PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
January 26, 2005

M I N U T E S


The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 6:30 p.m., in the County Administration Center, 155 Indiana-Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Commissioner Robert Harper, Frank Mahnic, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, and President Kevin Breitzke. Staff members present, were Robert W. Thompson, Fred Siminski, and Attorney Karen Tallian. Also present was Jan Noll.

Mr. Breitzke called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Breitzke, The minutes of the January 12, 2005 meeting have not been done yet. I will entertain a motion to continue.

Mr. Mahnic moved to delay the approval of the January 12, 2005 minutes. Mr. Detert seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, If the public is not aware of it, our secretary who takes care of this lost her husband last Sunday, and we haven’t been able to get caught up on that.

Motion carried unanimously.

CORRESPONDENCE

Case 05-Z-3. Petition of Robert Y. Lee, Trustee ETAL, c/o Duneland Group, Inc., 1498 Pope Court, Chesterton, Indiana, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from (RR) Rural Residential to (R-3) Multi-Family Residential, to allow a condominium development, to be located on the Northeast corner of U.S. Highway 6 and CR 200 W in Liberty Township.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Thompson, we have some correspondence.

Mr. Thompson, Yes, we do. This is in reference to our public hearing tonight. RBF Development, Case # 05-Z-3. ‘Dear Members, we are formally requesting Case # 05-Z-3 to be removed from the Plan Commission agenda for tonight’s meeting. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Very Truly Yours, Duneland Group, Mike Duffy.’ We received this today.

Mr. Breitzke, This was Case 05-Z-3. It’s the petition of Robert Y. Lee Trustee, c/o Duneland Group. It was a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from Rural Residential to R-3 Multi-Family Residential, to allow for a condominium development, to be located on the Northeast corner of US 6 and CR 200 W. That has been withdrawn, so if anybody is here for this, it’s done.

PENDING BUSINESS

Case 04-P-16. Petition of William Rensberger, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, Indiana, seeking primary plat approval for Glendale Valley Subdivision, to be located on a parcel of land on the South side of CR 250 S., between CR 675 W. and CR 600 W., in Porter Township. To contain 31 lots on 67.97 acres. (Continued from the December 8, 2004 meeting. The Public Hearing is closed)

Mr. Breitzke, We’ll get onto Pending Business. Case 04-P-16; Petition of William Rensberger, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, Indiana, seeking a primary plat approval for Glendale Valley Subdivision, to be located on a parcel of land on the South side of CR 250 S., between CR 675 W. and CR 600 W., in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. This is continued from the December 8, 2004 meeting. The public hearing is closed. This subdivision contains 31 lots on 67.97 acres. Mr. Leeth.

Atty. Todd Leeth, Good evening, my name is Todd Leeth. I’m here on behalf of the petitioner. The developer is Mel Nelson for the proposed Glendale Valley Subdivision. As you had indicated, Mr. President, the public hearing was held on December 8th. There was several comments received from the public, and particularly, some adjoining property owners who had questions and concerns with regard to storm water drainage. It was your decision at that time to continue the case for a little bit more information, and a return to the Technical Advisory Committee.
Since December 8th, we’ve gone to the Technical Advisory Committee, I believe, twice, and done some investigation with the assistance of, at least, two neighbors, who helped us locate some field tiles. If you’ll recall from the December 8th hearing, both members that were a part of the Board at that time, we had some neighbors, particularly with those on the North of the subdivision that front on CR 250, were concerned with some field tiles that were in the area. Of course those were never charted or platted in anyway for us to find those, other than simply physical examination.
So with their help, Mr. Rensberger, who joins me tonight, located those by literally digging them up with a backhoe, so that we could physically identify them. So we know where they are. One in particular is located in this area. I believe Mr. Kasten lives on this parcel here, and located his existing field tile in this location, and we’ve now redesigned the storm water management system to specially call that out. I believe that it’s actually located now on an easement, if it’s not on the primary plat. From a physical standpoint, we’re going to pick up that water in the storm drain that’s in the road right-of-way in that location.
There was also another field tile located in this location that feeds this kind of low area, which will now be a pond under our proposed plan. Now locating that, we again, accept that into our storm water system, and it makes it way into the pond, and is managed in that way. Those were the two field tiles that we physically located, and did not locate any others. The one to the North, I think, is going to solve some particular problems or at least concerns. You may recall from the hearing that there were some concerns that this field tile actually made its way up to the road right-of-way. There was some concern that it was causing some flooding or high-water issues down this way. Now, as I’ve indicated, we’re going to capture that water, and make sure that it goes to the South, and stays out of the road right-of-way. We think that’s potentially going to increase and improve the situation that is poor today.
The second issue that was addressed had to do with the flow to the South. As you know, we’ve got the second pond located in the Southwest corner of our property. Fieldstone Subdivision is located to our immediate West. There was some testimony at the last hearing that Fieldstone Subdivision, and their pond, which is located immediately adjacent to our southern property, was outletting; I don’t want to paraphrase, but there was issues downstream, which is to the South in that area, and what Mr. Rensberger has done is to provide for an opportunity to accept some of that water over into our system, particularly into that pond.
If you’ll recall, we came to you the last time indicating that we were over-detaining by a multiple percentage. In other words, two or three times what the drainage calculations required us to do. Now with the acceptance of this additional water, we resized this pond, and that pond now has essentially 478% more capacity than is required if we did the minimum standard size pond, required under your ordinance and drainage calculations.
This pond in this area--the eastern pond or northern pond--has a storage capacity of 325% of what’s required under your requirements. So we are accepting some overflow from Fieldstone Manor. We’ve identified the tiles that were of concern, and appeared back before the Technical Advisory Committee. They have reviewed this revision to the drainage plan, and forwarded it back to you. We are returning to you, and I would be happy, along with Mr. Rensberger, to answer any questions you might have with regard to the drainage system or any other matter on this subdivision. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Back to the Board. Do we have any questions from the Board? Anybody? Mr. Read.
Mr. Read, I’m trying to play catch-up here. Indeed, I didn’t have the benefit of the public hearing. But I’ve gone out to the site; gone all around it. In fact, studied the area for maybe two miles around it. I’ve been diligently reading the minutes from the public hearing, trying to determine the extent and the nature of the objections. I have a couple of questions, specifically regarding the drawings here. On the first page, on your site plan, on the Northwest corner, it says: off-site water 3.38 acres. Would you explain what that means?

William Rensberger, Yes, sir. The water coming from off the subdivision from the North is 3.38 acres. That’s a small watershed coming into our subdivision.

Mr. Read, So that’s water that’s coming from the person who owns that notch that is taken out there?

Mr. Rensberger, Pretty much.

Mr. Read, Running onto yours. I assume you have taken that into consideration?

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, sir.

Mr. Read, Okay. Now let’s go to.

Mr. Mahnic, Not to interrupt, but that amount of water comes on your acreage now. You’re allowed to have that amount of water leave your acreage too. You’re not responsible to detain that water; it can pass through.

Atty. Leeth, Legally, I agree with you, however, we are. We are capturing it.

Mr. Mahnic, Okay, I just wanted to make sure that people understand that.

Atty. Leeth, Good point.

Mr. Read, On Sheet #6, which shows the hydric soil, where you have your contour lines, certain lots have the notation of, mound, which I assume is a mound system. On other lots, which appear to be higher lots, you say, flood dose. What kind of system do you have there?

Mr. Rensberger, It’s a perimeter-drain type of system, with a drain around the septic system.

Mr. Read, The flood dose is a septic system?

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, sir.

Mr. Read, Not a mound type of system.

Mr. Rensberger, No, sir.

Mr. Breitzke, If I may interject, flood dose doesn’t mean flooding. It’s an extra pumping chamber. It’s an extra safety measure put in by the Department of Health, so the effluent or water is put on the laterals at regular intervals, usually timed at eight hours, twelve hours, six-hour intervals, so it doesn’t overcome the system. It usually works very efficiently in these types of circumstances.

Mr. Read, Alright, again, looking at that same sheet, which you have the hydric soil delineated. The first thing that struck me was the location of this hydric soil suggests that at one time it was a stream bin years ago, which accounts why it is hydric soil. But now, if I have read my background on this, as far as the approval from the Board of Health, is that they take, one of the things that they look at is, you have a lot so many square feet, and they subtract the hydric soil, and you have so many square feet left, which they say is enough to support the mound system or whatever system you have.
For example, on Lot 24, you have the hydric soil going right through Lot 24. You’ve got to put the house somewhere; you’ve got to put the garage somewhere; you’ve got to put the pavement somewhere. What are you going to do with regard to the mound system? Are you going to split it between those two areas or is it all going to be on one area?

Mr. Rensberger, It is my understanding, the reason the Board of Health requires one acre, usable acre of property, if you have your septic system fail for some reason, there is a site or two that they can move that system to. So on this particular, Lot 24, they can either put the house on the North or on the South, and still have enough room for a septic area. We did create a drainage easement going through that hydric soil area, 50 feet wide. But, yes, the house can go on either side of it.

Mr. Read, I assume you were doing a mound system, because of a high water table, and the hydric soils.

Mr. Rensberger, The mound system is what is required by the Board of Health for that lot.

Mr. Read, And the high water table is part of the reason?

Mr. Rensberger, I’m not sure about that. I’m not sure how they determine the mound system, but I did check with the neighbors in the Fieldstone Subdivision. I checked with excavators who have done basements, and there are three excavators who said they had no problems with their basements. The developer on that site, he said no excavator has reported, nor had any homeowners reported any problems with water problems there. So this property here is of the same type that is the one right beside it, so I don’t think there will be a problem with high water. Like I said, the Board of Health is the one that sets what type of system we need to insure that it will function properly.

Mr. Read, Well I’ve had some personal experience with high water tables and wet basements, so I think in those terms. I often advise builders not to put in a basement where you have a water table problem. And if you do, of course, they sometimes then put in the tile around the outside edge or the outside perimeter tile, and put in a sump pump, so when that water gets into the basement and hits the sump pump, it very easily gets contaminated with other materials--various contaminates.
If you have basements in this area, personally, I would recommend, if a person wanted to build a house in one of these, and they came to me, as an architect, I would recommend not putting in a basement or putting in a very high basement to avoid that problem.
I’ve been trying to find out, I don’t have personal experience with the mound system. I’ve been trying to find out, and I’ve been getting mixed comments and mixed results. I suppose it works in some places and not others, depending upon nature and characteristics of the soil. I don’t know whether it will really work here or not. Where is the nearest sewer and water? Some miles from here?

Mr. Rensberger, We looked into that. It’s to the West; the subdivision over to the West.

Mr. Detert, Lake of the Four Seasons.

Mr. Rensberger, Lake of the Four Seasons, yes, thank you. It’s a mile or so down the road.

Mr. Read, Any chance in the near future of tapping into anything here?

Mr. Rensberger, We don’t have enough money to run that, what it would cost to run it that way. If the sewer came through, the lot owners, when that time comes, and then you have nice huge lots tapped into sanitary sewers. It may eventually come that way.

Mr. Mahnic, Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Mahnic, All these issues on sanitation, and whether or not it’s feasible to run a pipeline from somewhere to somewhere, were discussed during numerous meetings at TAC. I don’t know why we want to go over that again. I know the new people on this Commission would like to know those answers; they’re available in the TAC minutes. I don’t think I want to sit here in judgment of what TAC did. I accept what they did, and I think we should go forward.

Mr. Read, Well, I appreciate the comment. I realize, I apologize for taking this time, but I do want to get proper background on this, and I’ve been rushed to do it. As an engineer, and an architect, I am well aware of technical problems. I think you would agree with me that an engineer or anybody in our line of business here, in trying to determine what will happen in the future, we rely upon assumptions.
For example, as an architect, I rely on the codes; I have to allow 25 pounds per square foot for the snow load. But every once and a while, we get a snow load that is heavier, which is why I go out and hire somebody to shovel snow off my roof. We have overflowing ponds and culverts that are not big enough. I’m not saying that we in the engineering profession deliberately make these mistakes, but sometimes they are unavoidable. We just take what has been in the past. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t.
Now I have to tell you that as a general rule, I would oppose any kind of a subdivision that relies entirely upon septic tanks, water wells, mound systems. It’s just not a good idea. That’s why I asked you the question about how close you are to getting sewer and water.
It seems that the subdivision to the West has water problems, so somebody must have made a mistake there. So I have to ask myself when it comes to voting, do I want to compound the mistake that’s there now. Would it make it better; would it make it worse. I don’t know, I’ll just have to make a judgment call. So I won’t take anymore of your time.

Atty. Leeth, Can I respond to your comments, please?

Mr. Read, Oh sure.

Atty. Leeth, And I appreciate your comment with regard to certain assumptions being made. Those same assumptions find their way into your code as the minimum details or the minimum standards that we are required as a developer--or my client is required as a developer--to meet in order to pass the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. But as I indicated, those assumptions, when taken into account, we’ve exceeded over three times with regard to the northern pond, and nearly five times with regard to the southern pond.

Mr. Read, I noted that.

Atty. Leeth, So I think we’ve got a fail-safe calculation base built right into the drainage calculations to address that eventuality.

Mr. Read, And I think I also noted your comment about God being responsible for the rain. But I think you would also agree what we do on the ground has some affect on what happens to the rain after God dumps it on us. Right?

Atty. Leeth, That’s correct.

Mr. Breitzke, Well let’s get back to the questions. Mr. Harper, do you have some questions?

Mr. Harper, Now I do.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Harper, Frank, I wish you could have been here last week and the week before, and been in the car with Carole Knoblock, driving around this county. The people with front yards flooded, and places flooded, and no answers, because we don’t have an answer, and the things she had to look at. I think sometimes we need to discuss these things a little more than TAC does.
I’m looking at this letter from Mr. and Mrs. Burton. Does everybody have a copy? Now I was going to ask somebody to read that into the record, which would probably take an hour, so won’t ask that. But if you read through this letter, some of the things that they talk about in this letter.

Mr. Breitzke, Are you talking about Mr. Burton’s letter?

Mr. Harper, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, It’s pretty much a rehashing of what we went through on the preliminary hearing. If you’ve got a specific issue.

Mr. Harper, Well, let me just, how long ago did Windy Oaks come in?

Mr. Breitzke, Windy Oaks was put in, in 1995.

Mr. Harper, Was it approved by TAC?

Mr. Breitzke, It was approved by this Plan Commission as well.

Mr. Harper, Okay, and what kind of shape is it in?

Mr. Breitzke, The outlet is the thing that we’re tinkering with. We’ve got an interesting situation with two subdivisions. One is Seasons View, which Herb was alluding to, I think, which is to the West. The water goes from the West, it all ends up in the Cornell system, but that’s all South of Fieldstone Manor and this development.
Windy Oaks bypasses this development likewise to the East. The complainants to the South feel they are getting too much water too fast. Whereas, the outlets, we’re working on the outlet of Windy Oaks to tweak that, to increase the outlet. The big problem with that, quite frankly is, it was designed to outlet water a lot faster, but it’s effectively shut off the water until it gets over the top of the overflow, then we have that big rush of water. So we are in the process of gauging that down. It just hasn’t been done yet.

Mr. Harper, How about Fieldstone Manor, when was that approved?

Mr. Breitzke, Fieldstone Manor was 1997, I think. The issues with Fieldstone Manor were more related to what was happening during construction. We haven’t really had issues since the construction of it and completion of the seeding, and the grading. They’re still working on some issues with that, as we do with anything under construction.

Mr. Harper, Let me just read a little of this.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Harper, ‘I warned of a drainage tile problem at Windy Oaks when that development was proposed. I helped Bryce Williams to install that drainage tile when it was a farm in previous years and I had first-hand knowledge of its impact. I was ignored at that time by the Plan Commission and the subdivision was allowed to proceed. There is now one house located in Windy Oaks next to that tile whose basement continually floods. I have watched this developer try to block the tile with concrete when he puts the roads in. The house has water problems with as little a ¼ inch of rain, and has had to run a black pipe above ground, across his lawn to continually pump from his basement to the curb at the street.’
By the way, that was something that Commissioner Knoblock ran into last week as she was driving out to some of these subdivisions that were approved, houses pumping water continuously out of the basements over onto other people’s land.
‘Other homes in Windy Oaks have flooded yards with as little as a ¼ inch rain, and the kids go out and swim in the yards, not the retention ponds, in the summer when it rains. In Fieldstone Manor, which is the other part of the original property in this proposal, the streets were put in without curbs. Ditches were instead used in front of the houses. Water problems exist now and the Plan Commission is asking the proposed Glendale Valley development to help fix some of Fieldstone’s problems. It should be noted that the streets of Fieldstone Manor were never finished to county specifications, and the county does not maintain or plow them.’
Mr. Breitzke, I think you have to talk to Mr. Schelling about that. The performance bonds haven’t been released yet, and that’s usually true during the course of development of a subdivision. Sometimes it takes longer that the two years we anticipate. We continue to renew the bonds until those are fixed we don’t plow snow until we are happy with the streets. Now I would say they aren’t built below the standards, but there’s probably some spots that have failed and some incomplete portions of the pavement. But that’s something you will have to ask the highway engineer--your employee.

Mr. Harper, Alright. I want to read a little bit more from this letter.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Harper, ‘It should also be noted that building houses on this ground adds to the sub-terrain water problem. This is because they will be pumping additional well water out of the ground, pumping into the sub-terrain water systems. After writing this note on December 10, 2004, I was contacted by Bill Rensberger. I spent about 45 minutes with him on Saturday, followed by a couple of hours on Sunday, and again, several more hours on Monday, helping Bill to located some of those tiles. Roy Kasten, my neighbor to the West, also helped on Sunday and even got his big farm tractor to ride around on because the fields were muddy. On Monday, Bill brought in a backhoe and located and broke the main tile that runs across my property. He also located two of the feeder runs. The six to eight inch tile was actively running water at the time, even though it had not recently rained. The following Tuesday we got a lot of rain, and the main tile got blocked where we had dug it. A chunk of soil had washed into the tile hole. The water backed up and flooded Kasten’s basement. I went out there in four to six inches of mud, covered by about four to six inches of water in the flooded field, and removed a big chunk of sod from the tile, which was under about three feet water. This opened up drainage again, and the went down in Roy’s basement by the evening. Roy and I attended two TAC sessions to discuss this planned development. We were mainly interested in drainage to the North end of the proposed development. I brought five issues up at TAC that I did not think were adequately addressed. The drain tiles feeding our point have been located or addressed. Bill did take a survey measurements and did plot our pond on his charts. The top elevation was 774 feet. The drainage tile under 250 S. to the North has not been located or addressed. No attempt or plan has been proposed to prevent sewage from the proposed new mounded systems on Lots 2 and 3 from leeching into our pond. No plan has been proposed to prevent sewage from the proposed new mound system on Lot 1 and 31 from leeching into the existing tiles. No determination has been made who will maintain the unpublished mainline drain tile across my property and the two properties to the East terminating into the ditch at 625 W. 250 S. Some of this is in the county highway right-of-way. I did not mention in the TAC session that this tile and the catch-basin is in need of repair right now.’
This letter goes on and on. You know, I agree with Frank, that we do have TAC. But we had TAC when these other subdivisions were done. I wish I had the confidence to believe that this drainage problem, because I would like to see these gentlemen go ahead with the subdivision, but I have to tell you, when I see what’s happening with other subdivisions, I wonder if we’re not going to create a mess there.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s just make it clear though. I sat down with Carole, with her list; there were six items on the list. The only recent subdivisions, since maybe ’95 or ’96 that was constructed was Saddlebrook, that was accused of sending water the way of the neighbor to the South, but his back yard is literally the Swanson-Lamporte Ditch--a real low area. Mr. Schelling and I will be meeting with Mr. Wiles Friday morning.
But the rest of the subdivisions they are referring to are fairly aged, dating back to the 50’s and 60’s, specifically, Grenville Acres was the oldest. I think we’ve seen drastic improvements, and we’re dealing with aged infrastructure. Farm tile crisscrosses this county, and we have no idea where it is. It was part of the agricultural drainage system. As urban drainage comes in, we’re replacing that, and trying to maintain and control it more with urban storm drains of longer life, because the farm tiles only had a design life of between 15 and 30 years, as opposed to the modern materials, which is up to 100 years.
We’re really dealing with the sins of the fathers--so to speak--and we are trying to correct them as quickly as possible. We would be in lot worse shape if we had continued to go on in the direction we had in the past. We are trying to make the revisions, and even more improvements, as we do development.
Mr. Read brought up basements. We, as a plan commission, have no ordinance that says you cannot have a basement. I’ve gotten in trouble before suggesting that somebody not have a basement, just out of wisdom. But that’s apparently a right of the property owner and builder. That’s a decision they make. Unfortunately, the third owner down the line is the guy that comes to us, after the first owner realizes that was probably a mistake to build a basement.
Lastly, I’d like to add that the Health Department does soil testing on what they call a seasonal high water mark. It’s not free-water, but sometime in the history of geo-morphology of the land, there are indicators, typically, iron deposits that float out. It’s an extremely conservative assessment. However, I believe that there’s probably water that travels along the till, which is only about, anywhere from five to eight feet deep, that’s a very dense layer that was left over by the glaciers, particularly in this area.
So we have, the water just doesn’t disappear into the ground, it kind of floats laterally along the ground and saturates the ground. When we collect in detention, we’re intercepting that water, and it’s kind of improving that characteristic. It kind of slows it down again, and feeds it back out, and gets back into the system.

Mr. Harper, You know, that’s all fine, but let me tell you what worries me.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Harper, What worries me is some young couple goes out there and builds a home, and a year later their basement is flooded. They’ve used their life savings or whatever they have to build this home, and a year goes by, and their basement is flooded, and we give them that speech that you just gave, and that’s not right.

Mr. Breitzke, Then we need to change our ordinances, Bob.

Mr. Harper, Well, we need to protect those young kids. I’m not sure, we may be protecting them here. We may be, and if we are, fine. I’m just telling you, when I see some of things that are going on, I’m not sure we are protecting them. That’s what we need to be protecting. Not talking builder language, the tiles and this. We need to say: This is going to be okay; kids, you’re going to buy this and you’re not going to be floating around your front yards. These kids aren’t architects or engineers who know about field tiles. They see a new subdivision go up, and they think they are going to buy a lot, put a house down, and it’s going to be a nice house. That’s what I’m thinking about.

Mr. Breitzke, Karen, not to put you on the spot, but could you give a legal opinion on the issue of a basement.

Atty. Tallian, I wish.

Mr. Detert, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct one statement that you made. You said nobody is having any problems.

Mr. Breitzke, No, I didn’t say that.

Mr. Detert, I thought that’s what you said.

Mr. Breitzke, I absolutely did not say that, Bob.

Mr. Detert, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, I said the list was six people long.

Mr. Detert, Alright, I just wanted to make sure that it’s clear that people are having problems.

Mr. Breitzke, We have probably the worst collection of water all over, and it’s fairly evenly distributed throughout the county. During this past episode, we were under threat of having record highs on the Kankakee River, as well as the Little Calumet. I was watching a lot of banks and taking care of a lot of stretches, particularly closer to each one of those areas, where we are trying to make sure that we didn’t fill up some farm fields--that kind of thing. We got through, but we’re sending a mass of water down to our rivers in both directions.

Mr. Detert, I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that people are having trouble. They’re having trouble on the North side of 250. Their basements are filling up. They never did before. This area is like Mr. Read said, it’s almost a riddle. I lived there when we had 100-year storms about every other week. I don’t remember how many years that was, but that 250 was totally flooded.
I’m like Bob, it scares me. I’m afraid we are going to put somebody out there that’s going to have all kinds of problems, and the County is not going to solve it for them, and the developer is going to be long gone. This is a natural drainage, and I don’t think we have the answers yet. In all due respect to the engineer, he made the calculations on the drainage pond in Fieldstone, and apparently it was wrong from the testimony that was here last week, because that pond was filling up and overflowing.

Mr. Breitzke, I’ll have these people answer that.

Mr. Detert, You can talk to me about three or four times, but I’m not sure that the amount of water that comes with the 100-year storms that even four times is going to hold it.

Mr. Breitzke, I understand what you are saying. But are you also saying that we’re going to declare a moratorium on all subdivision development?

Mr. Detert, You know I said it once before that we should.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, you have.

Mr. Detert, We should, it may clear up the water problem. But this at best is a very, very, very marginal property, and I’m concerned that we’re going to have all kinds of problems with it.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Leeth.

Atty. Leeth, Well I think the answer was indicated by you, Mr. President. As I understand, the issues with regard to Fieldstone Manor, and I’m going to let Mr. Rensberger chime in here as well, but my understanding is it wasn’t a functionality or end product issue. It had to do with some erosion issues and construction issues, and those are being corrected or have been corrected. But as it was designed, time will tell, but at this point in time, it’s now working because of the corrective actions the developer has taken on that side of the property line with regard to Fieldstone Manor.

Mr. Detert, I have one statement regarding that. If that’s true that Fieldstone’s retention ponds are working, then why are you now going to take their water?

Atty. Leeth, Because you asked us to.

Mr. Breitzke, We did, just as backup.

Mr. Detert, You know, there’s two people back here that live on 250. Were either one of you contacted by the developer or his attorney? Mrs. Burton, were you contacted?

Laurie Burton, We had the initial letter, saying that this was up for consideration, but not tonight.

Mr. Breitzke, You need to state your name and address for us.

Mrs. Burton, I’m Laurie Burton, 660 W. 250 S.
Mr. Breitzke, Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Burton, I was with my husband, Ken Burton.

Mr. Breitzke, That doesn’t help, we don’t have a video camera. We have tapes, and we have a secretary who’s gone this week that will be transcribing these.

Mrs. Burton, We mailed the letter that you were quoting.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Detert, Did the developer meet with you to look at your problems? Yes or no.

Mrs. Burton, Just the drain tile.

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, I did.

Mr. Detert, You did.

Mr. Rensberger, Yes.

Mr. Read, That’s the letter we have in our packet.

Mr. Detert, Ma’am, the other lady there, you live on 250?

Mr. Breitzke, She needs to say her name and address too.

Michelle Green, Michelle Green, 656 W. 250.

Mr. Detert, Did the developer meet with you to address your problems?

Ms. Green, No.

Mr. Detert, Mrs. Burton, when the developer met with you, is that all you talked about was the drain tile?

Mrs. Burton, Yes, sir, and the pond in the back.

Mr. Detert, So they didn’t really look at any other problems you might have.

Mrs. Burton, Not that I’m aware of.

Mr. Detert, I think my next comment is that, Mr. Gariup, one of the Gariup’s sons, is he here? Gariup’s own the property, 250 all the way to 100, so they’ve got a lot of acreage in there. I think they are the ones who are going to feel the impact. He indicated to me that he would be here. Mr. Gariup is not here? He’s not here. I thought he might have some wisdom.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have any other questions on the petition? Mr. Burns.

Mr. Burns, No, I’m concerned about the issues in this letter. I’m not too sure this shouldn’t go back to TAC before we vote on it.

Mr. Breitzke, Well we’ve been to TAC, and I think the petitioner tried to work with many of the issues. Quite frankly, there are tiles that are probably out there that they are going to run across in construction that they need to work on. Mr. Biddinger.

Mr. Rensberger, Can I respond to the drainage tile issue again?

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Rensberger, This, you know, the question that got continued in the last Plan Commission, because of the drainage tiles mostly. The neighbor here and neighbor here, I met with, on-site on the weekend, as the letter says. The major concern was the water coming through here, and went up this way, and along the county road. I can see why they are concerned. There are old tiles--old clay tiles--and for the neighbor, there were three tiles that came into a certain central point right here off our property, and fed this way, then out.
What I’ve done is, we’re going to replace the tile that collects all these with a newer tile, run it into our drain system. It will no longer, there’s no reason for us to locate anything up on 250, because we are collecting that water. There is also tile here going into our system. So we’re collecting all the water, that 3.2 acres that’s off-site, the watershed, a lot of that, we’re collecting into this, then taking it this way, and out here.
It normally went like this by tile, because there is such a hill in here, it went this way by tile, along the county road, into a pond, and then down this way. We’re just diverting it this way, out of its natural course, but they will no longer have any problems with any tile breaks or anything, at least on our property, because we are correcting the problem.
I went out there after the heavy rain in Fieldstone, and didn’t see any problem with the pond overflowing. It’s been seeded now. There’s still construction going on in Fieldstone, but the pond seems to be working okay. When the pictures were taken--I believe there were pictures taken--the swale and the pond had not been seeded yet, and it was a mess. But it’s all been seeded or pretty much, and it looks a lot better. The pond appears to be working fine. It was oversized a little bit, not a whole lot, like this pond is. But because there were concerns, the developer agreed to pay the additional amount to divert some of that water that’s coming into Fieldstone into this pond. I don’t think, you know, that’s necessary, but this commission wanted it, so we’re doing it.
A lot of these properties you are talking about basements there, and some of them will have walk-out basements. All of them will have the tile around their basements, if they decide to put basements in, which will drain it into the direct side swales or if there is water, there will be a sump pump. I live on flat ground with nasty soil, and I have a sump pump that runs all the time. But these are high lots, a lot of walk-out basements, so I hope answered that a little bit.
There is one issue. The neighbor up here said when he dug his pond out there was a tile coming into it. I never located that tile. I don’t know where it’s at. But he believes it comes out this way. Now when they put a septic system on Lot 2, he’s worried about the leeching of that septic system going into his pond. They will put a tile around their septic system working below the trench bottom, and that will collect all the storm water around the septic system, and that will be diverted out into the roadway swales. I don’t visualize any problems.

Mr. Read, You mean that, that tile that goes around the septic system, how clean is that water going to be?

Mr. Rensberger, It’s storm water. I wouldn’t drink it.

Mr. Read, It will pick up some of the contaminants. You wouldn’t drink it; I don’t think I would either.

Mr. Rensberger, But its storm water.

Mr. Read, That goes into your storm system. I know you may not be required to do this, but where does all this water go after it leaves your property?

Mr. Rensberger, It goes into the ponds over here, it kind of filtrates through a wetland area, and eventually works it way South to a regular drain about a mile away.

Mr. Read, And who owns that pond?

Mr. Rensberger, Gariup.

Mr. Read, That’s Gariup’s.

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, sir.

Mr. Read, Has he expressed any concern here one way or another?
Mr. Rensberger, No, sir, not to me, sir. But the Board of Health looks at every septic system out here. The County Board of Health, they do a good job, from what I see. They make us jump through hoops on the design of these things. They make us put all the hydric soils on, map them. They make us locate the steep soils where mound systems won’t be allowed. I’ve talked to a couple of people in the Board of Health who say the mound systems work real well; they like those better, but are more expensive than the normal system. There’s quite a few mound systems on this site.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Mahnic.

Mr. Mahnic, Yes, I have a couple of comments that hopefully will conclude this argument. I agree with you, Bob. But I also want to say that when young people invest in a house, which is one of the biggest investments in ones life--including old men like me--I have to look at what I’m doing, and I better be responsible for what I’m doing. I can’t say, well I like the lot, we built it on hydric soil, now I’ve got water, and it’s the County’s responsibility, they should have told me that I could have had water problems, and now I’ve got it, and I think the County should bale me out.
This is where I disagree with that. If you’re young, you’re married, responsible, and you’re in love, and you want to buy a house, it’s your responsibility to see what you are getting into. If it means hiring an engineer to be safe, then you hire an engineer. But the investment, it’s worth the investment. Okay?
But I do sympathize with the people who have water in their basements. I know the feeling. I know panic. You can’t get the pump running, because the electricity went off. This is terrible, and this area, and a lot of areas is a sponge, but I feel between our TAC Committee and our engineers and the Health Department, they’ve done a good job identifying the areas where you can build a home. They made many borings, not only three borings, they made many borings to make sure that they found the areas that can accept wells and will accept a septic system. Where it can’t accept the septic system, the mound systems I have found work quite well. If you bear with me, I’ll get you a book on that.

Mr. Read, I would welcome that.

Mr. Mahnic, But today, the mound systems are almost as practical as the one in the ground. All the stuff that I read on it, it seems to be the best and works well, and we don’t put contaminants out there on the outflow. That water is clear. It has to be sometimes tested, but it depends on the Health Department.
This has met all the other requirements of the County. I don’t know why we want to continue to beat this thing, other than for information, which is great; the more we know about it, the better we can deal with the next one. But at the present time, this does meet, it passed the primary, and I think honestly, there’s nothing here that I can defend if it’s litigated, that I can say, here’s why we stopped it. I find no reason that I can put my fingers on and say, here are some legitimate reasons why we cannot build at this particular site. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, The only thing I have to say is, the field tile that have been put in were put in for agricultural purposes. You can’t rely on those, because when you build a subdivision, you’re digging up those field tiles--they disappear--so you have to think ahead of that, then you’re going to have this rejection. I think too much is made of the fact that field tile, perhaps, aren’t important; to a farmer they were. I’m from a farm background. You know, we put tiles in to drain so we could farm. You say, well there’s a field tile coming in here, and the watershed indicates three-point-acres, I’m a little uncomfortable with your thinking in talking about the field tile.

Mr. Rensberger, We’re going to replace that field tile that’s old, and make it new, and run smoother in some of our areas.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, so it comes in up there at the corner, and then does it go down through your subdivision, the field tile? Are you aware of it?

Mr. Rensberger, It does, there’s some through our subdivision that we will be picking up, and taking into our ponds.
Ms. Marshall, But then, these are detention ponds, so there’s not going to be any outlet on these ponds, right?

Mr. Rensberger, No, they are retention ponds, and there will be outlets.

Mr. Breitzke, No, they’re detention, there are outlets.

Atty. Leeth, Detention.

Mr. Rensberger, Detention, I’m sorry.

Atty. Leeth, With an outlet.

Ms. Marshall, With a what?

Mr. Rensberger, I get them mixed up.

Atty. Leeth, With an outlet.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, and the perimeter tiles for the outlet, is that going to outlet on the street?

Mr. Rensberger, The perimeter tile?

Ms. Marshall, Yes, around these…

Mr. Rensberger, Around the septic systems?

Ms. Marshall, Yes, around the houses.

Atty. Leeth, No, they go into a master drain tile, as I understand.

Mr. Rensberger, There’s master drain tiles. Some of them will be released into the drainage swales. It depends on which lot you’re on.

Ms. Marshall, Not into the street?

Mr. Rensberger, Into the drainage swales, not into the street.

Atty. Leeth, Not in the street. There’s a county ordinance that prohibits that.

Ms. Marshall, Yes, I know that. I wanted to him hear him say it was, you know, to say, no, it’s not allowed. It did happen in a subdivision. It’s happened several times.

Atty. Leeth, I know it has.

Ms. Marshall, I have no other questions.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have a motion?

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 04-P-16 due to the drainage problems in the area.

Mr. Breitzke, Is there a second?

Mr. Read seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, This is a ballot vote. Yes means denial.

Mr. Read, I’ve got to get used to this. Where we have, yes means no or no means yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Today is January 26. By way of explanation, we need five votes. It’s not a simple majority; it’s five of the nine members one way or the other.

Motion failed on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - No Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - No
Mahnic - Yes Marshall - No
Read - Yes Breitzke - No

Mr. Breitzke, The motion does not carry, for a lack of a majority. So this will continue onto the next meeting.

Atty. Leeth, Very good. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Breitzke, So all interested parties, this will be heard again. What’s the date, Bob?

Mr. Thompson, This will be at the next Plan Commission meeting, which is scheduled for February 9th at 6:30.

Mr. Harper, Kevin, is there some way we can get more of the answers to this letter?

Mr. Breitzke, Certainly. We should put it onto the petitioner to get the answers.

Mr. Harper, It’s just some of these questions.

Mr. Breitzke, But, maybe you and I need to sit down with Dave Schelling on some of them.

Mr. Harper, No, it’s not more so to solve the drainage, but the drainage is the issue.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Detert, My suggestion is…

Mr. Breitzke, I’d be happy to sit down with you.

Mr. Harper, Bob’s got a…

Mr. Thompson, Yes, I have the letter here, I can get it to you for the next meeting, February 9th.

Mr. Breitzke, February 9th at 6:30.

Mr. Detert, My suggestion is, we can’t force them to do that, but I think you need to do some homework with the neighbors, more than you’ve done. Bob, I don’t know if I misread the note, I thought the motion passed.

Mr. Thompson, No, Rick voted yes. Yourself voted yes. Frank voted yes. Herb voted yes. It was four yes votes. Then Eric was no.

Mr. Harper, Bob, let me tell you. Herb keeps talking get mixed up. I did. Mine would have been yes, if I had known what I was doing.

Mr. Thompson, Bob was a no.

Mr. Harper, Yes, mine was a no.

Mr. Thompson, Marshall was a no. Kevin was a no.

Mr. Read, The whole thing has got to be clarified.
Mr. Harper, I know I missed it. Finally it’s happened to me, I know the age is creeping up.

Mr. Breitzke, Say it ain’t so.

Mr. Harper, No, I’m not going to say it because I can find too many other examples. I guess you’re going to come back. I hope you come back with some more information, because this letter truly disturbs me.

Mr. Breitzke, Absolutely.

Mr. Harper, About, you know, some of the issues in here. I would like to feel confident that it can go in and work.

Atty. Leeth, We will do our best between now and February 9th to try to address the concerns in that letter. Again, thank you.

Case 05-P-5. Petition of Wightman Petrie, Inc., 4703 Chester Drive, Elkhart, Indiana, seeking primary plat approval for Morgan Farms Subdivision to be located on the West side of SR 49 and the East side of CR 150 E., between CR 112 S. and CR 250 S., in Morgan Township. To contain 104 lots on 163.17 acres. Property is zoned R-1. (Continued from 1-12-05 meeting. Public Hearing is closed)

Mr. Breitzke, To get on with our business. Case 05-P-5. Petition of Wightman Petrie, Inc., 4703 Chester Drive, Elkhart, Indiana, seeking primary plat approval for Morgan Farms Subdivision to be located on the West side of SR 49 and the East side of CR 150 E., between CR 112 S. and CR 250 S., in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. This is continued from the January 12, 2005 meeting. This is to contain 104 lots on 163.17 acres. Property is zoned R-1. The public hearing is closed. Mr. Bucher.

Artie Bucher, My name is Artie Bucher.

Mr. Breitzke, Your address?

Mr. Bucher, It’s 10122 N. Cumberland Road, Fishers, Indiana. I represent my brothers and sisters who are the owners of the land. With me is Jason Hanaway from Wightman Petrie our engineering firm. As you recall at the last meeting two weeks ago, we had presented, we had talked to the neighbors prior to that meeting. There was a concern about the road, CR 112 S., the neighbors did not want it go through as part of the subdivision. We brought that to you, and said we were recommending that a cul-de-sac be put at the end our, Buckskin Lane, to meet the neighbors’ request. You requested us to meet with Commissioner Knoblock to address that.
We met with Commissioner Knoblock last Wednesday, and she, for the decision, said she wanted it to remain a county road, but a dead end as it is currently. She then met with the neighbors the next day on Thursday, and with my brother who was part of that, because we’re a part of the neighborhood, and also reconfirmed that she said it should be county road and stay a dead end. I know she couldn’t be here tonight, since she had passed that one. I talked to Mr. Schelling, as well, I believe, Commissioner Harper, I think she had talked to you.
So basically, I will point that out. We were talking about this area right in here. Originally, it showed it going through, CR 112 S. Then again, the neighbors here wanted this remain private. So you asked us to meet with Commissioner Knoblock, which we did, and we’ve now drawn that as a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Breitzke, Just for clarity, it’s maintained by the County Highway at present, so it is public road.

Mr. Bucher, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, You’re just not going to have direct access to that.

Mr. Bucher, Correct.

Mr. Breitzke, At the request of the neighbors.

Mr. Bucher, Right, we actually would be adding one lot of it, but taking one away. One of the neighbors here wants to be on the cul-de-sac, and come this way. So it’s a change.

Mr. Breitzke, A better option.

Mr. Bucher, And we will work with the fire department for emergencies to have a break-away here, however they want it designed. So if there would be an emergency, you know, and this exit were blocked, you could come in or they could break through that. I’ll work with whatever kind of fencing or what they want there for a break-away.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you.

Mr. Bucher, So that was what you directed us to, which we did. One other item that you asked about, an easement here, so people could walk to Church. We agree that makes a lot of sense, and we put that in here, a walking path to go between, by Lot 26 into the Church.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay. Any questions from the Board? Comments? Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper, Commissioner Knoblock has stated the same thing to me that you have stated. It was her voice on that.

Mr. Breitzke, That’s my understanding.

Mr. Harper, How we’re going to do this, make sure, you want to get it firmed up. But I think that problem has been worked out. I think we still have the one question on that long cul-de-sac.

Mr. Bucher, Yes, this cul-de-sac is 150 below, shorter than the standard, yet it’s definitely within the standard.

Mr. Harper, One other question about the school bus turnaround.

Mr. Bucher, You can address that better than I can.

Mr. Thompson, Cul-de-sacs were designed at a 50 foot radius, which is the minimum standard for the engineering department. So it’s a 50 foot radius or if you want to look at it as a whole, 100 foot in diameter.

Mr. Breitzke, It’s adequate.

Mr. Harper, Okay. You know hearing Commissioner Knoblock talk about, for 20, 30 years driving a school bus, and pulling around these cul-de-sacs, turning up and down.

Mr. Breitzke, Here again, historically, we’ve had some developments that were not really built, even for the equipment of the day, and the same is true of our fire engines, other larger vehicles, moving vans, those kind of things.

Mr. Bucher, You also asked us about fire trucks, and we called the Morgan Township Fire, and ran the size of their trucks through the radius with a software program, and it worked. Jason did that.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, I have no questions.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Mahnic.

Mr. Mahnic, I’m fine.
Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, The people who were the objectors the last time, I would like to have them state for the record whether this arrangement is, relieves their concerns.

Mr. Breitzke, Herb, you can recognize an individual.

Mr. Read, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, You can ask them to raise their hands.

Mr. Read, Is there one individual here who was one; okay, the man raising his hand.

Mr. Breitzke, Give your name and address to us.

Barry Allison, Barry Allison, I live at 195 E. 112 S., the very first house as you turn off the highway.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you.

Mr. Allison, Last Thursday, Mrs. Knoblock had met with my neighbors in my home, and we discussed what Art Bucher had just talked about. That was the agreement we all came to, that it remain a public road, but still stay a dead-end road.

Mr. Breitzke, Is there anybody that dissents from that consensus? Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Burns.

Mr. Burns, No issues.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Detert. Mr. Biddinger.

Mr. Biddinger, I’m good.

Mr. Breitzke, I don’t have any comment. I just appreciate everybody working together. I hope people understand that when we go against our Master Plan, we try to find reasons to go against it, and this was a good example. You know, sometimes these roles need to be kind of molded for the circumstance. It’s not one size fits all. I particularly appreciate having some kind of emergency access for the benefit of both neighborhoods, and hopefully we can get this worked with the understanding, it’s stable enough that fire trucks are emergency vehicles, they go through anything. So it’s not going to be like your kids or whatever go through something like this, but it should help us out. Mr. Read, did you have any other questions?

Mr. Read, No.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, do we have a motion?

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 05-P-5. Mr. Burns seconded, motion carried on a unanimous ballot vote.

PUBLIC HEARING

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the Rules of Conduct for the Public Hearing.

Case 05-M-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana, for a proposed Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke, Before we get into the public hearing, I would suggest that maybe our attorney look at this, and rewrite it. It’s a good basis, but. I will suggest, we just started with a new attorney, who in any event with the discussion, would like to see this case continued, because she really hasn’t had time to review it. We just hired her two weeks ago.

Mr. Mahnic, The new attorney was on vacation?

Ms. Tallian, No, actually…

Mr. Breitzke, She wasn’t that confident she had the job two weeks ago.

Ms. Tallian, I did take a look at it, and I did talk to Kevin and Bob, and suggested that we maybe need to clean up a little bit of the language. But that was just Monday, and since Monday, we haven’t had a chance to meet.

Mr. Breitzke, Right.

Ms. Tallian, Bob’s been a little busy.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue Case 05-M-1.

Mr. Mahnic, I have a suggestion. The Porter County Soil & Water Conservation District does have literature, Residential Guide for Soil Drainage & Erosion Control in Porter County. If we can get copies from them for all the Commission members it would help in trying to solve some of the problems in this wording.

Mr. Breitzke, It could have been actually, a lot of the model of that. Do we have a second?

Mr. Read seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, The DNR, Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Division, is largely responsible for that publication. I’m dealing directly with Larry Osterholtz, who is the regional representative. Among other things, they are putting together a training--a power point training--for anybody, including our staff, builders, developers, engineers, all those parties about an appropriate placement and installation of erosion control facilities. They have slated a date, tentatively for March 22nd, at a fairly low cost, that I think the Plan Commission can pick up. I’d rather not recite the cost right now, because it may go up, because it’s just in the planning stages.
Likewise, they are writing a storm water quality manual that will not be complete. It’s been extended already. I spoke to Randy Braun, who is the head honcho at the DNR, I believe, for this specific task, and it’s very voluminous. Frank, when you talk about wordy, some of those erosion control ordinances last 30 to 40 pages, and our thought was to kind of keep shorter, more black and white. Although we try to write things out, we end up inviting other issues, so that’s the one thing we kind of keep our eye on. But in the meantime, is there anybody here from the public who was going to address erosion control tonight? My apologies, but we will have the hearing in two weeks. It’s just a time issue right now, but we’re very serious about this.

Mr. Read, Now is somebody supposed to mail us this material? I haven’t had a chance to read it.

Mr. Breitzke, You should have received it either e-mail or in the mail a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Read, I think I did get it, but I’ve been…

Mr. Breitzke, We’ll get you another copy.

Mr. Thompson, I’ll send out another copy, and I’ll get the guide that Mr. Mahnic had.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, I’ll get that thing for you. Send me the publication down here, would you, so I can get the number off.

Mr. Thompson, I also have a couple of other guides. One is put out by the Department of Natural Resources for individual home sites, and I’ll try to get that out to the members also.

Mr. Detert, Mr. Chairman, we have a motion; it hasn’t been voted on.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, we’re still discussing.

Mr. Harper, The only thing, I encourage everybody on the Commission to take a look at it, and if they have any suggestions to let Karen know.

Mr. Breitzke, I will say, this still has my office where it was ten years ago on Lincolnway. It’s somewhat dated.

Mr. Harper, I don’t know if you noticed, but where they are putting sewer lines in, in Valparaiso, I, you know…

Mr. Breitzke, I talked to Mr. Osterholtz about that today.

Mr. Harper, Mud is pouring off the hillside into the ditch. I mean you can just drive around the county and look. We need to get going on this.

Mr. Breitzke, We had a call for the question, right, Bob?

Motion to continue 05-M-1 carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-MISC-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana, to establish the job description for the Porter County Code Enforcement Officer.

Mr. Breitzke, The next case is, Case 05-MISC-1, Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana, to establish the job description for the Porter County Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson, This job has been in the budget for the past two years, and it has not had a job description created for it. It’s something we’ve been talking about, and I didn’t want to put it in until I felt comfortable that our fund was capable of handling the position. I’m feeling comfortable with it.
The one question I have, to give you an idea, the commissioners just recently passed the unsafe structure ordinance or unsafe building ordinance, which this person, the Code Enforcement Officer, is named as one of the enforcement officers under the building commissioner. I guess I want to point out, Mike Haller, our new building commissioner is sitting here. This person would be working with Mike, and also enforcing codes within the Plan Commission.
One of the things we also have was in the soil erosion ordinances, that this person would also be enforcement of it. So I was talking with Commissioner Harper about this, and I guess I’m still unclear yet on whether or not this is going to be considered a commission employee, since its going to be enforcing numerous codes, not necessarily just the Plan Commission and zoning or if this will be Plan Commission employee.

Mr. Harper, We have to make a decision, and part of it, perhaps, but not terribly important, but because we’ve started down that road with the unsafe building code, I think we should put it under the Building Department.

Mr. Thompson, Okay.

Mr. Harper, That’s what I think. I mean we’ve just got to make a call. In my way of thinking, there’s no good one answer for it. But I think it’s about as clean as we can make is to put it under the Building Department, since we have the unsafe, that sets the way we’ve gone.

Mr. Thompson, So you would like to change that language, this position is under the County Commissioners and the Building Commissioner?

Mr. Harper, Right.

Mr. Mahnic, My thoughts are along the same line, because I have experience in my 12 years on here, when somebody is responsible to the three commissioners, and when you find out what the person is doing, well he’s working for him, no, he’s working him, you’ve got to have that person who is going to have this job responsible to an individual for one reason, control.

Mr. Breitzke, I believe you’ll still have that person. It was a question of whether they were answerable to the Planning Director or the Building Commissioner. So either way, it’s kind of a step between the commissioners, but there’s still that direct, because they are all the commissioners’ employees.

Mr. Thompson, I guess my question then, will we still be using the position though to enforce some of the zoning codes?

Mr. Harper, I think, yes they will. That’s the way I see it.

Mr. Thompson, Alright, then I’ll…

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s write the job description.

Mr. Thompson, I’ll revise the job description as far as, that it is under the authority of the county commissioners.

Mr. Harper, Then try to pass it at the next meeting, because the monies will be available in March, the way I understand it, starting with the unsafe building code.

Mr. Thompson, This eventually has to get in front of the County Council though for final approval. So what I was hoping was, that we would at least have the approval from the Plan Commission. I would take it to the county commissioners at their next meeting, either the first or second February meeting. Ultimately, it’s going to have to be their approval to go forward with it. Once we get their approval, then go in front of the county council for the approval of the job description, and adding it to the salary ordinance.

Atty. Tallian, Do you have somebody doing this job now?

Mr. Thompson, What’s described there, no. Fred Siminski back here is the assistant planner/zoning inspector. Yes, he is doing the zoning codes as it is. What we were looking at was a position that would be doing both building, the unsafe structures, and also zoning.

Atty. Tallian, So he’s going to work in your office?

Mr. Thompson, He’s going to work in this office. He will be working very closely with Fred too, and also with Mike, in that sense too. Mike Haller, the building commissioner.

Mr. Detert, Fred has what, 125 cases backlogged? At least he did at one point.

Mr. Siminski, For year 2004, there was approximately 125 cases, and already this year, there’s been at least ten more. Some of the cases are easily solved, some of the cases need more time.

Atty. Tallian, Cases meaning what?

Mr. Siminski, Complaints.

Atty. Tallian, Oh, complaints.

Mr. Siminski, Complaints, because we try to build a case before we do anything. Some are resolved, and others, if they’re not resolved, they have to go to the county attorney for a push there or go to court or whatever. We’ve had approximately ten of them in court. Again, that’s a lot of cases that come in. Sometimes they come in all at one time; you get 10 or 20 cases coming in all in one shot, and it’s kind of difficult to get everything accomplished that we have to do.
Mr. Breitzke, For those on the Board that don’t know, Mike Haller is here. Would you stand up, Mike, please. He’s our building commissioner since the beginning of the year, and many of you haven’t met him yet. Thank you, Mike.

Mr. Mahnic, Mr. Chairman, in the job description, if we would look at it again, let’s get rid of words like essential: They have to effectively perform the essential duties. In other words, the other duties don’t have to be done effectively.

Mr. Thompson, That language came about because of the human resources people filling it out on all job descriptions throughout the county.

Mr. Mahnic, Yes, but.

Mr. Breitzke, It’s the boiler-plate syndrome.

Mr. Mahnic, Well we have essential duties and non-essential duties.

Mr. Breitzke, No, they just say essential.

Mr. Mahnic, He’s got to do the essential duties right, but the other stuff, let it go. Also, I noticed on the other one: Ability to perform the essential functions of the position, which include, and I say, ability to perform essential functions of the position safely, which include on-site. The word, safely, is not mentioned in there, but we expect this guy who is going to go on the job site, not to jump from this beam across this opening, he’s got to do it safely, and the next thing you know he gets hurt, but did anybody tell this guy that he’s got to work safely. He’ll say no, it says to go out there and do it.

Atty. Tallian, Frank, it could be woman.

Mr. Mahnic, Well, yes or whatever.

Atty. Tallian, Yes, you said, this guy.

Mr. Mahnic, I’m sorry.

Atty. Tallian, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, Were there any other comments about the specificity of this?

Mr. Thompson, Where were you reading that. Safely, I will add that. Thank you, Frank.

Mr. Breitzke, Anybody else? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-MISC-1 as corrected. Mr. Biddinger seconded, motion carried on a unanimous ballot vote.

Contractors’ Licensing & Registration

Mr. Thompson, The second to the last thing I wanted to talk about was the Contractors’ Registration and Licensing. We had a subcommittee that met, I think in November of last year. I’ve had it on the past two agendas, but since the length of the meetings, I’ve elected to continue it. We had been talking, for those who are new, in the 2004 year, with the plan commission members on whether or not registration or licensing of contractors is the direction that we want to take as far as the County.
So I’m going to open it up to the Board. To explain it briefly, contractor registration would require a contractor to post a $5,000 bond, and have it recorded with the County Recorder, show that they have liability insurance, workers compensation insurance, a few things, and this would be recorded with the address, the legal business address at the Plan Commission.
Licensing requires a test that must be approved or they must pass, prior to do any work, and it would require one employee of the company to have passed this exam. Lake County does this. Ned Kovacevich did come in and speak with the subcommittee concerning the licensing program with Lake County. Ned was also very up front with me in his opinion about licensing here in Porter County. He felt that we do not have the staff to be able to handle such a requirement. Registration, possibly, he said, no to licensing.
He has two or three people on his staff that handles this particular item. He just did not think that the way we are currently staffed that we could handle licensing. But I don’t know. Ned also did point out to us that there is a state statute requirement right now that does require contractors to have recorded with the county recorder, a $5,000 bond existing. So the only thing registration would do is, number one, we would require the liability and also the workers compensation insurance, I believe.

Mr. Harper, Vehicle insurance too.

Mr. Thompson, Oh, vehicle insurance, okay. Which we did also have Mike Anton of Anton Insurance in to talk to us about the insurance situation, what needed to be filed, which was very informative too. So I guess at this point, I’m going to ask the Commission which direction they think the County should go, whether or not they think registration is an option, licensing is option, or none of the above.

Mr. Read, I’m only half-joking when I say this, is there anyway we can get a clause in there that requires the contractor to follow the architect’s drawings and specifications? Not joking now, I have had, and it happened on my son’s house a few years ago, where the contractor left out half of the re-enforcing steel, and this was up against a dune--a high dune--and in the truck was 3,000-pound concrete instead of what I specified as 4,000 pounds. So as I say, I’m only half-joking when I say that.

Mr. Breitzke, Been there, I’ve watched them, because engineers do the same thing. But I know exactly what you’re saying. You’ve got to watch them every minute. Mr. Haller, I will recognize you. Please say your name and what you are.

Mr. Haller, I’m Mike Haller, the Porter County Building Commissioner, 2603 Kieffer Court, Valparaiso. A little bit of information in that regard, we have to define a commercial project, as opposed to, say, a residential building project. The commercial projects that come in require a state design release, which basically means that they approved the plan that’s been presented, and typically the contractors involved in that type of project are very competent.
The problem is, you mentioned, like with your son’s house, more or less relates to perhaps and inspection process, as opposed to something that licensing a contractor would accomplish. It’s been my experience in the company I used to run that the person who goes and takes the contractor test is not necessarily the person who does the work or supervises the work. Having the test portion is probably less important than liability and the bonding.
As far as the insurance goes, that’s really protecting the owner of the project against problems with the contractors. That won’t protect the County, if I understand that correctly. The issues that I see on a daily basis have more or less to do with incompetence of the contractor, but not something that a test would solve. They may know how many rebar go in there, but they may not put them in there, and if we don’t catch it, it’s history.

Mr. Breitzke, Or they don’t put them in the right place.

Mr. Haller, Yes, there’s a million things you’ve got to watch out for. You’d have to train a dozen people to do all the inspections to possibly catch everything, so voting in favor of it won’t necessarily cure some of the more common problems that I hear brought up at times like this, like your son’s project there. I think that covers it.

Mr. Read, Now Bob, your question was registration or licensing? Is the other option?

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Mr. Read, And the licensing requires a test?

Mr. Thompson, Correct.
Mr. Mahnic, And the staff to handle it.

Mr. Thompson, Yes, a staff to handle it.

Mr. Haller, I would be in favor of the registration definitely. That prevents a lot. You could take that a step further. If you are going to require these things, in terms of issuing a permit, then you have to look at your ordinances and the state ordinances, because there are certain things. You can’t do anything to the permit which has nothing to do with what happens down the line, so I think you have to be careful there.
But the registration would prevent, perhaps, let’s say you require registration and licensing, that would probably preclude somebody from building their own home or could, which would be good, because a lot of the problems we run into are because of things like that.

Mr. Mahnic, Yes, I’ve known homeowners who wired things up the wrong way, and a fire results.

Mr. Haller, In regards to the commercial project, by the way, just because you have contractor licensing and state design release, it does not mean that the problems go away. We’ve had instances where they circumvent the system, and we get all kinds of problems, where you’ve got to sue them and all those other things. I think it’s just part of the process, not a solution to the problem.

Mr. Mahnic, Just because a contractor has a license to do something or is registered, it doesn’t mean the people that work for him are registered and licensed.

Mr. Haller, A $5,000 bond would put the stop on a lot of people, I can tell you that right now.

Mr. Harper, Kevin.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, sir.

Mr. Harper, We’ve come a long way. The Plan Commission is getting some more money, got some raises, but I don’t think we are ready to take on licensing yet. If we were, wouldn’t it be a smarter step to take the registration step first and see how much time it’s going to take, and what kind of fee we are going to get. That doesn’t mean that someday we won’t have licensing, but at lease we could take the first step, and make sure we don’t overburden the system with more than we can handle.

Mr. Breitzke, As a caution, I don’t think we’re going to have a real good revenue stream from licensing or registration. It will probably cover the cost of doing it. The caveat with licensing is the public perception of attesting to the competency, and I think that concerns Mr. Haller too. There’s just no way we can do that safely without exposure.

Mr. Harper, Well, just like he said, you could have one company that has one guy running around to do all these tests.

Mr. Harper moved to proceed with the researching of contractor’s registration with the information and the ordinance to be presented to the Board for final action. Mr. Mahnic seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, I just had one other question. In the study, did you ask about workman’s compensation too, or addressing those concerns with the employees?

Mr. Thompson, We did talk about insurance, and I think that was one of the things Mike Anton mentioned. He pointed out a roofing contractor, for example, he said that they probably have some of the highest insurance rates of anybody. He said if there’s somebody out there that may not be insured, it might be a roofing contractor. We were wondering in that situation, how we could prevent somebody from going in and getting a policy, showing it to us, and then in two weeks, having the policy canceled. Well, he said the insurance companies would notify you, and therefore, we could put the registration to prevent the person from then working in the County.

Mr. Breitzke, I’d like to address the man behind Mr. Haller,

Byron Ruge, My name is Byron Ruge, I was here for the RFB Development or RF, that one that got withdrawn. But listening to this, I just have a question. I live at 812 N. 200 W. I’ve built a few of my own buildings, nothing commercial, just farm buildings, but it kind of sounds like this may discriminate against someone that wants to build their own. I mean I’m not a license builder or anything else.
The property behind has been developed in the last year or two, but I can’t think of the name of the subdivision. I’ve got two boys that are growing up, and they love to walk over there and watch them build houses, and some of the stuff that I saw done, I would never do it on my own house, and these are supposed to be contractors. Granted, they had a boss someplace that hired these kids or people off the street to pound nails. But I just wanted to voice my opinion that there are some competent people out there that can build their own home, and this may discriminate against.

Mr. Thompson, We did discuss that issue, and Ned Kovacevich, the director of Lake County said that within his ordinance, it is something we will take into consideration, within his ordinance he states that somebody is going to build there own home or build their own accessory structure and declares that they are their own general property on their own property, that they do not require them to go through the licensing nor the registration on there. But there’s a little catch to that, a little asterisk next to it; you’re living there for three years without building another, if all of a sudden you see that you built the house there one year, then all of a sudden you move into another lot and are building your own home next year, then again, they’re going to get you.

Mr. Breitzke, We’ll have more discussion on that as this develops as an ordinance, there will be a public hearing associated with it. We’re just kind of having a board discussion at this time.

Mr. Ruge, Because I saw things on those houses that we being built behind me, that I know are not to code.

Mr. Breitzke, That’s fine, we have to get back to the Board. Thanks.

Mr. Ruge, I wouldn’t do it to my own home.

Mr. Detert, I would just like to say, I think our problem is not knowing who, not knowing whether somebody is competent, so I think the licensing in my opinion would be better. I would suggest though that if we proceed with that, that we look at some outside source to do the testing, rather than do it in-house. Ivy Tech comes to mind, I don’t know if they are capable or not, but that would keep anybody from making accusations that were playing favors.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, let’s go ahead and call for the question.

Ms. Marshall, Wait.

Mr. Read, The motion was?

Mr. Thompson, To proceed with contractor’s registration and start researching that and bring information and the ordinance back to the Board.

Mr. Read, Yes, I’m in favor of that. But let me bring this up as far as the difference between registration and licensing. You don’t have to really have any kind of competence to register, maybe some financial and insurance requirements. But the public has in mind, if they are registered, they are acceptably and know their business. They are acceptable and know their business. A guy will advertise himself as a registered contractor, and all he has to do really, is to sign his name on a piece of paper. I have known cases where people have been stuck with bad instruction, and they’ll say to me, oh, but he was a registered contractor, thinking that that also meant competency. So I’ll agree that maybe we should take this one step at a time and study it.

Mr. Breitzke, Well we can work on the semantics at the same time. The spirit of the idea is to go ahead and pursue an analysis. I think it’s worthwhile to investigate it.

Mr. Detert, Call for the question.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Plan Commission Office

Mr. Thompson, The last thing I have. Patti’s husband, Larry passed away on Sunday. Visitation for Larry is tomorrow from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Geisen Funeral Home, which is located on SR 2 in Hebron. They will be having a mass at St. Helen’s on Friday at 10:00 a.m. We will be closing the office on Friday morning, and will be getting back as soon as we can. But myself, Fred and Tracy will be attending the funeral mass on Friday. So just to let you know the office will be closed in the morning, but we’ll be back right after mass is concluded.

There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

s/Kevin Breitzke, President


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