PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
October 13, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the August 25, 2004 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the September 8, 2004 minutes and approve them as corrected. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Richard Anderson, who is representing Starwood Properties LLC. The letter stated that the petitioner is withdrawing the Case 04-Z-5. Mr. Thompson stated this is the parcel that is up on Bullseye Lake and North Calumet. He stated since the petitioner has withdrawn if they come back for anything it has to be a brand new petition with new notifications.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is the parcel that adjoins Ridgewood Creek and their Home Owners Association on the West and SR 49 on the East and North of Bullseye Lake.

Pending Business:

Case 04-FP-14. Petition of Tim & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Pivotal Pointe Subdivision, t be located at the Southeast corner of CR 500 N. and CR 400 E., in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (10 lots on 13.88 acres. Property is zoned RR. Con’t from the 9-8-04 meeting.)

Eric Banschbach stated I am from Emil Beeg Land Surveyors, Inc. and I am here representing Tim and Helen Chupp in their request for final plat approval of the 10 lot major subdivision. He stated quickly to review some of the history, at the primary


plat meeting on July 28 of this year there was no opposition from the public. He stated there was discussion to the width of the right-of-way, which is actually an easement accessing lots 1 thru 4 in Washington Minor Subdivision 2529-B-2 and it was established as being as 60-foot wide, which is the same width required of local road right-of-ways in major subdivisions. He stated there was also a concern expressed regarding the maintenance responsibility of the road and these responsibilities are addressed in the driveway maintenance agreement that is directly on the plat. He stated subsequently a motion for approval was made with no conditions and voted 6-1 for. He stated at the final plat meeting on September 8 of this year there was discussion again of what type of drive would be constructed for the minor subdivision. He stated with opinions expressed that it should be built to meet county standard road specifications. He stated the ordinance defining minor subdivisions specifically states that if lots do not run on an existing public road a 60-foot right-of-way is permitted with the restriction that it not include any new public street or road. He stated this is why this access is represented as private and constructed as a driveway not a road to comply with this ordinance. He stated just like all of the prior minor subdivisions that I have knowledge of have complied with. He stated the concern of the driveway maintenance is addressed in the driveway maintenance agreement. He stated it was also brought up that nothing prevents adjoining lot owners from using the private drive for their access to possible future accessory buildings. He stated that may have been the case if it were a public road but the property is owned privately by the owner of lot 4 and only lots 1 thru 4 have the right to use the drive as access. He stated the owners of lots 1 thru 4 would have the same rights as any property owner who had someone drive across their property without their permission. He stated also on a personal note it was suggested that we have tried to slip the minor subdivision under the radar in order to get the major subdivision through. He stated the facts are the minor and major subdivision were applied for on the same day and presented to TAC on the same day and both plans submitted clearly depicted the proposed minor subdivision and the major subdivision together when presented to TAC, the Drainage Board and this Commission. He stated both subdivisions were processed as required by the ordinance and both meet the technical requirements. He stated the minor subdivision was subsequently approved and it is recorded and the major subdivision that is before you today is essentially the same as when approved by this Commission at the primary plat meeting. He stated with that being said we again ask for your favorable recommendation.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.


Mr. Poparad stated I have no questions.

Mr. Bucko stated I have no questions.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns asked does the petitioner meet all of the requirements of the ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes. He stated he meets the technical requirements. He stated the discussion was really on some of the inadequacies of private drives that we will be addressing at the end of this meeting.

Mr. Mahnic stated I objected last time to this plan you have here for your secondary approval. He stated we have a primary approval process that goes through as a primary function. He stated the secondary is not necessarily the same thing. He stated in your case you said it was the same thing. He stated the secondary is there so certain problems can be tweaked out or defined better. He stated as I look at this drawing again what I don’t like about it you have one home situated right here and you are going to have, and I call it a street because you are going to service four homes, and you call it a driveway. He stated I would like to see that built to county specs because we as a county once the developer leaves we will have problems with one, two and three people at least. He stated we may have problems with these people who are there already. He stated eventually you are going to put another…this is also a piece of land here and there are houses in between them. He stated you are going to have another road here to eventually go to a subdivision here. He stated I just can’t see why this could not be moved over and this made a public road and you could serve two sets. He stated your road would go here and you would be able to serve this, this and this and he is the owner and you would be able to have developments in here that would be serviced from here. He stated eventually, I am sure you are going to want to come out this county road here. He stated I think that this is a poor plan and I think you should have gone back after the last meeting and looked at this. He stated you are going to have problems maintaining two private roads. He stated I don’t like the plan and I think that it should be turned back and the secondary should not be approved until you guys go back and do something right.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no questions at this time.



Mr. Mahnic moved to deny the secondary plat for Case 04-FP-14 as presented to the Commission tonight with the opportunity for the developer to go back and take a look at this so that we can get a road that the public will accept. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Biddinger stated we are currently dealing with an ordinance and basically your motion says that we find the face of the ordinance as it is written. He stated while I am in total agreement that the ordinance might have some problems here we have to deal with the law that sits in front of us. He stated we can’t make an exception because of one particular instant where it is in front of us.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have an ordinance that permits this kind of driveway and we have a change that is going to remedy this. He stated that is what we need to deal with, I believe.

Mr. Mahnic stated in defense of my motion, and I don’t mean to slur anyone on this Commission, I think we did a poor job in looking at the drawing when it came up as a primary.

Mr. Breitzke stated this situation has occurred since 1994 when this ordinance was created.

Mr. Biddinger stated to Mr. Mahnic you voted for it at the primary plat.

Motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

Biddinger - No Bucko - No Burns - No
Detert - No Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Poparad - Yes Sheetz - N0 Breitzke - No

Mr. Poparad asked are we going to sit here and pass something that we know is wrong even though it is in compliance with the ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke asked do you know it is wrong because we have done things wrong in the past but we are changing the ordinance as of tonight. He stated Mr. Thompson is introducing some new language to avoid this type of thing from happening again. He stated this has happened before and it is not the first time.






Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-FP-14. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

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

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. (con’t from the September 8, 2004 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)

Don Bengel stated at the last meeting the Commission asked us to go back to TAC. He stated the only change that we made is that we tilted the driveway off to the west so that any water on the driveway would go towards the petitioner for the minor sub. He stated again we passed out the profile for the road and everything goes down hill at a pretty good clip. He stated the water is going to go down and end up in a wetland on the petitioner’s property. He stated we think that we have made every effort to take care of the drainage. He stated all of the drainage from the neighbor who is appealing this comes on us. He stated we don’t shed any water on the neighbor.

Gordon Etzler stated I am concerned and I ask the Plan Commission to think back on the meeting that we had on September 8, 2004 where the discussion was about the merits of a minor subdivision and all of the problems that they have caused the county and enforcement over the years since you have had it. He stated at that time I voiced the opinion that I thought the ordinance is unenforceable because it didn’t have proper standards and what you were doing was permitting people to make a decision based upon no standards. He stated what I am concerned about is the definition in your ordinance that says that the developer, the property owner must present plans that show that the project does not adversely affect the remainder of the tract or adjoining property. He stated the Dvorak’s are adjoining property owners. He stated the burden is on the developer to show that there are no adverse problems to the adjoining property owners. He stated then in the ordinance itself it says that the subdivider must have submitted a drainage plan a topography map including a written statement as to the adequacy of the subdivision plans the disclose of surface and subsurface drainage water, protect the public health and safety. He stated what you have in front of you doesn’t do that. He stated there is no written statement from him and no certification.


Mr. Breitzke stated those are other submissions that were submitted before and they are in the file. He stated the file is available for review.

Mr. Etzler stated the Dvorak’s property is upstream and slants down but it is hilly. He stated when they put this road in what they are going to do is build it up on a berm and that is going to act as a barrier to the surface water drainage. He stated it is going to pond back on the Dvorak’s property. He stated tilting the road is not an issue. He stated they are going to build it above the surface and they are not saying they are not going to. He stated it is cheaper to do it that way. He stated there is no drawings that show how that road is going to go. He stated there is no certification of the engineer to that and there is no topography of that in relationship to the road. He stated this Plan Commission is in a position to protect the property owners. He stated you have an ordinance that everyone has admitted is not satisfactory. He asked why do we continue to do this.

Mr. Bengel stated I don’t know what Mr. Etzler has been looking at but if you look at everything we have submitted it does just what the ordinance says. He stated in fact I think we go beyond what is required on the minor subdivision. He stated we did have a topography map. He stated it shows that the adjoiner drains on us. He stated we have submitted a plan that is not usually done and it is the one I just passed out and it shows the profile of the road. He stated it shows it not being above the ground and if anything it is below the ground all the way. He stated we have submitted all of this. He stated we have done everything the ordinance requires and maybe a little bit more.

Mr. Mahnic asked Mr. Bengel if his client would be willing to make some kind of agreement legally binding that should water pond there as the Dvorak’s fear it will, that your client would be responsible to resolve that.

Mr. Bengel stated I don’t think I can say that. He stated I think there is some disharmony between the petitioner and the objector. He stated it is kind of getting out of hand the things that have happened. He stated there are accusations of the objectors running a business and dumping garbage along the property line.

Attorney Schaefer stated I know no one asked for my opinion but when I first came on this Board I was very concerned and I don’t remember if it was this Board or the BZA but we allowed and encouraged people to go out and reach their own agreement and


basically, it ended up being a situation where somebody was ending up paying their neighbor money just to get past here. She stated we are not going to do that on this Board as long as I am the attorney. She stated they are here to present their petition and it is our job to vote on it as it appears. She stated we are not going to go out telling people what agreements they should make with each other so that one may be at the mercy of the other.

Mr. Bucko asked if everything is in the file the way the petitioner has said.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Mr. Bucko moved to deny the appeal on Case 04-APP-2 and approve Union MS 238-B-1. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-FP-15. Petition of Cindy A. Hall, 2003 Old Oak Dr., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Rahs Subdivision to be located on the West side of SR 49, between CR 400 S. and CR 500 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 4 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Eric Banschbach stated I am from Emil Beeg Land Surveyor and I am representing Cindy Hall in her request for final plat approval for a four lot major subdivision. He stated this fell under the major subdivision ordinance due to the prior application of a minor subdivision in the same quarter section. He stated the zoning was changed from AG to R-1 on November 13, 2002 and approved by the Commissioners on December 2, 2002. He stated the primary plat was approved by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2003 with a variance for a gravel drive instead of a county spec road with a vote of 6-0. He stated subsequently it received the same variance, since the Planning Commission can’t grant variances, from the BZA on August 18, 2004. He stated concerns of the driveway maintenance were addressed and the driveway maintenance agreement that is directly on the plat. He stated we are here today with only minor changes to the plan originally approved at primary. He stated the development has met the technical requirements of the ordinance at no opposition from the public and had no other objections except for driveway maintenance, which has been addressed. He stated we are asking for the Commissions favorable recommendation subject to the performance bond.


Mr. Bucko stated I have no comment.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no comment.

Mr. Mahnic stated the only problem that I have is that we have two private roads side by side and we are going to have an argument between one group of people in a minor subdivision versus the other group because you have snow when you plow your driveway on my side. He stated there is also an item here under driveway maintenance. He stated it says, “A said driveway shall not be paved or covered with a hard surface without the aforementioned majority consent of all home owners affected.” He stated so this means that this will never be approved.

Mr. Bucko moved to approve Case 04-FP-15. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Case 04-Z-5. Petition of Starwood Properties, LLC, P.O. Box 404, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-2, Offices & Institutions, to be located on the West side of Calumet Avenue, between Bullyseye Lake Road and Burlington Beach Road, in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (con’t from the September 8, 2004 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)

Mr. Breitzke stated this case has been withdrawn so if anyone came in late the proposal for the site development east of Ridgewood Creek has been withdrawn and it will not be heard.

Case 04-M-3. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to Ordinance 97-37, Chapter 17 (ZONING) relating to Open Space/Green Space.

Mr. Thompson stated on September 7, 2004 the County Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve the Open Space Ordinance but it was amended from what it was originally sent to them by the Plan Commission. He stated it is significantly different from what was sent by the Plan Commission. He stated since there are changes and it was an amendment by State Statute this must come back to the Plan Commission for their recommendation. He stated if it is recommended for approval it becomes law. He stated if they recommend amendments or denial it will go back to the County


Commissioners for another meeting. He stated then that will be the final decision. He stated this is per State Statute. He stated the Plan Commission must act on this within 45 days from when the Commissioners acted on this, which was September 7, 2004.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Thompson if he was going to read the Plan Commissions recommendations.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read the Plan Commission report that he sent to the Plan Commission members. The report is in the Open Space file.

Mr. Detert stated we have had these committee meetings and all sides were represented. He asked Mr. Thompson if he felt that everyone had an adequate opportunity to speak at those meetings.

Mr. Thompson stated we had agricultural representatives on it. He stated John Remster and Jane Maxwell represented the agricultural side. He stated they told me to put on builders and developers and Todd Leeth and Gary Greene were on this. He stated the citizen member was Ned Kovacevich. He stated I also pulled in another developer, Gary Atkinson that did a PUD within the county. He stated I had Parks people as requested. He stated I had Ed Melendez with the Parks Department and also Dick Maxey who is a Park Board member. He stated from the Plan Commission there were Mike Bucko and Eric Biddinger. He stated I also had Lorelei Weimer who is the Director of the Porter County Tourism. He stated from the environmental side I had Herb Read and there was also Greg Quartucci, who is a consultant in the environmental side and he is currently working on Congressman Visclosky’s Market Greenway.

Mr. Detert stated the reason I asked the question is because we have gone and the Commissioners have gone overboard to make sure that everybody got heard. He stated we still have an ordinance that some people are not happy with. He stated I said before when we passed that and sent it to the Commissioners we had to start somewhere and the Commissioners could tweak it. He stated I think they did that because I think that we have to go somewhere. He stated as a former developer I think having green space is a step in the right direction. He stated I think in the long term it is going to help the builders because people are going to continue to want to move to Porter County because we have that and we provide space for recreational and useful space in subdivisions for them to use.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-M-3 as remanded back to the Planning Commission from the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Mr. Biddinger moved to have a ten (10) minute limited debate for each member. Motion failed due to a lack of a second.

Discussion:

Commissioner Harper stated everyone probably could see the frustration that the Board members had earlier this evening with the three cases that were on the call. He stated the frustration is due to the fact that we are working under rules that we don’t want to be working under and we talk about them again and again and again. He stated months go by then years go by and we talk about them but we don’t do anything about them. He stated we have a zoning ordinance that is in shambles. He stated there has been a lot of work put into this thing and the Plan Commission report was read and even the people that we are going to have rewrite this ordinance say it is not some ground breaking ordinance. He stated they say it is an ordinance that is not a cutting edge ordinance. He stated it is an ordinance that shows that we are progressing. He stated I came here tonight not as a Commissioner of Porter County not knowing if people were going to be allowed to speak or people were not going to be allowed to speak. He stated that’s the way things work I find so many times. He stated in fact the first time this was passed here and went to the Commissioners the meeting was set so fast I couldn’t try to get some notice out and get people to come out. He stated now the powers to be have been working behind the scenes and they have been putting pressure on this. He stated I know that because usually when I come down here for a Plan Commission meeting I get down here a little early and I am sitting back in my office and some people come in and visit me. He stated they didn’t do that tonight. He stated I can figure out what is going on here. He stated I fought this thing about as long and as hard as I can fight it. He stated Herb Read said it at the first meeting the ways to defeat this ordinance. He stated this ordinance is a compromise and there may be some men that sit up here and say, “We don’t want green space” and I can respect that. He stated I think I heard Frank say that because he has some thought about Home Owners Associations and I respect that. He stated stand up and say you’re not in favor of it but don’t say, “Well it is just not right or not fair and we have to fix it a little bit.” He stated


let’s talk a little bit what the law is. He stated the law is this and Bob and Lily you can tell me if I am wrong. He stated we are going to approve this amendment or send it back to the Commissioners. He stated the law is we either approve it or send it back to the Commissioners. He stated the Commissioners have two choices when it gets back to them. He stated they either approve the amendment or if they don’t approve the amendment the original ordinance goes into affect. He asked if this is how Bob and Kevin understand the law.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Commissioner Harper stated so this is what is happening here. He stated this is the way the law reads. He stated this thing if it goes back up and it is going back up if it is knocked down there is only two choices. He stated let’s stand up tonight and do the right thing and vote for this ordinance. He stated I as a Board member have the right to recognize people in the audience. He stated I have sent out letters and so forth to get people here and the reason I did it was because everyone told me that all the builders were going to be here and we are having this big discussion on this and they are all against it. He stated I guess they have met with certain members ahead of time so maybe they said their piece and we are not going to let the public talk. He stated I am sick of it, Kevin. He stated I am sick of the way this county is run. He stated I am sick of the way the zoning is run. He stated I am just letting you know. He stated I am sick that we have people out here that have mud going into their ponds and drainage problems and we are not taking care of it. He stated let’s for one time do something for the people in this county.

Mr. Sheetz stated what we are doing is forcing these people into POA and to paying more for where they are going to live. He asked is this right? He stated let’s say you have a ten-acre parcel with ten homes on it and some people can’t pay the POA. He asked guess what happens? He stated they can’t pay the POA and who is going to take care of that two acres. He stated it is going to come back on the county or goes up for sheriff sale. He stated now you have two acres sitting there where people are going to throw trash in and there is a liability issue.


Mr. Mahnic stated I have to respect you for all you said, Bob and in many cases I agree with most of this. He stated the part that I don’t like is we are telling people where they are going to build and how much they are going to give away. He asked who is going to maintain it? He stated I know what happened out there in South Haven by the Field of Dreams. He stated that was supposed to be a beautiful park for the kids to play and it ended up being a dumping area. He stated one of the developer’s was willing to clean it up so that we would give him approval so he could put in his development. He stated every time we make an ordinance it takes some rights away from me. He stated I can’t do this I can’t do that. He stated we are being boxed in by the Federal Government and we are being boxed in by the State Government and now we are boxed in some more here. He stated we are taking land away from the developer. He stated if a developer is accountable and responsible and I hope some of them are, will put this in on their own. He stated I had a developer talk to me today and he said that he had a big development and his case would be heard in the future. He stated this developer laid out this drawing and he said that he did this. He stated I asked him if he looked at the new ordinance. He stated the developer told me that he did this because he was responsible and they were still making money. He stated the name of the game is that we have to curb these guys who are trying to put five pounds of something into a two-pound bag. He stated I think that this is too restrictive and we are going to have problems with it. He stated like Bob said, I will support it in this respect that it is a start. He stated I don’t like the fact that we are telling people this is how much you are going to put up.

Mr. Bucko stated as Bob stated I sat on that Board and I debated with people and tried to come to what I felt was probably the best compromise that I could find at the time that we made it. He stated I will tell you that since that time that we made it I have talked to some members that are builders that weren’t in this county that have built in this county, but they are primarily Lake County builders. He stated I talked to them about parcels of land and they pointed a couple of things out to me in this ordinance that I don’t quite understand and I have some reservations about. He stated I missed it and it was concerning the


access to the open space. He stated maybe I need some clarification on this. He stated it says that you need 50-feet wide of access to the open space. He stated that is ten feet short of an entire width of a possible allowable lot. He stated if this open space is all the way at the end of that lot size then you are going back some hundred feet or so. He stated where you could have had a ten foot sidewalk going back to an open space or path you have fifty feet of unkept land to allow someone to get back to the open space unless you are going to put parking lots all the way back there the whole width of that open space. He stated that is open space and access to water detention areas that are made into ponds that support life such as fish. He stated you have to allow a fifty-foot access of space there. He stated a developer could literally loose a fifty-foot area in there and the whole width of a lot back in additional space. He stated I think that is kind of a negative thing but I missed it. He stated it is important. He asked when will we fix this and when will we decide to make that amendment. He asked how much time is it going to take to get that taken care of. He stated I look back at the forty-acre issue. He asked what happens if this guy went over and over and used the parcel of land that had forty-acres of woods on it and they are relatively good woods. He stated when the developer seen this he said he couldn’t get the density that they were originally offering in a subdivision and it would cost him 25 lots. He stated it just wouldn’t fit. He asked if there was a problem with the intensity program or formula. He stated I think that this is a major issue. He stated I just have some reservations on those two issues alone. He stated other than that I think I understand most of the other things. He stated an old timer in town told me today that if it looks real good today then it will look real good tomorrow and if it is the right thing today it will still be right tomorrow. He stated I don’t think I have a problem with giving some real consideration to this and withdrawing the whole darn thing and then resubmitting it to the Commissioners and telling the Commissioners that we want everything within here and these are the items and issues that we need to fix. He stated we have “x” window to fix them in and a reasonable window that everybody can live with. He stated if it is six months we still have two years before we will ever get our Ground Rules work completed. He stated it will be within a very substantial


amount of time and should be agreeable by most people. He stated I sat on the committee and I have these reservation.

Mr. Burns stated I think that this is a good start and I don’t have many problems with it. He stated I think as issues come up we can change it as we go along and I will support this.

Mr. Biddinger stated as a Plan Commission member and also as a member of the Committee that worked on this I feel that it is my job to nit-pick this ordinance. He stated I know we have come to a kind of unspoken agreement for no public comment but I just want to make this point very clear. He stated if you are in favor of open space please raise your hand. He stated if you are against open space please raise your hand. He stated the point I am trying to make and it didn’t quite work as well as I wanted, but the point is that it is very hard to be against open space but what I am against is a bad ordinance. He stated we talked about these earlier cases with road problems. He asked how did they get the way they are. He stated it was a bad ordinance maybe written in haste and very similar to how this ordinance was done. He stated this ordinance was done very quickly. He stated in the end do we have a bad ordinance. He stated I really don’t know and the only way we really find out about the pitfalls of an ordinance is to use it. He stated it gets to be a little bit of a confusing issue because we are not experts in this area. He stated most of us up here are basically volunteers sitting on this Commission. He stated none of us have degrees in planning and zoning except for Mr. Thompson. He stated we all have to rely on people and the feed back from the public. He stated with that being said I have asked a lot of people what is the better idea here or another way we could do this. He stated I got a lot of people scratching their heads. He stated if you don’t like this what is the better alternative to meet this goal but still be fair to everybody. He stated this is the real issue that we are trying to come on and that is to be fair to both sides here. He stated with that being said I am going to point out just a few problems with this ordinance. He stated from an environmental standpoint this ordinance has no provision for interconnectivity between parcels. He stated so we can very well have a two-acre plot here a four-acre plot there but what is the value to wildlife. He


stated to get from one plot to another we end up playing dodge with our cars trying to avoid deer on the roads because that is the only way they have to get from one parcel to another because it doesn’t allow for interconnectivity. He stated I have asked this question a lot of times too. He asked does this ordinance make developing agricultural land more desirable. He stated to an extent it does because now it is easier to avoid natural resources by just going out and grabbing a parcel of AG land. He stated there are two big Montrose that I have heard used in planning and zoning time and time again. He stated first off don’t buy for a view you don’t own and second one is that they are not making any more lands so use it wisely. He stated another problem with this ordinance and I have expressed my concerns to a number of people on this Board as well as Mr. Thompson. He asked who delineates the natural features. He asked what do we have to do to get this done and sure it is nice to say that we can rely on volunteers and that type of thing but let’s be fair. He asked how much time does it involve to walk a 100-acre parcel. He stated that could take me nearly a half a day to do that type of work. He asked is that fair to ask on a volunteer basis. He stated maybe and maybe not. He stated the other thing is how do we make sure that every parcel is evaluated the same so that we have consistency across this evaluation. He stated I learned wetland delineation under Dr. Brooks at Penn State. He stated if I were to go out and do wetland delineation and take someone from the Army Corp of Engineers I bet you my delineation would be doubled the size of theirs just because the way I was taught. He stated there is no line for consistency on here. He stated the last bit I have is that some of our definitions need just a little bit of tweaking. He stated such as forest areas. He stated I can take that definition and twist it around to make almost any clump of trees qualify into a forest area. He stated it is not a real strong definition of forest area. He stated there are a couple of other definitions that need a little bit more clarification. He stated with that being said I heard it a lot and I kind of stand in the same place. He stated this is a good start to an ordinance. He stated my biggest fear about this ordinance is that we stop here. He stated we pass this ordinance and then we quit. He stated that is my biggest fear because I don’t think it is good enough. He stated if we do pass this ordinance we need to


have the commitment from the Commissioners as well as this Board to say that we are not going to stop here but continue to work on this ordinance. He stated in fact we are going to continue to work on all of our ordinances to improve them and make them better. He stated the problem starts when we decide to leave well enough alone and we end up with instances like our private roads and minor subdivision issues that we have all heard earlier tonight.

Mr. Detert stated I still say that somewhere we have to make a start. He stated I think that if you talk to any planners they will tell you that open space is good. He stated I resent the fact that nobody has any background in this because I have been at it for twenty-five years. He stated we make mistakes and we make them every day. He stated no one is going to write a perfect ordinance and that is my twenty-five year background. He stated it is not going to be perfect. He stated you have to start someplace. He stated if we do not pass this and we are going to be sitting here for another two to five years trying to figure out what to do. He stated the way to get it done is to look at it and we have done everything we can. He stated we have both sides in for the picture. He stated the Commissioners have tweaked it. He stated I think we need to make start and we need to do it here. He stated I am in favor of listening to things that are wrong with it and changing them in the future and we are going to be changing all of our ordinances in the future.

Mr. Poparad stated I think everybody is in agreement that we need green space. He stated I just think that there are so many flaws in this. He stated I agree with Eric that it is somewhat vague. He stated Frank has a good point. He stated I am not going to sit here in good conscious and tell you that you can’t build a house in your woods. He stated I don’t know what the answer is. He stated this is not the answer. He stated I think Mr. Thompson and Ground Rules need a little more time. He stated I think a six-month window is not a bad idea. He stated we have been messing around with private driveways for how long. He stated government moves slowly. He stated if this goes into affect two years from now we will be sitting here looking at the same ordinance. He stated I agree with Mr. Bucko. He stated we scrap it with a six-month window and it comes back and gives Mr. Thompson time


to do his job and get Ground Rules in here. He stated we do need some form of green space and what that is I don’t know. He stated I do know that I am not happy with this document because I never had any input after it went to the Commissioners. He stated the committee had it and then it went to the Commissioners. He stated Bob ran around that night retyping it and then it came back to us. He stated that was the extent of our involvement wasn’t it? He stated this is too serious of an issue. He stated I am not in favor of this at all.

Mr. Breitzke stated that first ordinance was bad. He stated it did not define what environmental lands we wanted to save and it had no definitions, no clarity and gave no guidance. He stated the second thing many of the property because we as a county said you will set aside, we are going to be encumbered with land because there is no tool to set up to take care of insurance, taxes etc. He stated the third thing was there was no density bonus. He stated there was no reward for developers at all in the first ordinance. He stated it was just give us 20% of the land and you get to build your houses. He stated there are trade offs. He stated the reality is in construction with planning ordinances there are things that you trade for building sites and green space and open space are one of those things. He stated it is a trend and it is not something that is really new. He stated the biggest problem with the ordinance as it was originally proposed was that it was specific for a municipality that was in Indiana that really wasn’t for us. He stated we had a committee and put a lot of time and effort into developing an ordinance and that was a good start at creating something with some credibility, some direction, some feeling that at least we can start applying a tool and certainly amend. He stated as long as our membership and our Commissioners are not fixed on that as it is and maybe reflect on the value of clustering home development maybe even trading or mitigating for financial resources to support a park department. He stated there again the previous ordinance would have burdened this park department that is undermanned and under budgeted that we really need support in all directions. He stated I think over all the quality of life will drastically improve through the efforts and cooperation of the homebuilders. He stated I know I know it is a tough pill to swallow because it is a


change. He stated as long as it is equitable and fair to all. He stated as long as we consider those things a fair evaluation of scale. He stated as Eric pointed out we may have to require the developer to use yet another consultant as they use an engineer, a soil scientist, a surveyor and architect. He stated they may need to have somebody who is a forester or arborist. He stated not that I am looking to create employment for any group of people but I want things done well. He stated I want things done well in Porter County. He stated my feeling is that this is a start but we have an obligation to both sides, environmental and the homebuilders to make sure that we quickly respond and start tweaking this. He stated nobody came forward from either side, outside of the committee, with any suggestions that really helped us put together a different type of ordinance. He stated I would like to see us at least start out with this ordinance.

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

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


Mr. Thompson stated I just want to simply mention that you did receive letters and it is concerning a particular development, Falling Waters. He stated our attorney doesn’t want this discussed tonight. He stated I just handed this out. He stated our attorney wants this placed on the November 10 agenda. He stated please read this and study it.

Mr. Thompson stated the other thing I wanted to mention is that starting on October 25 Ground Rules will be in and we will start interviewing interest groups. He stated I sent everyone an invitation to this and I also sent the agenda for it. He stated these are open meetings and they have been advertised. He stated they were sent out with invitations for people to attend but they are open meetings. He stated on October 25 we will be doing six of them and on October 28 we will be doing two. He stated on the morning of October 28 starting in the morning I am going to be driving them around the county so they understand what is happening in the county. He stated if


you have any suggestions on any place that you want me to take them to I will. He stated I have been talking to Mike Bucko about this they have Chamber Days on that day and I am going to take them there briefly to show them Chamber Days.

Mr. Thompson stated I would like to announce that at the October 27 meeting there will be an ordinance presented that says that all proposed lots within a subdivision shall be built on public roads. He stated however, that still doesn’t take care of the minor subdivision issue.

Commissioner Harper asked what do we need to do to take care of that.

Mr. Thompson stated that is all you have to do is say that minor subdivisions are built on public roads or just get rid of the ordinance.

Mr. Mahnic stated I think TAC is doing a good job. He stated TAC is the one that reviews the drainage, discusses all the ways you can build and you can’t build and what you can do. He stated I think that after they come to some decision they should give to us a favorable recommendation. He stated we in turn look at it and then send it back to TAC for approval. He stated I still feel that we have to go to TAC with these subdivisions because right now they have minor and major subdivisions. He stated they look at them all. He stated they only make decisions on the minor subdivisions. He stated we still should go through the same procedure except it comes to us with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation and then we make that decision.

Mr. Poparad stated TAC has the authority to approve subdivisions.

Mr. Breitzke stated minor subdivisions.

Mr. Poparad stated maybe we should make TAC a review committee and they have no ability to approve or disapprove and they just recommend to us.

Mr. Breitzke stated the bottom line is do we want to go through the primary plat hearing on all the minors, which we have been going through about 100 a year.


Mr. Poparad stated why don’t we just eliminate minors.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion on the minor subdivisions.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is not on the agenda tonight and we should put it on the next agenda so we can have a true formal discussion.

Mr. Breitzke stated I want to bring up that there is a Nitty Gritty for Plan Commissions workshop for BZA members and Plan Commission members at Portage on Wednesday, October 20.

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