PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
August 25, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue the reading of the August 11, 2004. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Pending Business:

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 the July 14, 2004 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am with Hoeppner, Wagner and Evans. He stated I am here tonight for the replat of Lot 14, Moreland Estates. He stated I have provided you a copy of the plat that you first viewed at the last Plan Commission meeting. He stated what they have done here is the red lines depict “no access” easements as has been requested. He stated the yellow area is an easement for the well servicing parcel “A” and other than that nothing has changed from the previous meeting. He stated when we were last here what was requested of us was that we notify those persons adjoining this parcel to the north because it was felt that this was a change from what they originally had viewed. He stated what we did was circulate a copy of the drawing that you have before you tonight. He stated Mrs. Mendez personally circulated that to each of the lot owners Lot 6 thru 13. He stated what I have for you is a copy of an acknowledgement and consent form. At this time, Mr. Ferngren read the consent form. (This form is in the primary plat file.) He stated all of the lot owners that we submitted this to with the exception of Lot 10, signed this form. He stated Mrs. Mendez informed me that she


delivered this document to them but they indicated that the lady works and she is busy and the gentlemen was rushing off to catch a flight and they simply said “we don’t have any objection but we don’t want to sit down and sign this document that you have given us.” He stated I mailed these to Mr. Thompson last week. He stated I believe with that the issue whether these people knew that this change in the plan existed what their position was with respect to the change in having a driveway located where it is depicted on the plat or somewhere in that general location. He stated I think that those elements have been satisfied.

Mr. Poparad asked could someone give me a history lesson on this lot. He asked is this like the owner or developers own lot. He asked why wasn’t this split into two lots when they platted it. He asked why is it a ten-acre parcel all by itself.

Mr. Bengel stated I can’t answer that.

Mr. Poparad stated I don’t see why he did this because he could have gotten a couple of lots out of this. He stated there is a twenty-foot easement for a well. He asked is the well going to be on the property that is services. He asked has it always been that way.

Mr. Ferngren stated as soon as we were forced to make this revised plat, initially, as you may recall, the intent was to access the westerly parcel off of the private drive, which meant significant remonstrance’s. He stated this forced us to provide this drawing, which now meets your subdivision control ordinance requirement.

Mr. Poparad stated we have a driveway easement on top of a well.

Mr. Bengel stated that isn’t an easement.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is actually property, Lot B.

Mr. Poparad stated I sympathize what they are trying to do but we have an easement over someone else’s drive because the well is now on someone else’s drive because we have no other way of accessing this parcel.

Mr. Ferngren stated we were forced into this position.

Mr. Poparad stated no you weren’t forced into this. He stated you chose this and you chose to try and split this ten-acre parcel, which was sold in its entirety to you three or four years ago. He stated you built a house and now you want to split it. He stated that is the short version of this. He stated so


when lot 13 comes in next year because they have 1.86 acres and wants to split it and put another drive on CR 475 we are going to sit here and say “yes.”

Mr. Sheetz stated no because it is only 1.86 acres and they are splitting from ten to three acres.

Mr. Poparad stated then they will want to come back and split the seven acres again.

Mr. Sheetz asked if we can have them put it in writing to say they can’t split this again.

Mr. Ferngren stated Mr. Bengel has surveyed this property at the last couple of meetings he has testified that the soil conditions and septic conditions here aren’t conducive for an additional home.

Mr. Poparad stated if we put that condition on that won’t be a hardship. He asked if we can do that.

Mr. Detert stated what really bothers me is that we approve a subdivision and then all of a sudden someone comes along and wants to split it again. He stated we have gotten in trouble in the past by making all kinds of spaghetti subdivisions. He stated I felt that we got away from that.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is possible when they bought it that there was the ten-acre rule that this was one of the ten-acre parcels that he sold prior to or at the same time the of the subdivision and left it out. He stated I really don’t know.

Mr. Mahnic stated years ago Mr. Sheets in his meeting mentioned that there was a petition to subdivide one of these other lots. He stated it ended up with a four to four tie vote. He stated Mr. Sheets did state, “It is terrible that when people buy into a small subdivision and are promised certain things and then somebody does not uphold them.” He stated Mr. Sheets goes on to say, “I know from personal experience because this has happened to me.” Mr. Mahnic stated at the next meeting the petition was withdrawn. He stated there was never a decision made on whether you can split it or not. He stated they did argue at that time that the covenants said you can’t split it. He stated we know today that we don’t argue with the covenants. He stated I did learn one thing. He stated the next time I read covenants that come to me and I read them all and I file them all if there is anything in there that says in the covenant you can’t split the lot I will make sure that this comes out of there and it becomes a condition of approval so that later on someone says, “I have a bunch of signatures here and the people say we can over


rule that.” He stated I am going to say that this is not so. He stated this is a commitment made by the developer and we will not split that. He stated these people purchased this with the intent and the goodwill of the guy who developed this. He stated somebody went back on his or her word.

Mr. Ferngren stated I would like to say that the covenants, while they contain certain provisions, one thing it did contain is the permission to amend those covenants based on the majority of the property owners in the subdivision and that is what occurred. He stated in addition to that we went out and secured consents to this plat from all of these adjoining owners as was requested at the last meeting. He stated I believe there is in fact support for this plan in place right now by the lot owners in Moreland Estates.

Mr. Mahnic stated I understand that and I understand I am in a position where I am in a corner and I can’t argue legitimacy for my argument because you did what the covenants said. He stated I can’t do anything about that. He stated if the people who are against this want to do something they have to go through the legal procedure, not with us.

Mr. Poparad asked why did we jut the drive out to 36 feet more.

Mr. Bengel stated you have to have 96-feet of frontage in this zoning.

Mr. Poparad stated I am going to use this as an example. He stated sometimes things just don’t work. He stated the only reason they can get away with this is because they own the parcel right now. He stated we would never allow this to happen if they weren’t splitting their own parcel. He stated we wouldn’t allow someone to build behind this guy and do this kind of driveway. He asked if this was a fair statement.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is not true. He stated sometimes that happens.

Mr. Poparad stated we let them put a driveway over a well that goes to the other house.

Mr. Breitzke stated if the parties involve agree to it.

Mr. Poparad stated there is only one party involved.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is the party who owns the current residence that is encumbering themselves so to speak. He stated if I may as recently as late April or May we did approve a replat


of one of these lots in Moreland Estates and I think that was lot 25 and Mr. Bengel presented that one too.

Mr. Bengel stated there was a difference between the two. He stated in that one there were no remonstrators.

Mr. Poparad asked if we could put a stipulation that they can’t split this lot again.

Mr. Bengel stated he would like to say that unless they brought in city sewers you will never be able to split this lot again.

Commissioner Harper stated some people bought into this subdivision and I understand that this is a bigger lot, with the thought that this is what they were buying into that many lots. He asked don’t you think that was going through some peoples minds when they drove down there that there wasn’t going to be 40 homes but only 20 homes. He stated if this was just a parcel of property out somewhere in the country, but this is part of a little subdivision that was put together where people came in and bought and built thinking about what was going to look around them. He stated if they can put in sewer and water and splitting it up again I don’t think…

Mr. Bengel stated it will take a majority of the people to go for that.

Commissioner Harper stated what about the one or two who didn’t go for it.

Mr. Bengel stated you are never going to make those people happy and I understand that.

Commissioner Harper stated when these people bought this lot they didn’t have any guarantee that it could be broken up. He stated I understand what Mike is saying. He stated it is a big parcel but still it is the idea of what the people bought when they were buying here.

Mr. Sheetz asked putting that home on that piece of property will it flood someone else out or endanger his or her safety and well being.

Mr. Ferngren stated I don’t believe that it would.

Mr. Bengel stated I think the only person affected here would be lot 13 because they would be right adjacent to this entrance with their house. He stated all of the other people sit far north of this driveway and the people on that lot are satisfied and have no problem with it.

Mr. Sheetz asked, Bill can you write something that is going to be legally binding that you guys cannot split that lot again.

Mr. Ferngren stated your legal council is probably a better person to answer that question.

Attorney Malino stated off the top of my head I don’t know and I would have to do some research on it.

Mr. Thompson stated I know if this was BZA with the approvals are allowed to put on terms and conditions but I don’t know if the Plan Commission has the ability or power.

Mr. Sheetz asked if you make an agreement with the Plan Commission is that a binding contract.

Mr. Poparad stated if they sell it…

Mr. Ferngren stated their intent is not to divide this lot and the soil conditions at this time as Mr. Bengel has testified…

Mr. Poparad stated nothing against them but their intent when they bought this three years ago was not to split it. He stated nothing against them but things changed and now they want to split. He stated my fear is if they sell it and the condition follows them and not the property.

Mr. Ferngren stated what they are subject to is the covenants for the entire subdivision.

Mr. Poparad stated covenants don’t mean anything because you can get a majority of the property owners.

Mr. Ferngren stated that would have to take place at that time. He stated they would once again have to go and provide that this could be further subdivided and of course as Mr. Bengel has indicated there simply isn’t space to divide this because of poor soils.

Mr. Poparad stated you mean this whole seven-acre parcel can only hold one septic system.

Mr. Bengel stated that is correct.

Mr. Poparad asked what is this all swamp.

Mr. Bengel stated no. He stated the soils are just not conducive enough and we have had it tested.



Commissioner Harper asked if we don’t have an erosion control ordinance why do they even mention an erosion control plan in their drawing.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is what is called Rule 5. He stated if they do have more than one acre disturbed they are still liable to the State. He stated the State has erosion control enforcement at this point and will continue to have some.

Commissioner Harper asked couldn’t we require Rule 5 ourselves.

Mr. Breitzke stated we don’t have an ordinance and that is what we are working on. He stated this is why I suggest that we write our own ordinance so we have some enforcement and finding capability.

Mr. Bengel stated even though you may not enforce it we still have to address it because your ordinance calls for that.

Mr. Sheetz stated I think we need to get an agreement that it is not going to be split again.

Mr. Poparad stated I don’t know if we can hold them to that.

Mr. Bengel stated Bob I want to ask you say we get public sewer and everybody in the subdivision wanted to replat do you have a problem with that.

Mr. Poparad stated if everyone came in no I don’t have a problem with that.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 04-P-7. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-FP-6. Petition of Edgewood LLC, 630 W. 81st Ave., Merrillville, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Edgewood Subdivision, to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy 30, between Shorewood Drive and Dorchester Blvd., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 50 lots on 24 acres. Property is zoned PUD.)

Todd Leeth stated I am an attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and I am here on behalf of the Edgewood PUD and I am joined with Jeff Bann from DBG who is the design professional for


this project. He stated as was indicated this is a 20-unit development surrounded on three sides by Shorewood Forest. He stated it contains 50 lots on 24 acres. He stated it is a Planned Unit Development that was approved by the Board of Commissioners in March of 2003. He stated we returned to the Plan Commission, which is the third step of the PUD process for primary plat approval. He stated that was granted in October of 2003 and now we have returned back to you for the fourth and final step of the process for secondary plat approval. He stated the plat has not changed from the primary plat approval of last October. He stated we are asking for your approval.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Thompson stated the Commissioner’s have to approve the bond amount and the bond amount that was submitted by Golf Inc. to do the work was $778,000.

Mr. Bann stated we have since asked for a reduction from the Highway Department and have been granted a reduction to $400,000 based on the work that has been done.

Mr. Thompson stated I do have a letter that states that.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 04-FP-6 contingent on the bond of $400,000. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-FP-10. Petition of Preferred Development, LLC, P.O. Box 1578, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Vernon Woods Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 550 N., between CR 50 W. and CR 175 W. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 25 lots on 38.17 acres. Zoned R-1.)

Mike Duffy stated I am from Duneland Group and I am representing the developer. He stated we have met with TAC and were forwarded to the Plan Commission. He stated we have been to the Drainage Board and we have met their request. He stated they are here seeking secondary plat approval.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

Mr. Poparad stated I have no questions.

Mr. Mahnic asked are you going to have a POA to handle any problems.

Mr. Duffy stated lot 2 absorbed one from the Drainage Board request and the other pond is taken as a regulated drain by the Drainage Board along with an access to lots 11 and 12.

Mr. Mahnic asked are the drives all public.

Mr. Duffy stated yes.

Mr. Mahnic asked will you have a common area.

Mr. Duffy stated just the drainage and preservation easements.

Mr. Breitzke stated we did make them a regulated drain. He stated kind of a the left over issue we met at Drainage Board on Monday and it was for better access to the pond on the west side and we worked that out finally and I think we are good to go.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing to add.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 04-FP-10. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-FP-12. Petition of ESCO, Inc., 16 W. U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Jackson Heights Subdivision Unit C to be located on the North end of Fernwood Drive, North of CR 900 N. in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 26 lots on 46.54 acres. Zoned RR.)

John Kremke stated I am from the Duneland Group and I am representing the petitioner. He stated this is a 26-lot development. He stated it first received primary plat approval in March of 2001. He stated then I was before you in March of this year to renew the primary plat approval because the developer was in the process of installing infrastructure and wanted to have his bond released and things didn’t sell as quickly as expected so Phase C was slower to move but now the lots in Phase C are needed. He stated we had a couple of issues to take care of before we appeared before you again. He stated one of those was on the Commissioners agenda last week, which was approval of an ingress egress right-of-way with NIPSCO and the County. He stated that was approved last Tuesday at the Commissioners meeting. He stated I do have a copy signed by the Commissioners if anyone wishes to see that. He stated we did have some issues to take care with the Drainage Board as well this past Monday. He stated this was providing some more access


to the detention basin. He stated besides from that this secondary plat does comply with the primary plat and I ask for your approval tonight.

Mr. Poparad stated this is the second time that we have mentioned Drainage Board and detention ponds in the same sentence. He asked does the Drainage Board assume ownership or maintenance of the pond and if they do is it paid out of the assessment on all the homes or just the homes affected by the ditch.

Mr. Breitzke stated we assess the entire subdivision so much a lot and we just maintain them. He stated we don’t own them.

Mr. Poparad asked who owns the pond.

Mr. Kremke stated actually in this case several of the properties own the pond with the drainage easement across the back. He stated the lots extend through the detention area.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have no problem with this.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 04-FP-12. Mr. Poparad 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-P-9. Petition of Gary & Randy Tacker, 27 S. 117 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Dream Catcher Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 50 S. between Sager Road and CR 150 E. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 7 lots on 8 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Don Bengel stated I am here representing Gary and Randy Tacker who wish to have Dream Catcher Subdivision approved. He stated this is a primary plat. He stated Mr. Tacker some years ago developed a minor subdivision that consisted of these lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 including the road going in. He stated I think there are two houses built on lots 3 and 4. He stated lot 2 is vacant and lot 1 goes up and around the top of Dream Catcher Subdivision is owned by Mr. Tacker. He stated Mr. Tacker has a big farm and a beautiful house. He stated Mr. Tacker purchased the balance of the ground that was available, which consisted of lots 5 thru 11. He stated we have had soil borings and basically we meet the ordinance. He stated we went to the BZA under the new procedure


and received a variance for a smaller road going into the subdivision. He stated lot 11, which has the pond on it and the pond does dry up, and we had the wetland delineated. He stated it is an isolated wetland. He stated that probably won’t be sold. He stated Mr. Tacker will use that for his horses. He stated the only thing that they are asking for is a private road. He stated the road will be built to the thickness to the County spec’s.

Mr. Poparad asked if the road was in.

Mr. Bengel stated yes the road is in but he has to rebuild it because it is a gravel road now.

Commissioner Harper asked how do we know that.

Mr. Bengel stated that is going to be part of the approval. He stated he will bond for it. He stated at final plat we will come back and negotiate some time on the bond.

Commissioner Harper stated legally how are you going to do it.

Mr. Bengel stated we will have a bond for it. He stated that is part of the approval. He stated we will agree to it and we will do it. He stated whatever we agree to will be done.

Mr. Poparad asked what is the history of these private roads becoming public.

Commissioner Harper stated the history is sometimes they come back and try to get you to take them public. He stated the Highway Department comes out and it becomes a nightmare. He stated right now all those roads in Aberdeen that are private are now saying they want us to take them.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would add to that there are a large number of private roads when we start deviating from it you start inheriting problems all over the county. He stated they are not exclusive to any one area.

Commissioner Harper stated I know that many things are said at these meetings are binding and I just want to know what makes that binding that you will put the crown on it and have the width so that the snowplows can go down it.

Mr. Bengel stated that is one reason why TAC recommended having it to County spec as far as the depth. He stated we will in the final plat have a bond.



Commissioner Harper stated there has to be some place other than what is said in this meeting that it is tacked down.

Mr. Breitzke stated what Don is talking about doesn’t necessarily to the county road standard except for depth. He stated they still need to make it wider and if that is your preference you can dictate that at this point.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Thompson just told me that they already do have a variance from the BZA on it as far as the road width.

Mr. Thompson stated the thickness meets the County specifications as they are showing it but the road width does not. He stated they went to the BZA last Wednesday and they were…

Mr. Poparad asked how can they ask for a variance on a subdivision that doesn’t exist yet. He asked if lot 1, 2, 3 and 4 existing on this private road now.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated so we are going to add lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the same road.

Mr. Bengel stated the location but it will be built…

Mr. Poparad stated it is going to be a private road servicing all eleven lots.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked why don’t we make them build a county road and make them deed it to us.

Mr. Mahnic stated they are going to build to county specs anyway.

Mr. Poparad stated have them put a turn-around at the end for a snowplow and a school bus and lets do this right. He asked would this be a hardship to put in a regular county road and do it right.

Mr. Bengel stated it would be for this development. He stated there are only 11 lots and the cost to put in a wider road as well as the depth.

Commissioner Harper stated with all these roads in Aberdeen it is going to cost $56000 to bring this one up, $76000 to bring


this one up and the developers are saying we should take these roads. He stated some of them don’t have enough room for the snowplow to turn around and sooner or later the people in the subdivision are going to get so fed up with that the county probably is going to bite the bullet.

Mr. Breitzke stated lets get back to this subdivision.

Mr. Poparad asked what were you granted by the BZA, twenty-foot wide.

Mr. Bengel stated twenty-foot.

Mr. Poparad asked what is the standard, twenty-four.

Mr. Bengel stated thirty is a typical county road.

Mr. Breitzke stated no. He stated you are not doing curb and gutter.

Mr. Thompson stated you can be twenty-six foot but if there is no parking on one side by code it can be even less. He stated if you were doing curb and gutter then it would be thirty foot back to back. He stated if there is no parking on one side you can go down to twenty-four feet for a local street.

Mr. Poparad stated you are looking four more feet of road than what you already agreed to.

Mr. Breitzke stated if we go to the low volume road I think it is twenty-four.

Mr. Thompson stated I don’t have the engineering code book with me.

Mr. Poparad stated you guys got a variance to get down to twenty feet and you are talking twenty-four.

Mr. Bengel stated the normal is twenty-six.

Mr. Poparad stated I thought it was twenty.

Mr. Breitzke stated actually it is bigger than our typical county road as far as width.

Mr. Poparad stated I am just throwing this out for discussion because when Mr. Tacker has sold all of his lots and is gone and these residence come here in seven years and say that they want this to be a county road then the tax payers have to go in and eat the cost to bring it up to a county road. He stated I


wouldn’t mind leaving the variance at what you have it at, twenty-feet but you build that twenty-feet to county specs.

Commissioner Harper stated you have to have enough room for the snowplows.

Mr. Bengel stated we are going to have a turn-around for the buses and anyone else can turn around at the end. He stated as far as the depth it will be…

Commissioner Harper stated there is more than the depth to it, Don.

Mr. Bengel stated if this is twenty-feet wide as Kevin said that is bigger than…

Mr. Poparad stated it needs to be deeded over.

Mr. Breitzke stated you want the right-of-way dedicated.

Mr. Poparad stated I want it to be a public street and with their variance we can live with that.

Commissioner Harper stated to be built to standards and coordinated with the County Engineer.

Mr. Breitzke stated with the exception of the width.

Mr. Poparad stated the width I’m not hung up on because there’s really not going to be any traffic.

Mr. Breitzke stated our expectation is a cul-de-sac at the end of this.

Mr. Poparad stated for a school bus not a three-point turn, which would require about a 70-foot radius.

Mr. Bengel stated typically it is a 50-foot radius.

Commissioner Harper asked if the County Engineer will look this over.

Mr. Breitzke stated we will review the specifications because with final plat he has to submit a road profile and a road plan, with specifications for the depth, width and those will be the contractual items that if we have to and we really don’t want to take over a performance bond but we will make sure the performance bond is enough to cover erosion control, construction stake out, other types of survey and any matters related to the construction of the survey prior to…


Mr. Poparad asked who is going to plow this road when there is three feet of snow.

Mr. Bengel stated the people in the subdivision.

Mr. Poparad stated it doesn’t work that way.

Mr. Bengel stated there will be a road agreement.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 04-P-9 as presented with the private drive becoming a public road built to county specifications with the variance width; 50-foot radius for the cul-de-sac and coordinated with the County Highway Department. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

At this time, the Commission members discussed the Rules of Procedure.

Commissioner Harper stated he suggested two changes to the Rules of Procedure. He stated one change is, “If any of the Commission has a question for the petitioner or proponent or those who oppose the petition the member shall be recognized by the Chair and allow to ask his or her question during the presentation of the party he or she wishes to question.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have been doing that and I don’t know if we need to state it. He stated you have a lot of latitude right now without actually putting in words so you can kind of work it back and forth.

Commissioner Harper moved to approve the first suggested addition in the Rules of Procedure. Addition reads as follows: “If any member of the Commission has a question for a petitioner or proponent or those who oppose the petition the member shall be recognized by the Chair and allowed to ask his or her question during the presentation of the party he or she wishes to question.” Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Commissioner Harper stated the second addition or change reads as follows: “If a decision in any manner is postponed


after the public hearing when the matter comes back before the Commission, public comment shall be allowed again on whatever action was taken by the petitioner during the time the matter was postponed.” He stated in way of explanation on that, when we postpone something we usually postpone it for an action whether it is to go back to TAC or whatever. He stated for an example when Mr. Gesse left and it was his property, they were sent back to TAC to work out the drainage and it came back we had the developer and the attorney saying everything is fine now and it is all worked out. He stated well maybe the landowner doesn’t feel that it is all worked out and how is that going to be brought to our attention unless we allow them to have that say so.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion concerning this addition.

Commissioner Harper stated I will work on the wordage in this second addition.

Mr. Thompson stated I spoke with Lily about this and she said to let the members discuss it amongst themselves. He stated Lily said to have the members use discretion with these because she was concerned about the situation that happened during the Land Fill case and the suit that ended up coming out against us with Ned Kovachevich suing the BZA. He stated that was Lily’s only concern. He stated if it is discretion by the Commission to do such things she felt that it was being done now.

Mr. Thompson stated just to let the members know our Building Commissioner, Roger Baldwin, has resigned.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have one item that we need to look at also. He stated I know that Judge Alexa said that BZA rules on variances but still on page 221, Chapter 16 and Section 16.40.050 it states that the Plan Commission has the right to grant variances.

Mr. Thompson stated I have looked at that and Judge Alexa ruled it and looked at it too but basically if you look at State Statute they are very specific on what Judge Alexa said that the BZA is the only body that can grant variances.

Mr. Sheetz stated I need a little more time on getting the information for the licensing of contractors.

Mr. Mahnic stated he would like to recognize Mike Alyesworth to speak.

Mike Alyesworth stated I come here tonight with the spirit of good planning and try to remove if we can any partisan halo.

He stated I have gone through the discussions Bob has gone through and in my opinion it is bad public policy to ever issue an Improvement Location Permit on a private road. He stated it just comes back to haunt the county. He stated when I was there we were trying to clean up the mess in Lake Eliza and it is still there. He stated now you have the mess at Aberdeen. He stated that just goes on and on. He stated it is fine for a developer for a quick buck but when the builder and developer are gone and the second or third homeowners are there who fixes the road. He stated they are going to ask Bob and the other Commissioners to come in and pay all this money that should have been built to County specs to start with. He stated we worked hard in the 1984 ordinance to try to eliminate that and we had pretty much eliminated it. He stated I think Bob Detert came on about that time and over the years for whatever reasons that rule sort of eroded and let people build on private roads. He stated I encourage you to go back to where I think good public policy always should be an Improvement Location Permit on a public road built to public standards.

Mr. Alyesworth stated on another note I wasn’t aware that your Building Commissioner resigned. He stated our Association would like to encourage you to pay more money for a Building Commissioner because the job he has to do we think needs a really good top notch professional to do it on a timely basis. He stated I know it is not this Body’s call but it is in conjunction with the Commissioners. He stated we would like to see that salary get up into the $40,000 range. He stated $29,500 is not much more than fast-food wages. He stated we are going to have a hard time getting somebody of quality to stick with the County and do its inspections on a timely manner and give you good reports and do a creditable job. He stated if you want second class inspectors and second class delivery of services to the builders then stick with $29,500 and that is what you will get. He stated we encourage you because we help pay for that special fund that the Plan Commission and their people operate out of and we encouraged the raising of fees to pay for an elevated salary level of everybody. He stated that is not just for your Building Inspector. He stated Mr. Thompson’s salary is probably $10,000 under what it should be and Fred’s salary and everybody else’s salary. He stated we are here to tell you from the Builders Association and the professionals in this county if the fund is there and you need more money come tell us and raise your fees and we will pay for it.

Mr. Sheetz asked Mr. Alyesworth how many members do you have in your association.

Mr. Alyesworth stated about 325.



Mr. Sheetz stated if they just gave $1000 more a year to the County that is $325,000. He asked can you do that.

Mr. Alyesworth stated we would do that through the fee system.

Mr. Poparad asked Mr. Alyesworth what do you think about licensing of the contractors.

Mr. Alyesworth stated we don’t have a problem with that.

At this time, the Commission members and Mr. Alyesworth had a discussion concerning registration, licensing, bonding etc.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion concerning junk cars in the Lake Eliza area.

Mr. Thompson stated we will get a letter out telling that particular individual that we are turning this over to our attorney and that he is in violation of zoning.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion on code enforcement.

Commissioner Harper stated I suggest that two or three members could form a committee and start working on the code enforcement.

Mr. Thompson stated I would suggest that Fred sits in on this because he looks over the zoning violations he would be able to tell you the most consistent ones that come in as far as a complaints.

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