PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
August 11, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the July 28, 2004 meeting and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Mr. Thompson stated I have a letter here submitted by the Duneland Group concerning Vernon Woods Subdivision. He stated they are asking for a continuance for the secondary plat approval for Vernon Woods Subdivision. He stated they have not yet been to the Drainage Board prior to the secondary plat hearing. He stated they are requesting a continuance to the August 25, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue Case 04-FP-10 until the August 25, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

Bucko - Yes Burns - Abstain Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 04-P-7. Petition of Frank Mendez, 388 N. Sedley Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a replat of 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. (con’t from July 14, 2004 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am here with Don Bengel and Mr. Mendez. He stated as you may recall this is a replat of Lot 14 in Moreland Estates. He stated the original parcel contains


approximately 10.5 acres and the proposal is to make two parcels. He stated in the easterly parcel there is an existing residence three-acres in size and the westerly parcel is approximately 7.5 acres in size. He stated they are both very large parcels. He stated as you may recall the last time we discussed this project there was a considerable amount of discussion centering around the private roadway that exists along the southerly border of lot 14 and provides access to CR 475 for a series of parcels located within Moreland Estates. He stated what we have done here is we have reconfigured what would be the westerly lot to now provide for frontage on CR 475 W. He stated there is 96-feet of frontage, which complies with the width frontage wise required by your ordinance. He stated therefore there is no need for any new public street or road. He stated it has the appropriate access. He stated what this will then allow is to stay the status quo with respect to this private drive as a number of residents were concerned with over burdening this private roadway. He stated there will be no additional traffic on this roadway as provided for with this drawing. He stated with that I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. Mahnic stated I argued against this to start with. He asked what is the distance of your new road going to existing home from the CR 475 W.

Mr. Ferngren stated I am not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Mahnic stated you have an existing roadway going to the existing house. He asked how close is that to CR 475 W.

Mr. Ferngren stated I still do not understand the question.

Mr. Mahnic stated I am concerned with the fact that the road that exists there now the private road is just wide enough for one car. He stated we have argued that and maybe some day something will be done about that. He stated we have a hard time getting in and out there. He asked are you going to put a road adjacent to that now.

Mr. Ferngren stated if you look at the northern portion of the lot you can see that it is kind of a flag shaped lot and the access to the parcel is here.

Mr. Mahnic stated so you are going to access this here.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct. He stated this lot will not access that private road at all.


Mr. Mahnic asked if you would consider this a big change because if it is we are going to have to put this out to the public again. He stated we just got this plan tonight so I understand that anytime you go in for a replat, primary or secondary plat we need to see these ten days before. He asked are we going to hold to that policy or is it going to get by us.

Mr. Ferngren stated I don’t consider it a big change. He stated I consider it a change that is consistent with what everyone discussed at the last meeting. He stated the residence along this private road were concerned with over burdening and additional traffic. He stated this is a solution to that problem. He stated I don’t think it is a big change. He stated it provides the density’s that were contemplated at the last hearing.

Mr. Mahnic stated I am questioning that. He stated whether I like it or not is immaterial. He stated the point is we have a Plan Commission here of seven more members and somebody should have an input and say that we need to consider this more and better we need to let the people who live there know about this. He stated I know that there are three citizens over here from that area that opposed this originally. He stated they should have an input on what is happening in there subdivision. He stated whether it takes another meeting to do it or whether it is inappropriate to not to consider it now.

Mr. Ferngren stated I guess I would be of the opinion that we have had the public hearing and this is not a major change but in fact a change that brings this proposal within your subdivision control ordinance. He stated those citizens did have the opportunity to speak at the last meeting and did in fact speak and all of the issues at that time centered around the use of this roadway. He stated now we have presented the situation where there is no additional traffic on that roadway whatsoever because the access would be provided directly onto CR 475 W.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to say that when we continue something and new ideas come up it is inconceivable to me that we do not allow the public to speak again. He stated if something is going to be changed in all fairness…I was bothered with the drainage up on CR 250 the time that we had the big hearing and we came back and we were told that everything was okay with the drainage. He stated well, they met with TAC and everything has been worked out and blah, blah, blah. He stated the reason we let the residents speak so they can give their side. He stated I don’t think in any way of fairness on anything not just this, that we can have a change and come back again and say that the residents can’t speak. He stated if we are doing that it is not fair. He stated that is my thought on it.

Mr. Bucko stated if there is a Commission member that wishes to have someone from the public to speak then recognize them to speak. He stated this Board has never denied anyone to speak and in fact encouraged them to speak.

Mr. Poparad stated this 96-feet, is that what I am looking at.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is correct.

Mr. Poparad asked is this outside the 40-foot drainage easement.

Mr. Ferngren stated the driveway will not be located within that utility and drainage easement.

Mr. Poparad stated you only have 50-feet to work with them.

Mr. Bengel stated if you are talking about that narrow part it goes down to 60-feet we have 40-feet to deal with. He stated there is a centerline with a 40-foot easement, 20-feet on the north and 20-feet on the south.

Mr. Poparad asked is this going to be a private drive.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is a regular private access to the county road.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would suggest that you have a “no access” easement along the south side if you are going to guarantee future owners of the lot in back not to access that.

Mr. Poparad asked if lots 8 and 13 accessed to the north.

Mr. Ferngren stated all the lots to the north of this proposal access to the county road.

Mr. Poparad stated lot 13 probably accesses to CR 475.

Mr. Ferngren stated lot 12 would go to the north.

Mr. Mahnic stated back in 1992 this was under the original owner and he wanted something replatted. He stated Mr. Sheets at that time was on this Commission and I will tell you what he said in here. He stated, “Mr. Sheets stated that he agrees with Mrs. McWhorter’s comments. When realtors and developers represent themselves in one fashion and sell the property then they turn around and make changes. It affects the people who have already bought property there. He stated that if the property owners who bought way back when would have known that there would be a


change they might not have purchased it. He stated he can base this upon his personal experience and he asked Mrs. Babcock who sold her property and indicated there would be no further development.” He stated that Mrs. Babcock stated, “If the property had been divided this way they never would have purchased it.” He stated it gets back to were the people led down a rosy path and now they can change it. He stated I don’t want to bring up anything about the covenants because they have no bearing at all.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to recognize those people who are here to speak.

Mr. Sheetz stated could I get some clarification first. He stated before they were going to enter off of that 12-foot road, right, and we had a problem with that. He stated so now you have moved the entrance over here off of CR 475.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is correct.

Mr. Sheetz stated so we aren’t going to be on that road.

Mr. Ferngren stated the existing home will continue to use the road it already has but the new parcel at the west end will not use the private road.

Mr. Sheetz stated the new home is not going to add any more traffic to the existing road.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.

Jerri Babcock stated I live at 384 N. 475 W. She stated obviously this is news to us. She stated that we haven’t seen anything like that. She stated none of the other neighbors this may affect now that are on the other side are not aware of this. She stated nobody in the subdivision is aware of this except for the three of us here tonight about this additional road. She stated once again it is going to get to now we have another road, how is that going to affect drainage etc. She asked what is to prevent that other parcel to ever putting in a back entrance to their property or going ahead driving in and out that way road or no road. She stated this is just off the top of my head what comes to her immediately.

Patrick Hoots stated I live at 386 N. 475 W. He stated it just sounds to me like they are trying to build another subdivision within a subdivision.

Paula Hoots stated I live at 386 N. 475 W. She stated I think that since this is something new that everybody in our

subdivision needs to know this. She stated I know that you are not interested in the covenants but part of what was brought up was the signatures of everybody in this. She stated this is going to esthetically change our subdivision. She stated it will change our property value possibly. She stated I think everybody needs to be aware of this before anything starts to happen.

Mr. Ferngren stated everyone received notice of the initial public hearing on this matter and had the opportunity to speak that night. He stated those who chose to did so and spoke. He stated they also knew that this matter was continued to tonight so they had every opportunity to be here tonight just as these people are voicing their opinions. He stated additional development for this site really are not possible as Mr. Bengel had indicated in some detail at the last meeting. He stated the soil conditions in this area simply wouldn’t support additional buildings. He stated the septic system areas just simply would not be able to sustain additional building sites. He stated the driveway, as Ms. Babcock alludes to, is not a roadway but a driveway. He stated just as she has a driveway off of this private road this would be just like any other regular single- family residential subdivision driveway that would provide access to a single parcel. He stated just like Mr. Breitzke mentioned the no access easement along the southern portion of the newly created lot and they would be more than willing to provide that and make that part of the plat for you.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to see that continue into lot A up to your existing driveway so that cuts off any future possibility’s.

Mr. Ferngren stated I am not necessarily opposed to having some of that but in the event that this road is ever widened and I want to make sure that we always have enough room to move our driveway back.

Mr. Breitzke stated in line with the back of the house.

Mr. Mahnic stated I think that this is a significant change. He stated before it did not affect lots 13, 11, 10, 9 and possibly these people also signed the petition that they have no problem with subdividing the parcel and using the existing one lane road that goes into the subdivision. He stated now lot 13, 11, 10 and 9 will have this driveway adjacent to them. He stated they may have reacted differently to it. He stated I think it is a significant change because it is going to cost a little bit more money to the developer or home owner who is going to build back here versus using the private road that is there and putting in a road of their own or a driveway of their own. He stated I


think that we need to see to it that the people that are affected by this are notified and have an opportunity to give us their thoughts as to what they think of this here.

Mr. Ferngren stated I believe everyone had the opportunity to speak and once again tonight. He stated notice was given to all of these property owners.

Mr. Poparad moved to have the petitioner notify the adjacent property owners of this change and if they can get enough signatures they can then come back. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Bucko stated when this came before this Commission I wasn’t at this meeting. He stated I look at this as people along lots 13, 11, 12 and 9 went to bed feeling that this was going to go back for a review and they have their names signed on something to split this land totaling not knowing that a driveway is going to be in their backyard. He stated I think in all fairness we have to let those people know that. He stated if it was a requirement for the process to take place to split the land and they did it and they agreed to it, it was based solely upon the private drive being the access point. He stated now it is a completely different drive on this other side.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - No Breitzke - Yes

Case 04-FP-8. Petition of Robert Palm, P.O. Box 960, New Carlisle, Indiana seeking a 21st Replat of the 14th Replat at Aberdeen, Lot L-100A, L-101A, L-102A, L-103A and L-104A to be located on Hawick Drive, between Larwick Circle and Murfield Drive in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on .877 acres.)

Bob Palm stated I am here on behalf of Coolman Communities. He stated the purpose of this replat is that we are taking five lots approximately 58 feet in width and trading three lots in that same area of 97 feet in width. He stated this is actually the 21st Replat of all of Aberdeen.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-FP-8. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


Case 04-FP-9. Petition of Hawthorne Communities, LLC, P.O. Box 2297, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Hawthorne Subdivision, Phase I, to be located on the North side of CR 500 N., between Silhavy Road and Calumet Avenue, in Center Township, in Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 40 lots on 19.382 acres. Zoned R-1.)

Todd Leeth stated I am here on behalf of the petitioner, Hawthorne Communities. He stated joining me this evening is John Kremke from the Duneland Group. He stated we are here seeking secondary plat approval for the Hawthorne Subdivision Phase I and as was indicated that contains 40 lots out of the 111 lots of the entire subdivision. He stated the entire subdivision contains 47 acres and this is 19 acres of that. He stated this is located in the southeast corner near the intersection of Silhavy Road and Burlington Beach Road, CR 500 N. He stated as you know this is a development on the fringe of the City of Valparaiso on the northern extremities of the city. He stated we will be serviced by the city utilities with sewer and water and it is zoned R-1 under your zoning ordinance. He stated the proposal for the secondary plat for the first phase complies 100% with the layout of the primary plat that was approved in December.

Mr. Burns asked do you need any variances.

Mr. Leeth stated we need no variances.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have no problem with the secondary layout the way they presented it to me. He stated the only thing is that Silhavy and CR 500 N. are going to be very crowded. He stated CR 500 N. is starting to deteriorate. He stated Silhavy is 30 mph. He stated we are going to need a stop light at that intersection or nobody will get out of that subdivision unless eventually you put another outlet either on North Calumet or CR 500 N. He stated a light will need to go there in order to move people in and out of that subdivision.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-FP-9. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Breitzke stated there are a couple of things I would like you to consider. He stated first to make it a requirement to put in detention at the very beginning of this project. He stated you are right at the edge of a major outlet, Flint Lake Garden Terrace drain. He stated the other thing is we have a bond number that should be part of the motion.



Mr. Detert stated he would incorporate in his second for the motion to include that the detention be put in at the very beginning of this project and contingent on the performance bond.

Motion reads as follows:

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 04-FP-9 contingent on the performance guarantee of $1.58 million dollars and to put in the detention pond at the beginning of the project. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-FP-11. Petition of James Blum, 150 E. 50 S., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Stone Creek Subdivision Phase C to be located on the East side of SR 49 between Division Road and CR 150 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 26 lots on 54.627 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Donald Bengel stated I am the surveyor and engineer for Mr. Blum. He stated this is the final phase of the subdivision. He stated the subdivision has gone very well both construction wise and marketing wise. He stated the plat meets all of your requirements. He stated the bond amount has been set.

Mr. Mahnic stated at the last TAC meeting it says that the review of the bond is necessary. He asked has this been resolved.

Mr. Thompson stated that has been completed. He stated I called over at the engineering and there was a little bit of a difference between it and in your staff report I took the engineering’s estimate at $267,000 for performance guarantee recommendation to the Commissioners.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 04-FP-11 contingent on the performance bond of $267,000. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

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

Case 04-APP-2. Petition of Lawrence & Alyce Dvorak, 738 W. 50 N., Valparaiso, Indiana appealing the Technical Advisory Committee’s decision to approve Union MS 238-B-1 to be located on the South side of CR 50 N., between CR 700 W. and CR 750 W. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.



Gordon Etzler stated I am here representing the Dvorak’s. He stated I would like to ask for a continuance of this case for approximately 30 days. He stated I have discussed this with Don Bengel and I understand Mr. Bengel has discussed this with his client. He stated they said no that they would not agree to it. He stated as you know the procedure for a minor subdivision requires an appeal to be filed within ten days and this particular hearing happened almost within fifteen or twenty days of the decision being made by TAC. He stated they were not notified timely. He stated it was at the end of the period of time. He stated some people in the neighborhood hadn’t received the notices. He stated that is not really the problem. He stated the problem is the Dvorak’s property lies to the east of this property and all of the surface water flows across their property. He stated the proposal is to build the road for the three lots along the common property line with the Dvorak’s, which means that if it isn’t done properly in the grading it will dam up the surface water. He stated the Dvorak’s know what the surface water is on this property. He stated they feel that there is a serious issue with it. He stated I tried to get an engineer to look at this. He stated because of the time of the season and because the shortness of time they said that they didn’t have the time and regardless of what we pay them they couldn’t do it. He stated the problem is the time period is too short. He stated the subdivider has started this in March. He stated they have had about five or six months. He stated Don himself has been involved with this since May. He stated we are just asking for another 30 days so that they can get an engineer hopefully within that time.

Mr. Bengel stated unfortunately the Commission hasn’t seen any documentation or any plats of the minor subdivision. He stated Dave Schelling from the Highway Department had some concerns about the drains that we would be putting a drive in. He stated the drive will go right immediately adjacent to the property line. He stated the centerline will be about 20-feet off. He stated we show that the maximum grade will be 6%, which is the legal maximum. He stated the drive will be about 800-feet long to serve the third lot. He stated there are only three lots in this subdivision. He stated there is the lot with the existing house and two new lots. He stated the road is going to be lower than the existing ground and there will be a swale on each side of the road to carry the water off. He stated if you look at the first small sheet that indicates the road and the cut and our side slope from the bottom of our ditch it is going to be about 6-feet deep at that point and that is a run of 10-feet and that is only 1.6 slope, which is not a bad slope at all. He stated if you look at the big sheet I highlighted the arrows to indicate the drainage that comes from the petitioners ground to


my clients ground. He stated there is absolutely no way that we can flood them out. He stated we get an awful lot of their water.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have to get back to the continuance of the case.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 04-APP-2 to September 8, 2004 and to remand it back to the Technical Advisory Committee for further review of the drainage. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Other Business:

Case 01-4-23. Petition of Michael Martinez, 2406 Seahorse St., Portage, Indiana seeking site review for a mobile home park, Golf Creek Mobile Home Park, to be located on the North side of SR 130, ½ mile East of County Line Road, in Portage Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Zoned RMH)

Mr. Thompson stated this is a special exception Case 00-SE-18 and it was rezoned. He stated there are commitments on this. He stated I advertised it under “other business” and I also sent a certified letter to the address on the application and at that time it was Michael Martinez c/o Todd Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans. He stated Bill Ferngren is representing Michael Martinez now and Bill received the letter, called Michael and he told Bill he was out of town. He stated the reason why Bill Ferngren is not here is because he did not get instruction from his client on whether or not he is to represent him tonight. He stated since he did not get those instructions he has declined to come before the Commission to talk about it. He stated Mr. Ferngren asked me to give him a copy of any comments that were made so he can send them to Michael Martinez.

Commissioner Harper asked what action can we take. He asked Mr. Thompson if he went through the minutes of the meetings.

Mr. Thompson stated he went through and looked at the rezoning and the agreement for written commitments. He stated I can go through and briefly mention what they are. He stated, “No mobile home may be owned by the owner and rented or leased to the occupant or any other person.” He stated basically no rentals with the park. He stated also, “The street system within the mobile home park or the real estate shall comply with the requirements of the RMH District. The mobile home park shall have sidewalks. All mobile homes on real estate shall be doublewide. All homes within the mobile home park shall have a roof pitch of


two/twelve or steeper. At all times, during the use of the real estate as a mobile home park the owner shall provide an on-site management of the mobile home park at all times during the real estate as a mobile home park the mobile home park shall have no less than 10,000 square feet of park. No more than 40 mobile homes shall be permitted in the mobile home park. The owner shall install two fire hydrants located on SR 130 and approximately midway to the mobile home park. The owner shall install a single pole light for night-time illumination.” He stated that was the written commitments that were done with the rezoning to the RMH District. He stated there were others that were presented as far as within the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated I also received a phone call from an official with INDOT who did state they are not in compliance at all with their drive cut permit. He stated they have sent them numerous certified mailings to Mr. Martinez in which they know Mr. Martinez has received them. He stated they were signed off.

Commissioner Harper stated so that everyone on the Commission understands that when these people appear before the BZA they wanted to expand this park. He stated there was extensive discussions and representations by the attorney that was there for the developer that there would be tree lines and shrubbery put in and certain tree line and shrubbery that was there would not be cut down. He stated all of which has not been followed. He stated the neighbors that were there heard things that were said and they think that this is the way it is going to be. He stated they were assured that this tree line was going to be there and then it gets passed and then not only did they not add to it but also they cut the whole tree line down. He stated I am so angry about this because every day as Commissioner I get calls from people and it is the same story all over again. He stated I go back and read the notes. He stated we sit here with this discussion going on and the people here in the audience that live there believe that is a commitment. He asked can we do anything about this now.

Mr. Thompson stated Fred Siminski and I went out there one day to inspect it and I do have the motion here with the BZA and it was approved subject to final document being approved by the Board of County Commissioners subject to the following recommendations of the Inspection Committee Report and putting in the tree line. He stated one of the things within the Inspection Committee Report was contact INDOT for proper ingress egress onto SR 130. He stated again, an INDOT official called me and it has not been complied with. He stated when Fred and I went out and did the inspection there had to be about 14-feet of conduit that was sticking out in the air just straight up blowing with the breeze. He stated it was only about three feet away from the one


of the decel lanes going into the park. He stated the other commitment they said that there would be no rentals on it and when we pulled in right smack in the middle of their sign advertising it was “for rent.”

Commissioner Harper asked what are we going to do about this. He stated we can go on and on. He stated I have correspondence in there from before I was Commissioner.

Attorney Schaefer stated I think that if there is a commitment we are talking about two commitments being made here, one for the County Commissioners and one for the Board of Zoning Appeals. She stated I think that a suit for injunction can be filed against him for violation of those commitments and violating what was approved.

Commissioner Harper moved to make a recommendation to the BZA to take legal action against Michael Martinez and Golf Creek Mobile Home Park. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked if the whole park was full.

Mr. Thompson stated three units are in there.

Mr. Burns asked if we can stop more trailers from coming in there.

Commissioner Harper asked what can we do to do that.

Mr. Thompson stated we can call a moratorium.

Attorney Schaefer stated we need to have things noticed up. She stated the public has the right to know what is on our agenda.

Mr. Burns stated this Commission has put moratoriums on developers and builders before without being on the agenda.

Mr. Detert asked if we could incorporate that in the motion.

Attorney Schaefer stated yes go ahead and do it.

Mr. Detert asked if Commissioner Harper would agree to incorporate that in the motion.

Motion reads as follows:


Commissioner Harper moved to recommend to the BZA to take legal action on Michael Martinez and the Golf Creek Mobile Home Park and to place a moratorium on any additional building in this mobile home park. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Commissioner Harper asked if he could have the Commission members view this video to see the kind of things that the Commissioners are faced with day in and day out and to think about some of the ordinances that we need so we don’t have these kinds of problems.

Attorney Schaefer asked Commissioner Harper if this is solely for the purpose of illustrating what the Commissioners are faced with each day and the need for enforcement.

Commissioner Harper stated this is a subdivision that is north of Aberdeen and we approved this in January and the drainage was discussed. He stated I just want to show you what the neighbors have experienced in the last few days.

At this time, the Commission members viewed a video on erosion control problems.

Commissioner Harper stated some of these neighbors who I don’t know started calling and complaining about this. He stated I have no answer for them. He stated I know this property because I live up on CR 250 and I drive down there. He stated I remember these places. He stated I remember thinking what a pretty place this fellow has with that pond and how they keep that property. He stated it is a sin and a crime. He stated every time we have people in here complaining about drainage and it gets passed I am going to follow up on it with a video camera and bring it back here. He stated I think we have to be careful about this drainage. He stated I think that our primary duty is to that fellow that owns that pond and not to the developer.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion concerning the video and erosion control problems.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion on registering contractors in unincorporated Porter County.

Commissioner Harper stated I think that we need a couple of committees to look into this and try to get back next month and to have Mike Sheetz set up the committee.

Commissioner Harper moved to set up a committee to study the registering of contractors and to report back in four weeks


and to have Mike Sheetz chair the committee. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Commissioner Harper moved to have Kevin Breitzke set up a committee to study the erosion control. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to pass around to the members a couple of thoughts on possible changes in the Rules of Procedure and maybe discuss this at the next meeting.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have a comment and it is something to think about. He stated I have been on many engineering jobs and any job that we went on we had to have a progress report as to where we stand in order to complete it. He stated I think we need to look at having the developer come back after six months after we approve their primary plat and he tells us what he has completed and how far along he is on his commitments. He stated the developer must tell us how much he has completed, has he put in the silt fence and whether the developer has satisfied the neighbors. He stated once the developers leave here they have all the advantages to there. He stated they have things that they can write off as an expense in accounting system that the homeowners don’t have.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically it is not a bad idea because the engineers usually on their billing cycles already have a progress report if not pictures, as built drawings and those kinds of things. He stated it is just a matter of getting the developer to turn around and turn them in. He stated it would be good to get a written report to the Plan Commission without having to chase down people.

Mr. Detert moved to have the developers put in the detention pond and infrastructure before the building of homes. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

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

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

Kevin Breitzke, President

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