PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
June 23, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue the reading of the June 9, 2004 minutes. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Public Hearing:

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

Case 04-P-6. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Rd., Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Pine Minor Subdivision 2312-C-1 to be located on the North side of CR 1300 N., between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E. in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 8.92 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Mr. Thompson stated he withdrew this case from the public hearing agenda. He stated this was due to a recent ruling that came out. He stated everyone should have this ruling within their staff report concerning the ruling from Judge Alexa on a recent case, Aberdeen Phase I, and the ruling was very clear stating that the Plan Commission nor the County Commissioners have the statutory authority to grant variances. He stated so for this reason he discussed this with Attorney Schaefer and this case is now being forwarded to the County BZA. He stated any petitioner requesting a variance now, a developmental standard variance within a subdivision will go to the Board of Zoning Appeals before appearing before the Plan Commission or before getting primary plat approval.

Commissioner Harper asked why are we saying this is a variance.



Mr. Thompson stated minor subdivisions by our Rules and Procedures on our ordinances can be approved by our Technical Advisory Committee, however, before Judge Alexa's ruling, in the past we have always said that TAC cannot grant a variance. He stated anytime a minor subdivision that was coming through that was in need of a variance would be automatically forwarded to the Plan Commission for the primary plat approval. He stated in this particular case minor subdivisions are required to have a 60-foot ingress egress access easement to access interior lots. He stated this Pine Minor Subdivision only had a 50-foot easement. He stated for that reason TAC forwarded this to the Plan Commission for this case. He stated after it was on the agenda Judge Alexa's ruling came out and he spoke with Lily on it and she said we must have them forward it to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Commissioner Harper stated they are asking for a primary plat approval for a subdivision. He asked if this was correct.

Mr. Thompson stated they are in the process of that but because of the fact that they are asking for this developmental standard variance the variance from our developmental standards that are laid out in our codebook, which they now have to go before our Board of Zoning Appeals.

Commissioner Harper stated many times he has heard from the Board members here that there are problems with the minor subdivisions. He asked if this is correct.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Commissioner Harper asked what are the problems with the minor subdivisions.

Mr. Thompson stated there are no developmental standards other than 60-feet ingress egress easement. He stated there are no developmental standard as far as the private road that can access these lots. He stated it is a very simple way and expedited way to get subdivided lots for residential.

Mr. Breitzke stated the biggest problem is the issue of access because they can have 60-foot ingress egress easements on private roadways that invite some problems for a community unless they get things worked out in advance and have some kind of written agreements and many of these do not do this.

Commissioner Harper stated this property is zoned RR.

Mr. Thompson stated this is correct.


Commissioner Harper asked if they are asking for a rezone.

Mr. Thompson stated no. He stated the other thing he would like to say about minor subdivisions that upset some people is the fact that TAC has the authority to approve them. He stated if they would have had the 60-foot easement the process would have been that TAC could have approved the primary plat. He stated then notification would have gone out to the neighbors.

Commissioner Harper asked how do we solve the problems that the minor subdivisions have.

Mr. Thompson stated we just need to change our rules and procedures. He stated they originally sent it to TAC…to give you an idea we are on pace of having probably 50 cases of minor subdivisions at TAC. He stated we could change our rules and come back to the Plan Commission for meetings.

Commissioner Harper stated he thinks that the Plan Commission should approved minor subdivisions.

Mr. Detert stated we have tried that once and the meetings got very extensive trying to do major and minors. He stated he thinks that the Plan Commission at that time felt that the easiest way to solve this problem was to send them to TAC.

Mr. Breitzke stated if there is a remonstrance through the notice then it automatically comes to the Plan Commission. He stated we have heard the minor subdivisions if they are controversial. He stated most of them really aren't controversial. He stated about 80% of them have frontage on the road and they are just split offs.

Case 04-P-7. Petition of Frank Mendez, 388 N. Sedley Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a replat for Lot 14 in Moreland Estates Subdivision to be located on the West side of Sedley Road, between CR 325 N. and CR 400 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Don Bengel stated he is here representing Mr. Mendez. He stated they own a parcel that is pretty good size in acreage. He stated they have about 14-acres all total. He stated they would like to split their land in half. He stated they have an existing house, which we call lot 1 and is 3.13 acres. He stated they are trying to downsize because they have health problems with their child and they want to sell this house and build a smaller house on lot 2. He stated they have soil borings and they have gone through TAC and there doesn't seem to be any problems. He stated he doesn't know of any problems. He stated the real


question is how is drainage. He stated there is a collection system on this private road that takes the storm water down to an existing pond and to his knowledge there has been no problems at all. He stated they are asking for this split and it would be lot 1 and lot 2 and a replat of lot 14 in Moreland Estates.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Burns stated he has no problems.

Mr. Sheetz stated it was okay with him.

Mr. Biddinger stated he will pass for this moment.

Mr. Detert stated he thinks that the problems with the addressing has to be solved and he doesn't know if we ought to split the lots up and cause another problem.

Mr. Mahnic asked if this would be a private road.

Mr. Bengel stated yes and it is now.

Mr. Mahnic asked if the road meets county standards.

Mr. Bengel stated there are no standards except that what we say here is that they will widen the road out to be 20-feet wide for a distance of 50-feet from the existing pavement of Sedley Road.

Mr. Mahnic asked if this was hard surface.

Mr. Bengel stated no it was a gravel road.

Commissioner Harper stated he has no questions.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Thompson if he would like to talk about the addressing issue that we have.

Mr. Thompson stated all of the houses that are back there and the ones that even go back further and when he was doing the staff investigation report he noticed that they are all addressed off of Sedley Road. He stated there is not an available number for this lot. He stated his problem is if an emergency response was to happen how are they going to find them. He stated he didn't even see any signs or any indication whatsoever on where


these addresses are up and down this street. He stated this is a problem. He stated this really should have a private road number with addresses off of the private road. He stated his point is yes the Plan Commission has State Statute authority to be able to change addresses but he is going to take the heat for it.

Mr. Bengel stated he was surprise that Mr. Mendez had a Sedley Road address. He stated he thinks that this new address should have an address off of this road and they agree to sign up with a road number.

Mr. Thompson stated if you do that then it is going to be more confusing because the house that is across from the Mendez's is addressed off of Sedley Road plus the four that are further back are all addressed off of Sedley Road.

Mr. Bengel stated he doesn't know how that came about. He stated he doesn't have the original plat with him but he thought that it had addresses off of this road.

Mr. Burns asked if the Post Office could change this.

Mr. Thompson stated no. He stated the Post Office ends up calling us.

Mr. Breitzke stated while this is something that presents itself you are fine until you start splitting up lots. He stated the reality is you have a 10.6 acre lot that you are splitting up into one 7.5 acre lot and one 3.13 acres. He stated he just gets a little nervous when there are more lots going on private roads but because of the size of the lots he is not concerned and you did contribute more in the way of subsurface drainage easements and participation of the road maintenance and drainage etc.

Mr. Bengel stated he thinks that this will be a total of five on this private road.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is the problem because we couldn't come up with an extra number. He stated he doesn't know if it should be Mr. Mendez's responsibility. He stated he thinks that it should be Mr. Bengel's to figure out how to move people around.

Mr. Thompson stated this will be the sixth access onto that private road.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has to agree with Bob. He stated by not insisting that these lots be numbered properly we are only



going to compound the problem. He stated we have a problem there that the emergency people will have if there is an emergency there, which will reflect on us that we didn't do something when we could. He stated he thinks that we can say that these have to be numbered. He stated people change numbers every day. He stated there is no hardship in doing this.

Mr. Bengel stated he couldn't agree more. He stated he knows that Bob gets the heat when address's do change.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have to make it up to the developer in this case and start putting less pressure on the Plan Commission. He stated he thinks that this should be a contingency that you resolve the addressing issue to the satisfaction of the Plan Commission.

Mr. Bengel stated he thinks that they could do that.

Mr. Breitzke stated the bottom line is that we won't sign the plat until the addressing issue is resolved.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-P-7 with the contingency that the addressing be resolved by the developer before the final plat is signed. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion.

At this time, two women came into the meeting room and asked to be recognized to speak on this case.

At this time, Mr. Burns withdrew his motion.

Commissioner Harper recognized Paula Hoots and Geralyn Babcock to speak.

Paula Hoots stated she lives at 386 N. 475 W. She stated the Mendez's came to our house and had a petition and asked people in our subdivision to sign this petition that they wanted to put a house on their property. She stated we built a house in 1994 and we wanted to subdivide, we are lot 15, and we were told at that time that we could not subdivide. She stated I am glad that we didn't. She stated we have 3.64 acres or something. She stated I guess Mr. Hooseline in 1992 tried to subdivide and he also could not subdivide. She stated we have covenants that say that these lots are to stay as they are. She stated we did not sign this petition and she did not sign this petition. She stated we live kind of on a private lane. She stated there is the Mendez's, us, a farmhouse, Mr. Kenny, who did not get a notice to say that this is happening tonight, he lives across the street from us. She stated I spoke with him this morning so I know that he didn't get a notice but he is working midnights so he couldn't


be here tonight. She stated I do have a little signature from him. She stated then there is another house on this lane. She stated we are the people that take care of this lane. She stated we are the people that shovel the snow. She stated we are the people that if there are cracks in this lane we fix the lane. She stated we don't have garbage pickup at our house. She stated we have to take it up to the main road. She stated I had to change my job, my choice, because I didn't want my children to have to go Sedley, which was 12 acres away from my house to be picked up by the bus. She stated we do not want any more people on this road. She stated if we do have more people then this needs to be a county road and it needs to be treated as a county road. She stated it needs to be worked on as a county road. She stated it needs to be made wider, it needs to have snow removal, we need to have garbage pickup. She stated I like the privacy and everyone on this road likes the privacy. She stated they are willing to keep up this road, which is in the covenant. She stated we were told that they were going to subdivide. She stated they we told that they were going to put this house in the middle of the property. She stated this is not where this house is going. She stated I don't know how much footage is between our lot and their lot but it is not very much. She stated our covenant says that it should be aesthetically nice. She stated our house sits back and where they have this grass mowed is not set back. She stated aesthetically that is not right for us. She stated they have a brick house and we have a stick house. She stated there are two modular houses on this road. She stated we don't want another modular on this road. She stated we are not happy about this. She stated the Kenny's who signed this petition want to take their name off of it and I have his signature and why. She stated also Mrs. Cain who signed the petition, which is in lot 18, wants to take her name off of it.

Geralyn Babcock stated she lives at 384 N. 475 W. She stated the reason that we went there was because we were told that this would never be subdivided. She stated the way it was is how it was to stay. She stated we bought out in the country to be out in the country. She stated if we wanted to be in a subdivision that was broken down into smaller lots we would have done so. She stated that is what we were told when we bought it and that is what the covenants say. She stated we were told that all the houses that came in after theirs, because theirs was the first one that went in there, their house was going to set the tone of the subdivision. She stated that is what they had to go by. She stated they have a two story three car garage all brick home. She stated they have a nice stick home across and the rest are modular's. She stated that was not adhered to either. She stated to turn around and now resubdivide and number one the drainage problem on that particular lot is horrible. She stated


I don't think that they can put in a septic system. She stated the road floods primarily because of that lot. She stated adding more to that I just don't see how that is going to work. She stated we did move there for that particular reason. She stated even though it is in a subdivision we were told it wouldn't be broken down. She stated we were told it couldn't be broken down.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to point out that covenants are not enforceable by the Plan Commission. He stated they are an agreement by the property owners. He stated they are not part of our ordinance nor are they part statute where we can enforce them.

Mr. Breitzke stated he thinks that we are back at the public hearing some what because he wants Don Bengel to answer these questions.

Mr. Bengel stated when Mendez's first called him they knew about the covenant and he knew about it. He stated the first thing they had to do is contact the majority of the people to agree that you can get one more house in there. He stated they went to Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and had an amendment to restrictive covenants for Moreland Estates prepared and I gave them a list of people the minimum number of people they had to contact and they did. He stated they got signatures and notaries on all these signatures and it says, "Replacement Section Three of the original covenants" "Except for lot 14, which may be resubdivided to consist of not more than two parcels in which a single family home may be built. No lot shall be resubdivided so that more than one single family home may be built on any lot." He stated we understood that the covenant was there and they did what their legal advice, not my legal advice, but I did suggest that they get legal advice. He stated from that this wasn't done to spite anyone.

Mrs. Babcock stated when Mrs. Mendez came around with this quite frankly every person that I've talked to she bulldozed. She stated she came when people were leaving for work and they didn't have time.

Mr. Breitzke stated what we are looking at is evidence to decide on what to do with this subdivision. He stated Mr. Bengel really needs to rebut whatever other questions not having to do with the covenants.

Mrs. Hoots stated the people on CR 400 really don't care what happens to this area because they are not involved.

Mr. Biddinger stated if you have an issue that is a civil


issue. He stated that needs to go to court.

Mrs. Babcock asked why are we here tonight.

Mr. Breitzke stated to see if it conforms to the ordinances of the county. He stated what they have pretty much done is ask for a replat of a lot and that is not unusual. He stated in fact this is a 10.6 acre lot that they are separating into one 3.1 acres and one 7.5 acre lot.

Mrs. Babcock asked what ordinance are you referring to.

Mr. Thompson stated Title 16 of the Porter County Code titled Subdivision. He stated it has all the rules and procedures necessary for a primary plat, secondary plat or replatting.

Mr. Breitzke stated these are the rules that apply to everyone in unincorporated Porter County.

Mr. Mahnic stated I don't think we should do anything. He stated we don't enforce covenants but we say that they have to be there. He stated why should we make some kind of ruling that is contrary to a covenant that they have over there. He stated he feels that if we are going to allow replatting this without continuing this to look into more detail on what is going on here we would be doing something wrong to the citizens there who bought with a covenant in hand. He stated we don't enforce them but shouldn't do something contrary to that.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like our Attorney to give an opinion on that.

Attorney Schaefer stated since time in memorial it is not the business of this Body to even make reference to their covenants. She stated the fact is they're taking the risk of bringing this here. She stated we have to go by our ordinance. She stated we can't continue it to look into the covenants. She stated if those folks want to get together and file a lawsuit against them that is the risk they are taking. She stated if those signatures were forged you guys have all the right in the world to get an attorney and go after them. She stated unfortunately, we are kind of stuck with the ordinance that we have and we have to follow that and that is what is in front of us.

Commissioner Harper stated he would like to ask a question. He stated he admits that this is not his area of the law. He stated this is the way he understands this. He stated this man is here asking for something that is not dictated on our part to


grant. He stated if it is dictated on our part to grant, what are we doing here. He asked maybe someone can explain this to him. He stated he hears the word dictated to grant this. He stated you are telling me that we have to follow our ordinance. He stated he doesn't know what ordinance we have to follow. He stated we are here to hear his request to deviate from the subdivision plat that they got and I think that everything is on the table when he is asking for that. He stated he is here in a way in our mercy if he understands it correctly. He stated maybe I don't.

Mr. Breitzke stated maybe we will have the attorney answer your question. He stated the replat is a subdivision of the subdivision. He stated it is an ordinance and we have to have findings of fact of inconsistencies with the ordinance if you vote against it or if you vote for it there are findings of fact that this follows the ordinance.

Commissioner Harper stated I don't know a lot about zoning. He stated when I ask questions I am not trying to be smart. He stated when these ladies come here they probably know even less than I do just because I've been here for a few meetings to try to find something out. He stated I think it is not our place to lecture them. He stated I think it is our place to try to help them understand what is going on and help us understand what is going on.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are in the middle of a formal proceeding.

Commissioner Harper stated I understand we are and they are just citizens that here. He stated I am here to serve the citizen. He stated the builder and the developer and all these people know how the system works and they work it every day of the week. He stated these people just try to figure out how it works. He stated they mentioned that somebody didn't get notice. He stated that just sort of flies by. He stated I don't know if this guy didn't get notice. He stated they mentioned that there are some drainage problems with this lot. He stated now I have a hundred questions that I would like to ask. He asked Mr. Mahnic if made a motion to continue this.

Mr. Mahnic stated no.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 04-P-7 to give them a chance to talk to their neighbors and for the Commission to find out a little more about the roads until the next meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.



Discussion:

Mr. Breitzke stated we have a motion for continuance and in the meantime you need to talk to the Plan Commission. He stated they are available all of the time and so am I. He stated I haven't gotten any calls.

Mr. Sheetz asked if they are on a 3-acre lot.

Mrs. Hoots stated 3.6 acre.

Mr. Sheetz asked Mrs. Babcock how many acres she had.

Mrs. Babcock stated they have two lots and it is probably about 4 or 5 acres.

Mr. Sheetz asked if this went through TAC.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Mr. Sheetz asked if this was approved.

Mr. Thompson stated no. He stated TAC does not approve they forward this.

Mr. Sheetz stated we don't know if there is a drainage problem out there or not.

Mr. Breitzke stated we can talk about drainage later.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Biddinger - No Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Sheetz - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

This meeting is continued until the July 14, 2004 meeting with the public hearing open.

Mrs. Babcock asked if they are allowed to attend this meeting.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes you are and we will not be sending out notices. He stated this is your notice and please be here at 6:30 p.m.

Case 04-MP-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for



a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for the selection of a consultant for the purpose of updating the Porter County Master Plan.

Mr. Thompson stated I put this at a public hearing because now we are down to the point where we are making a recommendation to the County Commissioners and ranking them one, two and forwarding this to the Commissioners. He stated I have had in the past two weeks the RFP's that are in front of you sitting in our office and at the Commissioners office for the public to come in and review. He stated there is a substantial price difference in the two. He stated I know HNTB and I have worked with them and I know the people there and I know that they are very good. He stated he called around to Brad Johnson's references. He stated out of the six references I called four of them. He stated I spoke with Rick Brandos who is Senior Planner with the Town of Fishers. He stated they are taking the subdivision and zoning and making a unified development code. He stated Ground Rules Incorporated is doing a unified code for them. He stated I asked them what process they went through and they went through the same process that we did and they chose Ground Rules. He stated the Town of Fisher chose them because the City Council was very impressed with his format for the unified codes. He stated they said they were very user-friendly codes especially putting the codes on the web page. He stated they said he was great to work with. He stated the City of Bloomington reiterated the same thing. He stated he asked everyone if he came in at a shockingly low figure and the Town of Fisher said that he was lower than everybody. He stated the City of Bloomington said that he came in 25% lower than everybody else. He stated I spoke with Glen Boise and he is the Director of the Howard County Kokomo area Plan Commission. He stated I know Glen and he is pretty up front. He stated he said he was very happy with the project. He stated Glen liked the user-friendly of the codes. He stated Glen said that they did have the guarantee within their contract saying that if they weren't happy they would get their money refunded. He stated A.J. said they were happy with what Ground Rules was giving them.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

John Whitcomb stated he lives at 2059 S. SR 2. He stated I remember five years ago we went through something just about like this. He stated it wasn't worthwhile and it turned out lousy. He stated what we got from HNTB were nine colored maps that used to hang all around here and that is just about all we got except a big bill, $138,000. He stated Mr. Thompson at that time was new and he said he didn't have the expertise to take on that job. He stated he could have done the job and you didn't have to have


any expertise to do what they did for $138,000. He stated what we got out of this was a lawsuit on this landfill and very little else. He stated I read the new Master Plan and the old Master Plan. He stated there is very little difference. He stated the Plan Commission, the Council and the Commissioners wasted a lot of money. He stated now five years later Mr. Thompson should have a little more expertise. He stated I don't know how he feels about it but I think what he wants to do is pass the buck to somebody else so it don't hit him in the fanny. He asked do you know what your plan on this project is. He stated he stated he heard a rumor of over $200,000. He asked if it was less than $138,000. He stated I don't think you people need to spend the money on this project. He stated do it in house. He stated even if Mr. Thompson doesn't have the expertise. He stated all of you can get together with the Commissioner's and the Council. He stated somebody ought to come up with an idea that won't cost up $200,000.

Mr. Thompson stated as far as the cost HNTB came in at $199,000 to do the project. He stated Brad Johnson with Ground Rules came at $93,000 to do the project. He asked can I do these ordinances. He stated sure but you will see them in ten years because I don't have any help. He stated you asked me to do the PUD ordinance I have the material but I don't have one word on a piece of paper and that was better than two months ago. He stated if you want me to write the PUD ordinance, fine, but don't expect to see them for about ten years. He stated I don't have the help in that office. He stated this in my opinion is a much cheaper way than going out and hiring people to help me out by taking the ordinary duties answering at the counter, talking with people at the counter, writing an Improvement Location Permit or anything like that and then once I get done with the ordinances I get to walk up to the people that have full-time salaries, health and benefits and everything like that pat them on the back and say "Nice job. I don't need you anymore, goodbye." He stated if you want that done give me the money or we can get somebody who specializes in this and does it for a living and we can get them done faster.

Mr. Breitzke stated I will add this, I have participated in many of the ordinances, the new Land Fill Ordinance, the Communications Ordinance, the Adult Entertainment Ordinance and the list goes on. He stated they took us months to do individually. He stated we need something that fits our community and our needs because we didn't want to basically copy somebody else's at risk of duplicating their mistakes and hopefully having something better that is more of a "cutting edge" but at least something defensible in court. He stated if we have advisors to do this then we can accomplish this much more quickly.


Mr. Detert stated I have been here a long time and we have tried exactly what the gentleman said and we have failed every time. He stated people have jobs they come in we have met here in the evenings. He stated we did a little piece of this a little piece of that. He stated we changed the ordinance. He stated we never got to the point where we have a nice clean ordinance. He stated we still have a lot of problems with it. He stated it didn't work and I think we need the people with the expertise, the people with the facilities, the people that have the knowledge on what is going on in other communities that we can pick their brains so to speak and help make a good ordinance here. He stated more over a good ordinance is going to improve the quality of life in Porter County, it is going to increase the people that want to come here and the quality of people that want to come here. He stated if we do a sloppy job we are not going to get there. He stated I like HNTB because we have worked with them before. He stated hearing these recommendations maybe Ground Rules is the way to go to save the people of Porter County some money. He stated everyone that Bob spoke to likes them. He stated I think who Bob can work with comfortably is important also.

Mr. Whitcomb asked Mr. Detert what makes you think that now you are going to hire somebody who can solve your problems. He stated it hasn't happened. He stated you said you've been here a long time. He stated you ought to have seen some of these problems and you ought to be able to know what they are.

Mr. Detert stated I have seen them all. He stated to Mr. Whitcomb you need to sit here and you have to take responsibility and I can tell you that we have not made that progress by part-time members of the Plan Commission and we are not trained to do this.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper moved that we have Ground Rules as number one and HNTB as number two. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Mahnic stated he would favor Ground Rules because in looking over HNTB they have added item, which amount to $35,500, which means it is options. He stated we wouldn't have everything complete unless we took care of these value added items that they slipped in there. He stated this puts their bid in over $235,000. He stated that is pretty high. He stated when I look at the one by Ground Rules they guarantee a lot of things. He


stated in here they have legal advice. He stated he looked at his carefully and they have repeatedly put in here that their arguments that they put forth in their ordinances are legally challenged and they have background for it. He stated they have available legal expertise that will back up these things that come up. He stated I was very much impressed with Ground Rules.

Mr. Breitzke stated Ground Rules offered somewhat of a guarantee that if we didn't like the product after the first draft, drop them.

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Sheetz - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

This will be heard by the County Commissioners on July 6, 2004.



Mr. Breitzke stated there was a court decision a couple of weeks ago just prior to our last Plan Commission meeting so there wasn't enough time to report on it. He stated I think you are all pretty much aware of it by now. He stated it is the Cole case.

Attorney Schaefer stated I just wanted it to be brought up this evening because there is a thirty-day limit on whether you want to appeal it. She stated this is totally up to you. She stated my feelings in these matters always is that if the actual parties aren't appealing it and the one who is really be gored by the decision such as Aberdeen and Benchmark if they don't want to appeal it I don't see want the county should be spending its money to appeal it.

Commissioner Harper moved not to appeal the Cole case. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.



At this time, the Commission had a discussion on covenants.


There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/Kevin Breitzke, President

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