have a transfer station that they may be accepting garbage from out of state. He asked is it true that the biggest environmental impact is the number of trucks. He asked is it true that there can be as many as 200 semi's a day if the station really gets going. He stated if this is not true why is it so lucrative that they are selling portion of it at $75000 a crack.

Mr. Bucko stated his question about storage was if IDEM says there is no limit on storage does IDEM require or allow local entities to require inside storage of those. He asked if there are setbacks for where they might be from a property line or in fact would it allow the recycling facility not to make these separations and then in fact dump them into a landfill anyway.

Mr. Raich stated the material that is separated has to be so called uncontaminated. He stated the sanction of the transfer station permit gives you the ability to sort. He stated once the material is sorted and then set out for recycle or reuse it would be up to the County to determine whether it can be stored inside or outside. He stated he believes that the zoning that we are talking about allows for outside storage of raw materials.

Mr. Thompson stated he would like to bring up one point to Mr. Raich. He stated as far as the I-2 zoning goes outside storage is allowable meaning if a plumbing contractor has a business at that location they can store stock piles of stone, pipe or whatever outside. He stated I-2 does allow for outside storage of materials.

Mrs. Capps asked how affective is the storing of all
of this material so we don't get contamination. She asked

if anyone has done a study on that at other transfer stations. She asked is there any guidelines on that.

Cindy Singleton asked why are we using 10 as a figure for our acreage.

Mr. Thompson stated he was handed a proposal for an ordinance. He stated he doesn't know who came up with it and he is not going to assume, but 10-acres was the target number that he was instructed to develop the ordinance at.

Ms. Singleton stated she assumes that we are going to debate the amount of acreage or 10 is what we are going on.

Mr. Thompson stated that discussion is up to the Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are discussing this and we are open-minded. He stated this is to get input.

Ms. Singleton stated so it is 10-acres and so we are just guessing whether or not we are going to do 10-acres. She asked does the 10-acres include just any 10-acres or is there wetlands on there and does that have to be excluded or does it have to be in addition to the wetlands.

Mr. Thompson stated it is 10-acre parcel.

Mr. Breitzke stated agency's will not permit anything on the wetlands.

Ms. Singleton asked if we are going to debate the number of acres.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are not going to debate it. He stated we are going to discuss it.

Mr. Littell stated a lot of people question what a transfer station is and what it does. He stated if there is time down the road in Lake Station there is a transfer station there.

Mr. Kovacivich stated what he is hearing from the Commission is that there is no concrete standards or facts to support the acreage but there is to support 50.

Mr. Breitzke stated no you are not hearing that at all.

Mr. Kovacivich stated this is exactly what Bob said. He stated there are no facts to support 10 but there are facts to support 50 because Bob checked around the State.

Mr. Breitzke stated that was for all landfill activities not specific to transfer stations. He stated we have looked around at transfer stations and they very in size from 2 to maybe 15 acres. He stated he would like you to find one that is 50-acres or 40-acres in size.

Lance Hodge stated he lives at 307 S. 2nd Street, Chesterton. He stated to address one question that the Commission has not addressed yet that was a concern of the audience and that was the fact on 10-acre parcels transfer stations can pop up all over the place. He stated a transfer station cannot get a State permit unless it is granted a recommendation of need by the Solid Waste Management District and fits in with the 20-year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. He stated once you hit a certain number of either transfer stations, landfills, solid waste facilities and it meets the needs of the outbound wastes from the community the State does not issue any further permits. He stated the transfer station permit only affects the building in the area that the transfer takes place and the operations around that facility going out to the road. He stated it does include hours of operation, emergency management plans and all of those things are included and micro-managed by the State. He stated as for the outdoors storage concern Mr. Raich was speaking to, if we collected recyclable materials right now in our trucks separately under the current zoning nothing would prevent us right now from storing it outside on the ground either in local ordinance or State law. He stated the transfer station is limited to the building where the material is dumped, hauled into trucks and taken out on the road. He stated we already operate a non-transfer station solid waste business out of that facility legally and could develop a fleet of trucks in there. He stated we would just not have the ability…

Mr. Breitzke stated we are speaking about the ordinance.

Mr. Hodge stated this is what he was speaking to. He stated he was trying to clear up a misconception about what a transfer station is or is not and what might happen on that property or might not. Mr. Hodge stated he works for Regional Industry's and he is an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health for Indiana University Northwest and he is the Executive Director of the Indiana Association of Solid Waste Management.

Mrs. Summers stated is it not true that if Mr. Hodges gets a permit to get this solid waste transfer station in that with this transfer station it would give them a way to bring in tons of money. She stated they will bring in a lot of money into Regional Industries and they are the one's that are backing the landfill. She stated she does know the difference between a transfer station and a landfill.

Laura Blainey stated she lives at 419 S. 200 W. She stated her primary concern is why would we take away the special exception rule. She stated it doesn't make sense to her that any kind of transfer station or dump or anything that creates so much public interest would not be a special exception. She stated we are the other public hearing.

Mr. Harper asked if the transfer station allowed garbage to be brought in from out of State and isn't it true that it can build up to like 200 trucks coming into the transfer station a day. He stated this is his question. He stated he has read that the biggest environment impact of a transfer station is the trucks. He stated Mr. Tanke and others have suggested that you put this in I, Industrial areas. He stated if you allow transfer stations just in any industrial area, for example, outside of Valparaiso, isn't it possible it might build up to 200 semi's a day with trash coming in from outside the State.

Mr. Whitcomb asked if the Commission was going to vote on this ordinance tonight.

Mr. Breitzke stated we don't know yet. He stated we have no motions on the floor and we have had no discussions.

Mr. Raich stated he has been through the process a couple of times and there is a difference between the BZA and the Plan Commission. He asked if the Commission would like to explain the difference and if you vote on it what happens then.

Mr. Breitzke stated if you are leaning to the fact that we forward a recommendation to the County Commissioners. He stated the County Commissioners actually have another public hearing for the specific ordinance. He stated regardless of how we vote, if we vote for or against, it is in the hands of the County Commissioners in the end. He stated we could continue it for more information. He stated we have a lot of decisions to make tonight. He stated he appreciates the public coming and voicing their opinions tonight.

Mr. Thompson stated he is dealing with zoning issues and as far as can garbage come from out of State, he doesn't know. He stated it probably could. He asked could it come up to 200 trucks a day. He stated probably could. He asked could they make money off of this. He stated yes this is why people get into business, to make money.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated he would like to discuss what escaped him in the past and Mr. Hodge brought to his attention. He stated it is a very important term where IDEM is concerned and where Solid Waste is concerned in relationship to the County. He stated he believes that it is a very important term that defines whether you need a landfill or even have the right to discuss a transfer station within a particular county. He stated that is the term "need." He stated if you do not have the need then you may not be permitted for a transfer station or a landfill. He stated once you are out of the control of your immediate county officials you are at a lost in a fight for whatever you need. He stated it becomes tougher. He stated need is definitely a factor there. He stated to Mr. Harper that he suggested that 200 trucks coming in from out of state. He stated that is not a need for the county. He stated this would be his interpretation of that. He stated that is an excellent question and this Commission needs to define that clearly to make sure they are actual fact. He stated he likes what

Mr. Raich said. He stated he brought some of those questions to Mr. Thompson in trying to help him understand some of this. He stated he was concerned about the setbacks. He stated he took his own 2.5 acres of personal property that he lives on a quarter of a mile a road, CR 350 S. He stated that quarter of a mile is approximately 11.53 acres, 380 feet deep and 1300 feet long. He stated if somebody needed to have a transfer station and it happened to be on SR 2, right next to him, if there is a 600±feet setback from his dwelling, that simply means that his house is 200 north of his property that means 400± feet is the closest that facility can be. He stated he looked at that and tried to define whether or not he felt that was large enough. He stated he questioned Mr. Thompson on the 10-acres. He asked why one-fifth the size. He stated Mr. Thompson said he was simply given 10-acres and present it to the Commission and let's work on it. He stated this is what this Commission does and that is determine whether or not things like things are too big, too small, appropriate, inappropriate. He stated their purpose is to give advice to the County Officials that have to make the decisions. He stated he has questions about a lot of this. He stated one big thing he has a question about. He stated one ordinance allows for a special exception to remain in the ordinance and the other copy does not require the special exception to be in it and allows it to come before TAC. He stated this is one of his points. He asked if he wanted TAC making a decision as heavy as this and he doesn't know if TAC would like to have that decision either. He stated doesn't know if anybody here might feel that this is an appropriate decision for TAC to make without it coming before the public and without it coming before the BZA. He stated he doesn't agree with this. He stated Mr. Tanke brought up some points out in relationship to access to roads. He stated he doesn't have a lot of faith in the fact that IDEM exists, even though they have Northwest Delegates up here for those purposes and what have you. He stated it is an agency that pretty much exists in Indianapolis and so therefore he believes that we ought to take as much control and maintain as much control here at the local level. He stated he wants to know the simple things that the people were talking about. He stated when they dump it on the floor do they clean it up every day. He asked how are these things cleaned. He stated the doctor asked about the health concerns. He asked what is the disinfecting process

and how is it supervised, and the inspectors etc. He stated this is very unclear to him and if we have the opportunity to supercede what the State says then maybe we ought to look at considering this within our ordinance. He stated we can't consider it within our ordinance if in fact it is and may cause some exclusivity at some level or deny someone the access right to make a buck. He stated they have a right to make a business and definitely there is a need. He stated he personally thinks that there is a lot of work to be done on this ordinance and he doesn't understand a lot of it and he regrets the fact that Lily couldn't be here.

Mr. Burns stated he thinks that we need to continue this for more information especially on the questions Mr. Raich brought up. He stated there are some major concerns. He stated he does want to highlight that he thinks that the special exception should stay with the ordinance.

Mr. Biddinger stated he wants to echo the fact that when you have a decision with this magnitude information is everything and getting all the facts in making a good decision. He stated the more eyes that look at this ordinance the more likely we are to find problems that are going to happen. He stated this is where citizens can step into the whole world of County politics. He stated he is sure that you may see something that the Commission members may miss. He stated this is what a public hearing is all about. He stated he feels that he doesn't have enough information. He stated he hasn't had the time to dive into this and find out what we need to do at this point. He stated he thinks that we need to consider this before we make a decision at this point.

Mr. Detert stated there are two concerns that have been prominent tonight. He stated it has bothered him from the beginning of reading this ordinance. He stated number one is the removal of the special exception and no public hearing. He stated he thinks that this should not be tolerated. He stated he has a little problem with the ten acres. He stated he really hasn't researched that to whether 20-acres or 15-acres or whatever is appropriate. He stated he is not sure he likes the 10-acres. He stated the other question that was brought up tonight and he hadn't thought about and he feels bad about not thinking

about it. He stated the lady over here in green who mentioned the proximity to schools and putting a lot of traffic near a school. He stated he thinks that we need to look at that. He stated he feels like the rest of the Commission. He stated we really don't have enough information and he would like to have time to get the minutes and read again all the comments that have been made here tonight and assimilate it better.

Commissioner Burrus stated the thing that strikes him and he thinks that a number of Commission members here have made the same point and that is there have been a number of very valid points raised tonight. He stated if we enter this with the open mindedness that we are supposed to have and we will have then he thinks that the idea that we need to do more homework on this is appropriate. He stated one of the lady's commented earlier on that in some of the earlier action this evening we were experiencing obvious growth, particularly the residential growth, in Porter County. He stated this is going on and it is continuing and it is going to have to be dealt with. He stated we are going to have to be concerned with our own trash. He stated we have a number of concerns about out of State refuse coming into Porter County. He stated this is valid, true, however, as a Commissioner he is responsible for providing for the disposal of or at least making arrangements for the disposal of solid waste. He stated he is concerned not about out of State but he is concerned about Porter County waste. He stated if we agree universally that we do not want a landfill in Porter County and he thinks this is pretty much understood, then an alternative to that, well not an alternative, it is a fact that we have to transport our waste somewhere. He stated one of the sites that we heard mentioned earlier this evening was to somewhere in lower Michigan. He stated if we do that then we are going to be experiencing a cost as we pay our trash refuse people. He stated it is going to be based on the distance that it is going to have to be hauled and the size of the load that is going to have to be hauled. He stated the concern he has, and this is where he wants to hear more on this issue, is what will this proposal, any proposal, do for a transfer station with respect to the rates that our citizens have to pay for hauling their trash away. He stated if we have to take it a greater distance then the larger loads will help keep the costs in line. He stated

then lets discuss what kind of restrictions we have to put
on this thing. He stated he doesn't want to jump to conclusions but at the same time he doesn't want to shut any doors. He stated a brief review of our zoning maps of the County come up with some points that he thinks all of you might be interested in. He stated regardless of the version of the ordinance that we are talking about tonight or any changes that will come out of these discussions and it looks like there is going to be several if not many. He stated they will all be restricted to zoning categories of nothing less than I-2. He stated in other words they must fit into an I-2 or I-3 zoning. He stated if you look at our existing zoning map the following townships, Jackson, Union, Porter, Boone and Westchester have no such zoning. He stated the following townships now have one site each Pine and Liberty. He stated Portage Township has two, Center Township has three and Washington Township has three. He stated we are not looking at 10-acre parcels, 50-acre parcels or any parcels every corner. He stated the discussion that we are having is do we want to have the possibility for transfer stations to be treated differently, as Mr. Raich said, then a landfill. He stated he doesn't know yet but it makes some sense to consider the situation. He stated his comments he thinks will echo what was said on the Commission to take a listen a good hard listen what was said tonight. He stated lets do some more research on our own and lets come back with maybe a revised or a greater enhanced proposal here that will address some of these issues that we have heard.

Mr. Poparad stated the only comment he has is there seems to be a great misconception about out of State trash coming to Porter County with a transfer station. He stated this is backwards. He stated the little truck takes it to the transfer station and puts it on the big truck and takes it away. He stated the big truck is not going to come from Chicago and dump it in Valpo to put it on another truck to take it to a landfill. He stated it is not logical and it is not how the system works. He stated his office is right beside Abel's facility and they bring it in a little truck, put it on the big truck and take it to the landfill. He stated the thought of out of State trash coming here he doesn't know if that is much of a concern. He stated it is the other way around. He stated the local trash leaves.

Mr. Mahnic stated he lives in Jackson Township but he did visit Abel facility. He stated they are clean and they are honest and they have no complaints and they are right in the city. He stated he is not saying that is great criteria and that is what is going to be here. He stated he doesn't know if we are ever going to have one. He stated he does feel that we need some kind of ordinance to put this in place. He stated his son lives in Michigan. He stated you pay a nickel on every container like this and the only way you get it back is to take this back to the store. He stated pop and beer cans are 10¢. He stated you pay a dime on every one and then you have to go back and recycle it. He stated we don't do that here in this county or in the State but it will eventually come to that. He stated we all generate garbage. He stated he did work out of the country and the way they handled some of the garbage is that they built an incinerator. He stated the laws in this State are kind of rough on building incinerators and what it will do to the atmosphere. He stated there is a possibility there and if engineering ever develops it we may some day be burning garbage because no one wants garbage in any State in our country. He stated we all generate garbage and as environmentalists and the people who want to conserve everything they know people in general don't want to help recycle. He stated you see this all of the time. He stated it is very difficult to make people do something they don't want to do. He stated we are faced, as far as he is concerned, with the question can we make something suitable that will be environment friendly and friendly to my pocketbook. He stated he agrees that we do need a little research on this, when and if it gets built and to what specifications and things like that.

Mr. Breitzke stated he too appreciates everyone coming out. He stated this is a dirty job sometimes. He stated we have to address these ordinances regularly to update them and to get up to speed for the publics benefit as well as the Commissions should they be subject to any weaknesses or liabilities to the County. He stated the Commission is open minded and will listen to the publics comments.

Commissioner Burrus moved to continue Case 03-M-2 until the October 8, 2003 meeting. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Discussion:

Mr. Thompson stated you said next meeting. He stated after hearing everything we want more research and he can go out and do research. He stated he doesn't want to write another ordinance. He stated it takes time to do this. He stated he can do the research based on Mr. Raich's comments and everything and he will bring the research in front of the Commission. He stated it does take time to write another ordinance especially if you don't like the research that he has done. He stated he will bring the research forward to you and this is probably going to take a couple of meetings. He stated he is not going to have a proposed ordinance in front of you so if you accept the research and you have directions for him to go he will probably not have a proposed ordinance to you until November. He asked the Commission members if this was acceptable.

Mr. Detert stated it was acceptable.

Commissioner Burrus stated he made the motion and it is acceptable to him.

Mr. Mahnic stated it is acceptable to him.

Commissioner Burrus stated he would like to suggest something. He stated this might be an effort to help Bob with what we are talking about here. He stated we have a list of the questions and comments and concerns. He stated we have the documents that were presented to us as text. He asked if it would be appropriate to have a two or three member committee from this Commission to work with Bob to incorporate those and to see what kind of recommendation we can come back with.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to add a few members of the industry to add input comments. He stated Mr. Raich had some valuable comments tonight and Mr. Hodge likewise could give us some input. He stated there are other people in the industry. He stated we want to be open minded and deal with it in a business like way as well as an ordinance.

Commissioner Burrus stated he would suggest in the
interest of nonpartisanship between those who may have an

interest in the business and those who have an interest not seeing the business exists lets draw on those individuals as a resource but he thinks that the committee should be internal.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is not a problem with this either.

Commissioner Burrus asked if we had any volunteers who will be willing to work with Bob on this issue.

The committee consists of the following members: Kevin Breitzke, Eric Biddinger and Rick Burns.

Mr. Biddinger stated he would like to add one comment. He stated if anyone does feel the need to contact any one of the Commission members to please do so.

Case 03-M-3. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for an ordinance relating to Adult Entertainment Businesses.

Mr. Thompson stated the reason why this came up is because our current ordinance does not doing anything to address adult entertainment type businesses. He stated if one should come in whether it is a bookstore or a gentlemen's club with a bar in it, it would have to be treated as a tavern or a regular bookstore. He stated sometime back he was approached by an attorney who said please address the adult entertainment business. He stated the research he did on this was a book written by a gentleman by the name of Eric Damian Kelly. He stated he is an attorney by education but he is also a professor in Planning at Ball State University. He stated he is also a principal in the Dunken Associates, which is a major code writing firm nationally. He stated Mr. Kelly wrote a book that talks about just this subject, Regulating Adult Entertainment Style Businesses. He stated he also has some ordinances that he had received from the City of Hammond, City of Mishawaka, City of Portage and in the book that he has by Kelly it talks about ordinances from many places such as the City of New York, Indianapolis and studies done there. He stated the ordinance that he originally sent out with the staff report, Lily called him and asked him to

change one thing on it and that was the "purpose and intent." He stated he does want to read this. He stated it was from the City of Mishawaka's ordinance. He stated the thing he has to make clear and it is rather important on this is that there is a number of court cases especially at the Supreme Court dealing with this issue. He stated mainly under the First Amendment Rights, Freedom of Speech. He stated it is on the very front page of the ordinance under Section A, Purpose and Intent. At this time, Mr. Thompson read Section (A)17.104.010 Purpose and Intent. He stated Lily asked him to put this in and she thought it was pretty important that we state that immediately up front. He stated another item that he did add is the fact the owners and operators of the facility, if so, proposed, if made an application would have to state who the owners are, such as what is in our Solid Waste Ordinance. He stated the research that he has done on this is he did speak to a Director of a community development department in Northern Lake County, a major City that has dealt with many issues with these sexually oriented businesses. He stated he told him that he originally had this written down as a special exception. He stated he was told don't do this. He stated he asked him why and was told their city was taken to court had a special exception and the BZA dropped the gavel, everyone was against it and they were almost in there very fast in front of a Federal Judge explaining to the Judge why they violated someone's First Amendment Rights, basically Freedom of Speech. He stated he warned him against it. He stated Kelly and his book also warned against doing a special exception. He stated he did stay away from the special exception. He stated he chose two districts, I-2 and I-3. He stated why did he choose I-2 and I-3. He stated residential development cannot take place in those districts. He stated he thinks that he also has it in I-1. He stated I-1 does allow residential in there but this is where he addresses setback requirements. He stated now the most common thing that he found within ordinances that he had researched and also the research materials for this information is setbacks. He stated the most prominent case was a case in New York City where they were trying to keep it 1000 feet from residential districts, churches, schools and public places. He stated an adult theater sued New York City and Supreme Court upheld it saying it is constitutional. He stated they are not restricting their Freedom of Speech by setting a

setback distance. He stated this is where he has the setbacks and this is where they came from. He stated many of the city's do have the setback requirements of 1000 feet and some have even gone to 1500 feet. He stated he did not change it to 1500 feet. He stated Lily told him to show it to the Commission and see whether or not 1500 feet would be a good setback for such uses. He stated with this ordinance you have the definitions. He stated he had to get very graphic with these definitions. He stated again, he did not make these up. He stated the City of New York had these definitions within their ordinances. He stated he used the definitions that were tried by other cities across the country. He stated he tried to hit up every entertainment type situation that he can think of and describe it to keep it separate. He stated he also went into the definitions of the types of facilities we want to protect. He stated daycare centers, library's, public buildings, public parks and playgrounds, religious institutions, residential district or use, schools. He stated why did this ordinance come up. He stated he was approached by a developer for potentially putting one of these uses in. He stated he won't say where it was at but he will say what got him in the action real fast was that it was right across the street from a church. He stated the Director he spoke to from the City in Lake County told him to find a district, keep the district specifically for them, define it and he said to put the separation requirements in it. He stated he told him to make sure there is a parcel of land that meets these requirements. He stated it will hold up in court. He stated he told him that if the owner of the property does not want to sell to the sexually oriented business that is not the concern of the municipality. He stated the concern of the municipality is to see to it that there is somewhere out there a parcel that can fit this.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

John Whitcomb stated he doesn't think that a 1000 foot setback is enough. He stated this is only a fifth of a mile. He stated he thinks that it should possibly 2500 feet.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated in reference to the setbacks. He stated he can see why Bob was going with 1000 feet because we have to get a starting point so to speak. He asked Mr. Thompson if it would be his interpretation that the setbacks that he used as examples either have been challenged or have not been challenged simply because they haven't been found unreasonable.

Mr. Thompson stated 1000 feet had been challenged. He stated the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ordinance. He stated this was in New York City. He stated 1500 was upheld by the Supreme Court but one thing that was noted was that Justices were starting to separate with their findings and briefs. He stated Kelly's book recommended not stretching it past 1500 feet because of the fact that the Justices were starting to get different opinions on it.

Mr. Burns stated he wants to make a comment on this ordinance and that is that Bob did a lot of homework on this and he did a good job in putting this ordinance together.

Mr. Biddinger stated he will echo that. He stated he has had some discussions on Bob on this. He stated the homework seems to be there. He stated one comment on the 1000 feet to the 1500 feet or 2000 feet or whatever you decide to do. He stated what happens is whenever you start setting a setback so far it is the same as putting a minimum lot area on something. He stated when you get it so far and such a great distance you are starting to talk a two or three acre or five acre lot size in order to get the setbacks.

Commissioner Burrus stated he doesn't think that is the same definition of a setback.

Mr. Thompson stated it is separation of distances.

Mr. Biddinger stated thank you for the correction. He stated he could still see how that could affect lot sizes with use of a particular piece of property. He stated he thinks that we do want to avoid that issue.

Mr. Detert stated he would like to echo the comments that Bob really did a lot of homework on this and he has

had at least one discussion on this and Bob has checked with places that have had experience and he thinks that we have a pretty good document.

Mr. Mahnic stated he agrees and he feels that Bob did a heck of a good job with the research. He stated he doesn't think there are too many places in our county that you can build this under I-1 or I-2.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no problem with this.

Commissioner Burrus stated he has two comments. He stated he first would like to address the need for this and in doing so he would like to endorse a comment that you received from Larry Steele. He stated he thinks that Larry is pretty perceptive as to what is happening to our County. He stated as this county grows not only are we getting a tremendously large number of good residents but we are getting another exposure that we may not have had to deal with before. He stated therefore the experience that Valparaiso had with some establishment of this type in the last several months is indicative of the situation that we find ourselves in and therefore it is appropriate.

Mr. Breitzke stated before Bob left the first time we put together some ordinances and Bob kind of humored him. He stated we are trying to be proactive. He stated when Bob came back, he knows it sounds like being reactive to something, but they had in fact approached it, but Bob really carried the ball on this thing. He stated Bob took what we had done before even a lot further and done some really intense research. He stated he really appreciates Bob's hard work on this. He stated this is a nice document and he appreciates it.

Mr. Bucko stated he appreciates what Bob has done here. He asked if he understands Bob, he is saying the writings, the briefings, and the interpretations begin to diminish or change somewhat but yet the Supreme Court upheld the 1500 feet limit.

Mr. Thompson stated this is correct.

Mr. Bucko asked if we would not be smart or smarter to go with the 1500-foot limit and therefore we know that it

would at least require a Supreme Court action because they have upheld that. He stated if they get wishy washy we know that they clearly upheld the 1000 feet.

Commissioner Burrus stated this does have precedence.

Mr. Bucko stated it should never be less than a 1000 feet anyway. He asked why not live within the 1500 feet range if we have the opportunity.

Commissioner Burrus stated he agrees with Mike on that and he thinks if he understood Bob that the 1500 feet was upheld except that it was not unanimous.

Mr. Thompson stated this is correct.

Commissioner Burrus stated there is a precedence and also and he thinks that we could go with the 1500 fairly comfortably.

Mr. Breitzke stated the problem is with as much conversation that could be reversed through the same effort by changing on what we have. He stated that we are very safe with 1000 feet. He stated maybe we should make it a quarter of a mile, 1320 feet.

Mr. Poparad asked if we are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court or the Indiana Supreme Court.

Mr. Thompson stated the U.S. Supreme Court. He stated more than likely they would go to a Federal Court with it being a free speech, an Amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Poparad stated he would take his chances on the 1500 feet.

Mr. Poparad moved to forward Case 03-M-3 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation with the change from 1000 feet to 1500 feet between the distances. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Burrus - Yes Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on October 7, 2003 at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. Thompson stated he has to bring up one thing with business in the office. He stated he is swamped with zoning complaints and with the research he is having to do and all of the ordinances. He stated he knows there is a hiring freeze but all of these zoning complaints and the fact that he can't get out and do an enforcement out there it is killing him. He stated he doesn't feel that he is doing justice to the people here by not being able to get out and he can't get free from the office. He stated he needs help. He stated he doesn't know what to do. He stated he has some thoughts that he would like to discuss with the possibility of giving up the Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector position if we can have a Code Enforcement position that can go between both Building and Planning Commission who does know building code enforcement and can work with Ray.

Mr. Poparad stated he is a little confused when you mention the Building Department. He stated he assumes that Mr. Weltz and his associates do the enforcement on the building codes now.

Mr. Thompson stated this is correct.

Mr. Poparad stated you don't need any help on the building code part of it but you need help on the zoning part of it.

Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Weltz has a part-time employee that is restricted to the number of hours and he is going to be loosing this part-time employee soon. He stated he definitely needs help in zoning. He stated he is also getting calls from developers to get out there and inspect their subdivisions. He stated he has to sign his name at the bottom of that sheet before it gets to the Commissioners that he says that all of this development is in and all of this infrastructure is in according to all of the Plan Commission approvals. He stated he had to put off one developer for three weeks.

Mr. Weltz stated he has to support Bob on what he just asked you for. He stated he try's to help Bob out a little

bit with some of these zoning issues. He stated when someone calls him with a complaint he try's to address it for Bob because of the busyness in our office and using the busyness in his office alone. He stated 21 days out of last month of the schedule workdays, out of the 21 days he received 1076 phone calls. He stated he has two part-time inspectors and one of them he is going to loose temporarily and a part-time secretary. He stated he is in the office 6:00 a.m. every morning and Bob is in every morning at 7:00 a.m. He stated they have a hard time keeping up. He stated they are not complaining but we are looking at how to satisfy the job we are doing with the time we are spending.

Mr. Thompson stated the ordinance writing and the research on it he loves doing this. He stated he wants to continue doing this. He stated he really wants to get into our subdivision control, our developmental standards and right now he is trying to work on the PUD. He stated the Committee keeps asking him when are we going to get back to the PUD. He stated he doesn't know when we are going to get back to the PUD. He stated he would like to tell the Commission members that they still have time to get their comments into him on the PUD ordinance.

Mr. Poparad asked if Lily writes the ordinances.

Mr. Thompson stated he writes the ordinances. He stated he has always done this ever since he has been here. He stated he will do a draft ordinance and get it to the attorney. He stated he has not worked with Lily enough. He stated he did work a number of years with Larry Steele. He stated he would write up a draft and have it pretty much what you see proposed. He stated he would then get it Larry and Larry would critique it. He stated Larry would then call him over to his office and sit him down and work through it.

Mr. Poparad stated he just thought the Board Attorneys as part of their job descriptions was writing ordinances and resolutions for the Board that they worked for.

Mr. Thompson stated Lily has been commenting and telling him what to put in. He stated she did have a draft ordinance.

Mr. Poparad stated she thinks that it should be the other way.

Commissioner Burrus stated we have a situation a little different here. He stated we have a professional planner on staff who is probably more knowledgeable than the attorney is.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

/s/ Kevin Breitzke, President

Attest:
Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP
Executive Director/County Planner