PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
November 10, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Detert moved to continue the reading of the October 27, 2004 minutes. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to call upon David Pilz from the City of Valparaiso who is giving a presentation on Stimson Drain Storm Water Management Study. He stated Mr. Pilz has been before us before through the last couple of years and this is the findings of his study that they have done toward the southeast corner of Valparaiso on the Porter County Jail property.

David Pilz stated this is not a presentation. He stated several years ago when we were faced with the development of the Jet Corp Industry coming to the city it was imperative that we found every means possible to get that into the City because of the jobs. He stated if you recall at that time we had just realize about a 400 job lost scenario because of a couple other industries and it was imperative that we find any way possible to get these new jobs and replace those that we lost. He stated the biggest hurdles that we faced were with storm water drainage off of that site and into that watershed. He stated with Kevin’s help we were able to get that project secure and get that industry built. He stated it made us very aware that in that watershed we needed to do some more planning and some studying and figure out how we were going to handle future development. He stated to make a long story short the city has done a couple of studies. He stated about two years ago we were successful in getting a Lake Michigan Coastal Program Grant to do a planning effort or prepare a cookbook if you want to call it that for that watershed. He stated the cookbook presents all of the data regarding the watershed, soil, hydrology and all different kinds of aspects that you can use in your planning efforts. He stated


then it presents the cookbook portion of a whole list of different kinds of methods to manage the storm water. He stated alternative methods, conventional methods and you will see the results are in here but the modeling that they did if you use some of these methods in this watershed developers have every possibility of saving ground rather than using it for their conventional large detention basins and so forth if they include some of those methods in their planning. He stated we presented one of these copies to the Drainage Board because the Stimson Drain is a regulated drain. He stated I would like to present another copy to the Plan Commission for your use. He stated please look through this.

Pending Business:

Case 04-Z-7. Petition of NSP Trust No. 1-2004, 99 N. Shorewood Drive, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to repeal Ordinance No. 98-23 PUD, Planned Unit Development and rezone it to C-4, General Business to be located on the East side of SR 49, between U.S. Hwy 6 and Calumet Road in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Con’t from 10-27-04 mtg. The public hearing is closed.)

Don Bengel stated I am a surveying engineer here in Porter County. He stated since we were here at the last visit we developed written commitments for the rezoning that will be presented to the Commissioners. He stated we have a whole list of things that will not be allowed in that zoning if you grant this C-4. He stated the church is the biggest neighbor that we have and they have the most concerns and we have eliminated anything that they might not care for. He stated the church had a representative here at the last meeting and he did say that the church did endorse this project and they were happy at what we presented them.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Bengel where are the written commitments.

Mr. Bengel stated I thought Mr. Thompson had them.

Mr. Breitzke stated when you say you have written commitments we need to see them.

Mr. Thompson stated I made up the Table of Uses and the yellow highlighted ones are the ones that Mr. Bengel has committed to not having on the parcel from the list that he gave me. He stated the green shows the C-4 uses that would be allowed in the district.



Commissioner Harper asked do you have a project in mind for this district.

Mr. Bengel stated yes we do.

Commissioner Harper asked what project is that.

Mr. Bengel stated this will be a private recreational development. He stated we would start out with indoor basketball.

Commissioner Harper stated that is what the church understands and this is what you went to the church and presented to them.

Mr. Bengel stated correct.

Commissioner Harper stated I am concerned that the church may be for it if you have that project there but they may not be for it if you are going to put up a nursing home or a planned residential development.

Mr. Bengel stated the church has seen all of those covenants.

Commissioner Harper asked you may put multi-family housing in there. He stated if all these uses are allowed the church and all these people should know that this may not be used for a $6 million dollar hockey rink. He stated I think that some of these people are coming here saying that they are for it because they were told that it was going to be used for a hockey rink.

Mr. Poparad asked if this is the one that was in the paper.

Mr. Bengel stated no this has nothing to do with the one that was in the paper.

Commissioner Harper stated tell me what this one is and what kind of recreation will be there. He asked why don’t we commit to do just that if that is what you are going to do. He stated what we are really doing is he is rolling in here with these plans and saying we may do this with it and doesn’t this sound great but we want you to zone it for all these uses. He stated that is what is going on here.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Bengel our direction to you was decide if you want to commit to the recreational use and we felt fairly strong that we would support that. He stated however, bringing a list at the last minute and giving you all sorts of alternatives.

Mr. Bengel stated I don’t think that there will be any financing available if you have a piece of land zoned for single use.

Commissioner Harper stated if you want this kind of zoning we shouldn’t even consider that recreational use. He stated if you want to give him a zoning give it but don’t give it based on that recreational plan. He stated when you walk out of here with the zoning you walk out of here with this zoning. He stated if tomorrow morning it is multi-family housing. He stated it looks like it is an allowable use.

Mr. Thompson stated that is correct.

Mr. Sheetz stated you are committed to that project.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

Mr. Sheetz asked Mr. Bengel are you willing to cross out multi-family.

Mr. Poparad stated he could get a use variance for a recreational facility. He stated we don’t have to rezone this.

Mr. Sheetz stated let say that the business fails. He stated no bank is going to loan them the money to do what they want to do on one use.

Mr. Breitzke stated they can come back and rezone it.

Mr. Detert stated we have done permanent use variances and I haven’t heard any of those people complain that they couldn’t get money from the bank and that limits it to one use.

Mr. Bengel stated our biggest neighbor who abuts us on two sides has no problem with this and I don’t think the neighbor on the north has any problems with this.

Commissioner Harper asked have you gone to them and asked them if you don’t do this you may do duplex’s.

Mr. Bengel stated the church has been involved with this before we ever came here. He stated we struck out the uses that they didn’t want and we even struck out a few more that they didn’t want.

Mr. Poparad stated you want to build a recreational facility but yet we are allowing you to build a list of things if we change the zoning. He asked what is wrong with applying for a


variance for a recreational facility. He stated I don’t want to hear about financing because I don’t think that is a valid argument. He stated if you have the financing for a recreational facility that has a permanent use variance then what does the bank care what it is zoned.

Mr. Bengel stated I think they do.

Mr. Poparad stated if he has the variance he has the permission for the use.

Mr. Sheetz stated it would be just for that.

Mr. Poparad stated that is what he is after.

Mr. Sheetz stated the bank is not going to give him any money to switch this project.

Mr. Poparad stated our job is not to be his banker. He stated the Rhoda’s are here in the back of the room. He asked Mr. Rhoda if he knew that there could be duplex’s up there.

Mr. Rhoda stated no.

Mr. Poparad asked if he was okay with that.

Mr. Rhoda stated no.

Mr. Sheetz asked Mr. Bengel if they are willing to say that they can’t put duplex’s there.

Mr. Mahnic stated banks do insist that you rezone it before they give you the money. He stated I have gone through this. He stated the point is this if this fails they want to have a piece of property that they can pawn off to get their money back. He stated if you just have a permanent use variance whoever wants to buy this is obligated to it.

Mr. Poparad stated they could apply for another variance if they have another use.

Mr. Bengel stated right now it is zoned PUD, which was for a massive retirement center with a lot of houses. He stated if you want to talk about multi-family housing that is what it was.

Mr. Poparad asked if they could do this in a PUD.

Mr. Thompson stated the PUD Ordinance is specific to that retirement community and the retirement community only.


Mr. Poparad stated so the PUD ordinance got tossed.

Mr. Thompson stated it has but there still is an ordinance in place. He stated if he wants to do something other than what is there…

Mr. Poparad asked if we could modify the PUD to accommodate him. He stated instead of changing the zoning just change his plan.

Mr. Breitzke stated they would have to go for another PUD.

Mr. Thompson stated that is an option. He stated one of the things is the private recreational development is allowed in an R-1 zoning which was the original zoning on that parcel with a special exception.

Commissioner Harper stated then that is the way to go.

Mr. Bengel stated if we wanted a special exception we would’ve come for one. He stated we are asking for C-4 zoning.

Mr. Breitzke stated that’s all we can do tonight is make a recommendation to the County Commissioners and it sounds like right now that you have more work to do to satisfy at least one of the Commissioners.

Mr. Bengel stated we are asking that the Plan Commission vote on this one way or the other so we can move on.

Mr. Thompson stated I have also seen written commitments that have come and asked for that particular zoning. He stated in C-4 that is all they would have to do is a site review. He stated they don’t have to have a special exception and in C-4 it is an allowable use. He stated this Commission in the past has done the rezoning with a recommendation for written commitments for that use and that use only and if they want to change the uses on it then they are back in front of this Commission requesting the change in the written commitment as another amendment.

Mr. Poparad stated it is already rezoned then.

Mr. Thompson stated it would be rezoned to C-4 but if you say…

Mr. Poparad stated then whatever is permitted under C-4 would be allowed.



Mr. Thompson stated if the written commitment is specific to private recreational development only as shown.

Mr. Poparad asked if they would do that.

Mr. Bengel stated no.

Mr. Sheetz asked why wouldn’t this work for you.

Mr. Bengel stated we are back into a single use financing deal.

Mr. Mahnic stated the Liberty Bible Church is to the east and since you only show one entrance from Rt. 6 why couldn’t you get an easement from those folks to be able to use their northern section because that is a driveway to get into the parking lot. He stated you would split up the traffic between Rt. 6…

Mr. Bengel stated that is a possibility but I don’t think the church would want us to enter into that. He stated the church has some of their own recreational facilities planned for that area.

Mr. Mahnic stated my personal feeling is we have warehouses to the west, a pizza house across the highway, a gas station on the corner and then we have one house and then the church property. He stated I don’t know who would want to build apartment houses or single family homes in that area. He stated we have in the past rezoned, against my wishes, property like this. He stated if you have a good viable plan and are willing to come in with a written commitment that this is what you are going to be obligated to do and if you ever change it you have to come back. He stated I could see some type of agreement like that.

Mr. Burns asked if we give you commercial with a single use and with the possibility to come in and change it if something changes that is not acceptable to you.

Mr. Bengel stated no.

Mr. Sheetz moved to forward Case 04-Z-7 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation to repeal the PUD Ordinance No. 98-23 and rezone it to a C-4 zoning with the written commitments. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated the multi-family bothers me most of


anything but getting this handed to us without really looking at it.

Mr. Bengel stated I apologize for that.

Motion failed on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Thompson stated this will go to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation on December 7, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

Case 04-FP-17. Petition of Karen Feller, 1046 S. SR 49, Kouts, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Shenandoah Springs Subdivision Phase III to be located on the North side of CR 900 S. between SR 49 and Baum’s Bridge Road in Pleasant Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 2.21 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Mr. Breitzke stated this case will be heard after the primary plat is approved later this evening.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 04-FP-17. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 04-FP-18. Petition of Duneland Development Group, LLC, c/o Attorney Karen Tallian, 6195 Central Ave., Portage, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Eagle View Subdivision to be located on the Southwest corner of CR 100 N. and Tower Road in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 23 lots on 14.4 acres. Zoned R-1 and R-2.)

Mr. Detert stated I did not get a copy of the final plat and I spoke with one of the other members and he did not get a plat.

Mr. Breitzke stated a copy of the final plat must be given to all members 10 days in advance.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 04-FP-18 until the December 8, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-FP-19. Petition of Phillip Norman, 164 S. 150 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Wind Whistle Addition to be located on the West side of CR 150 E.


between CR 100 E. and SR 49 in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana.(To contain 2 lots on 10.94 acres.)

Mr. Breitzke stated we are going to pass over this case for now. He stated Mr. Bengel is representing the petitioner and he is not here right now.

Case 04-FP-20. Petition of Bernard Madej, 5583 Paw Paw Lake Road, Coloma, MI seeking a secondary plat approval for Eagle Ridge Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of U.S. 6 and CR 200 W. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 112 lots on 63.5 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Mike Duffy stated I am from the Duneland Group and I am representing the developer. He stated we are here tonight seeking secondary plat approval for Phase 1 of Eagle Ridge. He stated currently about half of the infrastructure is installed. He stated we have met with the Drainage Board and made a few changes to comply with their wishes. He stated we have also met with the Technical Advisory Committee.

Commissioner Harper asked why did I drive by there and see no fencing, no silt fencing at all whatsoever with all the work going on out there. He stated I watched this thing develop and it didn’t appear to be a thing there.

Mr. Duffy stated I have been assured that they are complying with it and we have a site inspector that goes out there to inspect the sanitary sewer.

Commissioner Harper stated when you guys were here the Commission had just got done watching a video of another one and you said that you are right on top of this. He stated you weren’t on top of it. He stated in fact, for many days you were digging out there without any silt fences or anything at all.

Mr. Duffy stated no I don’t believe that is true.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Thompson what did you observe out there.

Mr. Thompson stated I went out there on a visit when I was taking Ground Rules Inc. on a tour of the county. He stated I pulled up to the site and I didn’t see any silt fencing whatsoever. He stated I did report that to Mr. Duffy at a TAC meeting and told him that they need to get silt fencing. He stated to be honest with you I called the Department of Natural Resources to go up and please do an inspection on your site because I don’t think you are complying.


Mr. Breitzke stated the other thing that was discussed was a construction pad that should be in place on your outlet for your subdivision. He stated I haven’t seen if that got put in either. He stated that they were told at TAC that there were certain things that they needed to fulfill and I was hoping that they had them done by now.

Mr. Poparad stated I guess I am being naïve in the fact that we have given them secondary plat approval when they have been working out there for 30 or 40 days. He asked is this a procedural thing.

Mr. Thompson stated in our codes it states that after they have received primary plat approval they can come in with final engineering plans and bring them to the County Surveyor and the County Engineer for their approval. He stated if they are approved then they can start doing the construction after primary plat approval from the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated the reason they do this is usually to reduce the bond. He stated they can get a lot of their infrastructure in place as long as they cooperate with our departments for the inspections, particularly of interest to us are the roads.

Mr. Mahnic stated lot 9 goes across a right-of-way for a pipeline and you show that you have .49 acres there. He stated I question whether you have a half-acre in there. He asked how will the owner position the house because they can’t build in the easement.

Attorney Schaefer stated if it was there at primary plat it should have been raised then.

Mr. Mahnic stated I know that but it wasn’t and I sure would like to know, but we do miss stuff like that and when we do I want to bring it up.

Mr. Poparad asked will that be maintained by the property owners adjacent to it.

Mr. Duffy stated it is theirs. He stated this is the responsibility of the homeowners.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue Case 04-FP-20 until we see compliance with the soil erosion and any other preliminary requirements before they come back for their secondary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


This case will be heard on December 8, 2004.

At this time, Case 04-FP-19, Wind Whistle Subdivision was heard.

Mr. Bengel stated we were here about 6 weeks ago with this petition on the primary plat. He stated we received approval and now we are here for the final plat. He stated there are two lots. He stated one is Parcel A, which has an existing barn, and will access CR 150 from this 60-foot strip. He stated the driveway is already in there. He stated Parcel B has Mr. Norman’s existing house on it and has access from Wind Whistle Drive.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve secondary plat for Case 04-FP-19. 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-P-14. Petition of William Rensberger, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Whisper Hollow Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 E., between CR 600 N. and CR 500 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Rensberger stated I am here for the property owner, Joyce Frechette. He stated her house is right here on Lot 1. He stated it is a 10-acre parcel and zoned rural residential. He stated what we propose is two more lots. He stated we have to go for a major subdivision because there has been a minor subdivision done already on the parent parcel. He stated this abuts Vintage View Subdivision, a five-lot subdivision, which was done a couple of years ago. He stated the lots will all be around the same size. He stated there will be perimeter drain septic systems and each property will have its own well. He stated this was submitted to TAC prior to the green space ordinance.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Herb Read stated I live at 1453 N. Tremont Road, Chesterton. He asked if this is a primary plat, since the open space ordinance has gone in, would all subsequent to the enactment of this ordinance be required to meet the requirements of the open space ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated the petitioner filed prior to the enactment of the ordinance it is not applicable. He stated anything that was applied for afterward certainly is.

Mr. Read stated so since he applied before the enactment of the ordinance he is not required to do anything.

Attorney Schaefer stated that is correct.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns stated I have no problems.

Mr. Biddinger stated it looks good.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Mahnic asked you have a subdivision directly to the south of you.

Mr. Rensberger stated yes.

Mr. Mahnic asked is there going to be some type of exclusion for the driveway that goes right next to this one now so people don’t come in from that drive.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is a private road.

Mr. Rensberger stated we can put a no access easement along the south boundary.

Mr. Mahnic asked since lot 3 is big do you have any intentions of subdividing that again.

Mrs. Frechette stated I seriously doubt it.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-P-14 subject to a one foot no access easement on the south boundary. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Mahnic recognized Mrs. Frechette to speak.

Mrs. Frechette asked if it would be applicable to plant


trees along that entire side from the road all the way back, which was our intention.

Mr. Breitzke stated we will address that at TAC.

Case 04-P-15. Petition of Karen Feller, 1046 S. SR 49, Kouts, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Shenandoah Springs Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 900 S. between SR 49 and Baum’s Bridge Road in Pleasant Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 2.21 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Mr. Breitzke asked if there is a motion to merge the two, the primary and the secondary, into one.

Mr. Detert move to hear Case 04-P-15 and Case 04-FP-17 together. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Bengel stated I am here representing Karen Feller this evening. He stated just a brief history of Shenandoah Springs. He stated this will be Phase III. He stated when they did the main part of the subdivision they did not put in that little bit of road on Shenandoah Drive going north and at the time it only picked up two lots. He stated so by the time they got ready to put it in the primary plat had expired. He stated all the infrastructure is in. He stated we are just asking to extend that street up to the boundary to access these two lots.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

Mr. Poparad stated I have no questions.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no problem.

Mr. Burns stated I have no problem.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have no questions.




Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-P-15. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 04-FP-17. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-M-5. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to Porter County Code, Chapter 15.20, and Chapter 17.76, “Plan Commission Fees and Building Fees.”

Mr. Thompson stated this is a revised fee schedule that we have been working on. He stated we did meet with the Builders Association on this. He stated present were Mike Alyesworth, Executive Director, Mr. Snemus, President and one other member. He stated they reviewed it and looked at it and had no problems with it. He stated they were going to take it back to their committee. He stated I never heard anything back from them as whether there were any problems with it. He stated the major changes with this is that we set a base fee with the residential and also with the subdivision fees with subdivision fees now going to a base fee plus $10.00 per lot. He stated the residential and commercial and industrial fees have a base fee, which essentially covers the office costs with processing of the permit and the square footage is intended to cover the inspection costs in the field.

Dennis Henderlong stated I live at 1806 Woodmere Drive. He stated we had discussed this at the Builders Association when no one really likes to have fees increase, we understand to get the quality job of inspections done this is a necessity. He stated we are for it. He stated like anything else we want the job done right.

At this time, Mr. Thompson went over the proposed fee schedule.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad stated concerning the legals. He stated we are better off if we do it and we bill them or we don’t do it.



Mr. Mahnic stated the only thing I have is that I think that we are passing this on to the homeowner. He stated we are going to discourage the young people who are having a rough time anyway. He stated I haven’t seen anything other than this compared to the old one to say where the money will be used, how we are going to generate this based on historical information as to the average of how many permits of this have been issued, how many permits for this we have issued and how much money we will generate and will it be used effectively. He stated I think by the next meeting in December this could be tweaked up a little bit so that we can get some answers. He stated you guys get raises you raise the fee. He stated it is not a tax it is a fee. He stated to me it is a tax. He stated some young person who wants to build a house he is going to get knocked $250 or $300. He stated that is pretty tough for young people.

Mr. Poparad asked Mr. Henderlong what is the average house in Porter County.

Mr. Henderlong stated probably close to $200,000.

Mr. Poparad stated I don’t see where $250 will be an issue.

Mr. Detert asked on the multi-family with $250 per unit we make enough money to cover inspections. He stated I though the square foot fee was to cover inspections.

Mr. Thompson stated the reason I went to the per unit cost is that I did see a number of municipalities doing it.

Mr. Sheetz stated I agree with Bob Poparad because $250 isn’t going to be an issue.

Mr. Burns stated I have no problems.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no problems.

Mr. Poparad moved to forward Case 04-M-5 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on December 7, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.




Case 04-M-6. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment repealing the Minor Subdivision Ordinance No. 94-16.

Mr. Thompson stated this is an ordinance drawn up as requested by the Commission members to repeal minor subdivisions. He stated one of the things that I have done is I threw in an alternative, which was done back in 1996 in front of the Plan Commission and also in front of the Commissioners. He stated it also mentions having minor subdivisions done where they either front an existing public right-of-way or publicly accepted road or that they must construct a road to county engineering specifications to front a lot. He stated that is the alternatives.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Mr. Bengel stated I am not necessarily speaking against this. He stated I think it might be a better solution if you form a committee to study the minor subdivision ordinance and the procedure. He stated personally it does need changes but I’m not sure if it is wise just to throw it out.

Jan Meyers stated I am from Jackson Township. She stated if you eliminate the minor subdivisions will this revert back to the metes and bounds. She asked what is going to happen when you eliminate that minor subdivision and there is only going to be parcels that we are now looking at a grandfather situation where you have a residual. She asked does that open all that up and it cannot be divided again. She asked will you be allowing variances.

Mr. Thompson stated I don’t know if I can answer Don about forming a committee because that is up to the Commission. He stated Jan, as far as the metes and bounds that were done in the past the Judges have ruled that this was illegally done by the Plan Commission. He stated no it will not revert back to that. He stated however, if there are ten acre divisions with these residuals that the parcel are greater than ten acres that could never be included because the code states that ten acres is not included as a subdivision if all parts are ten acres. He stated a lot of these situations they were subdividing the areas and then leaving a ten-acre residual, which we could not include as a lot. He stated will anything really replace it, no. He stated in Jackson Township, for example, you are predominately zoned residential out there. He stated the thing that would replace it is the major subdivision ordinance. He stated they could still do subdivisions and dividing out there but it would have to be done to the code and specifications of a major subdivision.


The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated I was instrumental when we started the minor subs. He stated I think we lost our reason for doing them. He stated they were done so a small farmer could cut off a little piece of land for his kids and the last time I talked to Bob there was very few of that happening. He stated I think that we have seen so many problems with it that I would certainly recommend repealing it and if we have to do something different we are going to have the ordinance people in here. He stated we can readjust it at that time.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have only one question on number 8 on the second page were it says that “the subdivider must have submitted a list showing the names and addresses of interested parties as defined by the Commission rules.” He asked if it would be smarter to put in there by the Porter County ordinance because I don’t know about the rules. He stated every time we change them or bring them up we are going to have to come up in front of the Commission and ask to change the rule. He stated I would like to nail that down so it is defined definitely what rules. He stated I don’t know what rules we are talking about.

Mr. Thompson stated what you see here is what I took word for word from the 1994 ordinance that was written up by this Plan Commission with the adoption of the minor subdivision. He stated so basically what I was doing with this here was writing all of this language in and saying repeal it and get it out of here. He stated I was copying it word for word. He stated with that particular paragraph it is talking about our rules and procedures. He stated it is talking about interested parties, where if you are in RR, you have to notify people within 300-feet, if you are in R-1 then it is 150-feet. He stated that is what this is referring to and that is what I have always been enforcing.

Mr. Mahnic asked are you satisfied with that.

Mr. Thompson stated I guess the reason why it is in that ordinance as is because the recommendation is going to be to repeal it. He stated I just copied the language as is out of the existing 1994 and that is to repeal.

Mr. Mahnic stated you actually put the whole ordinance down here what we are going to repeal.

Mr. Thompson stated exactly.

Attorney Schaefer stated this is just a recommendation only.

Mr. Poparad stated I have to echo what Mr. Detert said. He stated I haven’t sat here that long but research shows that the intent of this was to help the farmer and it has gotten way out of control. He stated basically probably because of the private roads more than anything else. He stated so we just wipe the slate clean and we can redo this.

Mr. Detert stated there still is the ability to come to the BZA for a hardship so you are not cutting everybody out.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have no comments.

Mr. Burns stated I support this.

Mr. Biddinger stated I echo just about what everyone else has said.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 04-M-6 to the County Commissioners to repeal Ordinance No. 94-16, Minor Subdivision. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on December 7, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

Mr. Breitzke stated John Kremke from the Duneland Group was going to do a presentation of a conceptual subdivision plan per the Open Space Ordinance. He stated they didn’t get the information to us on a timely basis so I am asking for a continuance.

Mr. Detert moved to continue the Duneland Groups presentation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Discussion on Falling Waters development.

Attorney Schaefer stated Falling Waters as I understand it has already been approved. She stated it has had primary and secondary plat approvals and I understand that there are people upset out there with the utilities and so forth. She stated I don’t think, however, that this is a Plan Commission issue. She stated it is outside the scope of the Plan Commission. She stated I have discussed it with Bob and I discussed it today with Dave Hollenbeck. She stated I know that we would all like to see


something done and think that this is bad for the people who have bought out there but I think that they need to hire a private council to address their concerns because I don’t see this as within the scope of the Plan Commission to do anything about it. She stated it is just not a Plan Commission issue.

Commissioner Harper stated I think that Dave Hollenbeck represents the people in the subdivision.

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t know if he represents the developer. He stated he is the conservancy district attorney.

Commissioner Harper stated in the minutes of the meeting the Plan Commission approved this subdivision and the developer told you that they hired Dave Hollenbeck.

Mr. Breitzke stated for the conservancy district.

Attorney Schaefer stated in my opinion it is beyond the scope of the Porter County Plan Commission. She stated perhaps this may be something for the County Commissioners or perhaps we need ordinance revisions. She stated a lot of times things are thrown on the Plan Commission to do this and do that, file suite, stop this, stop that. She stated a lot of these things are beyond the scope of the State enabling statutes for Plan Commission. She stated they are really nuisance matters other types of things that should be in other ordinances, which the Commissioners can promulgate. She stated I would really encourage that but they are not within the scope of what a Plan Commission historically and by statute does.

Commissioner Harper stated these people including their attorney, Todd Leeth, came before this Commission on November 8, 2000. He stated I have read the minutes of the meetings. He stated I know Mr. Detert was there because he talked a lot during that meeting because I read the minutes. He stated they said that they would give $250,000 to the fire department if they got the subdivision approved that night. He stated the reason they said they would do that is because they were putting roads in the subdivision where you couldn’t turn fire trucks around on and there was a lot of people on the Commission that were concerned about that. He stated so they made those promises and other promises and they wrote letters. He stated this is why I get so mad when people make promises. He stated there was a huge discussion at this meeting about whether or not this subdivision would be approved because they were going to have these private streets and there all kinds of neighbors here coming to the meeting. He stated they discussed the type of water system and septic system that they were going to have out there. He stated


the last time I heard the fire department hasn’t seen the first penny. He stated for a long time I heard they weren’t selling lots and by the way none of this was conditional on them selling lots. He stated later on after this Commission approved the subdivision they started writing letters saying they can’t give the fire department $250,000 right now until after this that and the other. He stated everything they said in the minutes of this meeting on November 8, 2000 was that they were going to comply with all these promises. He stated I think we do have the duty. He stated I think we had people from the fire department here and neighbors here all of these people here and we as a group, I wasn’t here, but it was the Plan Commission, passed this and said all these things are to be done. He stated I think we should investigate this. He stated what concerns me is that these promises were made in November of 2000 and whether any statutes are going to run. He stated we need to get our attorney to investigate this and see if any action can be brought either to stop them from issuing permits out there until they live up to their promises that they made unconditionally or that we take some sort of action on it.

Mr. Breitzke stated what I am going to suggest to you is that you use the Commissioners attorney to do the investigation because a lot of this is bound by contract that we are not really part of. He stated your agreements are separate from us.

Commissioner Harper stated let me tell you why I think that we should investigate it. He stated I think it should be brought home to every member of our Commission. He stated when people sit here and say they are going to do things and we do these things and pass these things based on their promises how shallow and how difficult some of these things are.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am not disagreeing with you on the investigation. He stated it is a matter of who and what department really does this.

Commissioner Harper stated we are the department that sat here and by the way it is in the minutes that they told this Commission that if the Commission doesn’t pass this tonight the fire department is not getting that money. He stated a lot of the Commission members were upset about being told it that way. He stated I think that this was passed based on this promise.

Attorney Schaefer stated this flows into so many other issues that we could have a real long session discussing them. She stated we are talking about the fire department being a third party beneficiary of something that we are now trying to enforce. She stated I agree with you Bob 100% that what people tell us


should be enforced. She stated by the same token if those are going to be our requirements then they should be stipulation and written commitments that are recorded and run with the property so that we can enforce them. She stated as it is right now we don’t have that.

Mr. Detert stated maybe in retrospect we should’ve said dates as to when these things would be accomplished. He stated there have been a lot of problems for the developer. He stated it is a nice subdivision and it is probably going to be one of the best in Porter County if it ever gets going.

Commissioner Harper asked why are we getting these letters about the septic system.

Mr. Poparad stated it is from the property owners.

Commissioner Harper asked why are we getting these letters and why am I reading this and it seems to me that these people have something legitimate to talk about.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is a conservancy district that they are dealing with and issues within the conservancy district.

Mr. Poparad stated they want to sell bonds and turn around and get the property owners to pay the bonds back. He stated they bought this property with the promise that there is going to be a sewage treatment plant and they paid a premium for property. He stated I have to agree with the one letter where the guy said “I am not going to pay them twice. We paid a real high amount for the lot because it had sewer and water.” He stated now they are going to issue bonds and this guy is paying again. He stated I think that we are going to get drug into this one way or the other.

Mr. Detert stated the sewage treatment building is up. He stated within a month it will be completely closed in. He stated that is my understanding.

Mr. Sheetz stated that is not my understanding.

Mr. Poparad stated that is the problem. He stated we are trying to second-guess someone who is not here.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is a good point. He stated we are getting over the edge a little bit here because there was not due notice. He stated the people from Falling Waters on both sides should more of an ability to speak.



Commissioner Harper moved to have Mr. Thompson look this over and give a report back to us by the next meeting on whether he feels that they are following county procedures out there as far as our ordinances are concerned and what they should be doing.

Mr. Breitzke stated we want to treat everyone the same. He stated we should probably be having some kind of quarterly reporting requirement from all of our developers about the status and stage of where they are at and resolution of issues.

Mr. Poparad asked what are they doing with the septic.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is pump and haul and it is approved by IDEM and the Department of Health.

Mr. Poparad asked if they are building a treatment plant.

Mr. Thompson stated the building is up but the equipment has not been installed on site yet.

Mr. Breitzke stated just for clarity they have under gone one of the most rigorous reviews that I have ever seen of a wastewater treatment plant for whatever reason. He stated once they put their components in they are non-refundable. He stated this is pretty expense apparatus and they could put it all together in two to three weeks.

Mr. Sheetz stated his understanding on the building is that the building is going to have to be rebuilt.

Mr. Detert stated we need to put a time frame on our written commitments and dates on these.

Mr. Sheetz asked if there was a health issue.

Mr. Breitzke stated no that is the issue of Indiana Department of Environmental Management and Indiana Department of Health.

Mr. Breitzke asked Commissioner Harper if he made a motion earlier concerning this matter but there was no second.

Commissioner Harper stated yes.

Motion reads as follows:

Commissioner Harper moved to have Bob Thompson take a look at this situation by the next meeting to see if any of our


ordinances are being violated or if there are any grounds that we
have to stop building permits based on the fact that this money hasn’t been given to the fire department and some of these things haven’t been followed through. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Sheetz asked why can’t we have discussion before the second.

Mr. Breitzke stated as soon as there is a motion made the rules is after the second we can have more discussion.

Motion carried on a the following roll call vote:

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

Plan Commission discussion concerning Aberdeen Phase G agreement for improvements on CR 100 N.

Mr. Thompson stated I was asked by the Commissioners to put this on the agenda.

Commissioner Harper stated the Commissioners at their meeting asked that this be brought to the Plan Commission. He stated Dave Schelling is here from the Highway Department.

David Schelling stated I am the County Engineer. He stated back when Aberdeen Phase G came in to TAC review Merit Properties had that development. He stated in conjunction with the subdivision they entered into an agreement with the county to pave CR 100 N. from CR 250 W. to CR 325 W., ¾ of a mile. He stated they did do some work out there. He stated they did some base work east of the subdivision over towards CR 250 W. but the agreement was to pave 3 inches of binder and eventually half of surface, which would be a pretty good road for the county and the subdivision. He stated unfortunately before the work was done they lost the subdivision and the work was never done.

Commissioner Harper stated the Commissioners motion was to ask the Plan Commission to stop issuing permits for that subdivision.

Mr. Schelling stated there is probably close to a ½ mile of CR 100 N. that is bad.

Mr. Breitzke stated the problem we have is that this isn’t


really a public proceeding so we don’t have any checks and balances here. He stated because we understand the situation a little better now you can certainly suggest that they be put on for the next meeting as part of the public hearing.

Commissioner Harper stated I’ll suggest that and I suggest that the Highway Department make our attorney aware of the documents and so forth so that she has them. He stated I think Brian Hurley would like to make her aware of some documents so she can get us a report back.

Mr. Thompson stated part of the issue of the road agreements is that they are in between the County Commissioners and the developers so that creates somewhat of a sticky point.

Mr. Poparad asked if these are recorded agreements.

Mr. Schelling stated no.

Attorney Schaefer stated first of all this is something that should be discussed in an executive session on pending litigation if that is the desire here not in a hearing because things may come out that we don’t to. She stated secondly this is an agreement, which is between the County Commissioners and the developer. She stated it is not an agreement between the Plan Commission and the developer. She stated it was drafted by the County Commissioners and its job is to be enforced by the County Commissioners.

Commissioner Harper stated the Commissioners at that point moved to bring this back to the Plan Commission and ask them to withhold issuing permits out there. He stated secondly again we have meetings that we have had here with promises from developers that something is going to be done that didn’t get done.

Attorney Schaefer stated what I do want to say is legally speaking from the Commissioners view point there is a possible way of getting done what you want done. She stated again it is the Commissioners responsibility and there is the legal thing there.

Mr. Mahnic stated I recognize Mr. Brian Hurley to speak.

Brian Hurley stated this is not a situation as Mr. Harper indicates where promises were made and now the developer is not fulfilling those promises. He stated this is a whole new developer. He stated this is a developer who bought this property from a bank that basically foreclosed and purchased this property out of the bankruptcy of the previous developer. He


stated the developer who now is in charge and who is now become the owner of 66 of these lots and now has turned around and sold another 20 of those lots. He stated this developer has done a larger number of things at this subdivision that were left undone by the prior excavating company by the prior developer. He stated in fact had it not been for this developer coming forward a large number of things never would have gotten done out there because the performance bond that was issued, which should have kicked in after the developer went bankrupt the first time, was allowed to expire. He stated my client steps in purchases this subdivision and puts in 22 manholes and fixes them because they were paved over and allows for inverts to be poured in sanitary sewer manholes. He stated this developer put in sewer stops that were missing on 9 lots and 150 feet of connecting streets that were missing on the southwest corner of the property. He stated there is a whole list of things that we’ve have done. He stated these are things that we did and spent money on. He stated this subdivision is now a viable piece of real estate only because we stepped in and bought it and put it together after some mistakes have been made especially by the developer because of his bankruptcy. He stated now we turn around and find out that there was a letter, a road agreement, that was entered into between the previous developer and the county and now we are being asked to make good on a contract that was entered into by somebody other than us. He stated there are only three ways to describe this road agreement. He stated it is either a contract or a lien or some sort of ordinance provision that is being imposed on us. He stated it can’t be an ordinance provision because there is no ordinance provided for road agreements. He stated it can’t be a lien because it was never recorded. He stated the first thing that I mentioned, a contract, maybe it is a contract but if you have a contract now between the County Commissioners and the bankrupt entity. He stated it doesn’t provide for succession of interest. He stated I don’t think under any situation there is any basis for anybody to even discuss the concept of withholding building permits out there.

Commissioner Harper asked in your mind how did the bonds fall by the wayside.

Mr. Hurley stated I don’t know. He stated I think as soon as the developer goes bankrupt that is the time the performance bonds should come forward and be utilized.

Mr. Schelling stated my office normally takes care of those and I would have to check to see what happened in this situation. He stated the only thing that makes it awkward is these are private streets and we don’t inspect them.



Commissioner Harper moved to take a report back to the Commissioner’s attorney and see if we can make a decision on what to do with this. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated a couple of months ago I put together an erosion control ordinance. He stated I would like to bring this back at the next meeting. He stated the State Department of Natural Resources is working on a certification program for certifying soil erosion control specialist. He stated I think it is near completion so it can actually be offered to contractors as well as public employees. He stated the whole thought is a very simple course. He stated I just put this forward to you just for your comments, opinions or whatever.

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

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion concerning commercial and industrial sites.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/Kevin Breitzke, President

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