Porter County Government - February 9, 2005

PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
February 9, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, February 9, 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, Commissioner Robert Harper, Frank Mahnic, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Dan Whitten, 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, We have the minutes from the January 26, 2005 meeting. I have some corrections that I have given to Jan, and ask that they be incorporated into the minutes.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve the minutes of January 26, 2005 as corrected. Mr. Burns seconded, motion carried.

Correspondence:

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 the South side of CR 250 W. between CR 675 W and CR 600 W in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. To contain 31 lots on 67.97 acres. (Continued from the 12-8-04 and 1-12-05 meetings. The public hearing is closed.)

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

Mr. Thompson, Yes, we do. ‘Dear Mr. Thompson: As you know, this office represents Milburn Nelson, the Petitioner in the above-referenced case, currently pending before the Porter County Plan Commission. We respectfully request that the Plan Commission continue consideration of the above-referenced Petition to their regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 9, 2005. Thank you for your courtesies in the matter. Very truly yours, Todd Leeth.’

Mr. Harper moved to continue Case 04-P-16, to the March 9, 2005 meeting. Mr. Whitten seconded, motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, eight to zero. This case will be continued to the March 9, 2005 Plan Commission hearing.
Mr. Breitzke, Just a reminder, the public has been closed.

Pending Business:

Case 05-Z-2. Petition of Moser Enterprises, Inc., 300 East 5th Avenue, Suite 430, Naperville, Illinois for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR (Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow for a residential subdivision to be located on CR 1050 N., between CR 250 E. and CR 300 E. in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Continued from the 1-12-05 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)

Mr. Breitzke, Next on our agenda, pending business. Any other correspondence, before I continue?

Mr. Thompson, That’s all.

Mr. Breitzke, Next under pending business. Case 05-Z-2, petition of Moser Enterprises, Inc., 300 East 5th Avenue, Suite 430, Naperville, Illinois for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential to R-1, Single Family Residential to allow for a residential subdivision to be located on CR 1050 N., between CR 250 E. and CR 300 E. in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. This was continued from the January 12, 2005 meeting. The public hearing is closed. Mr. Leeth.

Atty. Todd Leeth, Good evening, my name is Todd Leeth. I’m here on behalf of the petitioner, Moser Enterprises and D.F. Hedg. As you know, we are seeking a zoning change from the Rural Residential to the R-1 zoning classification for a 150 acre parcel.
Prior to the commencement of tonight’s hearing--or meeting--I placed at each of your places a series of three drawings that I kind of want to take you through at this point in time. For orientation purposes, we have two parcels. One is 50 acres in size, and that’s the parcel that’s located on the North of CR 1050 N., and then the balance of the parcel, 100 acres, is on the South side in this location. We had the hearing last January 12th, a couple of meetings ago. At that time, there was a lot of consideration, and a lot of evidence presented to you. Your action at that time was to continued the case for further consideration.
Let me tell you, and bring you up to date what’s happened since then. On January 27th, we invited all of the neighbors who spoke at that hearing the 12th , to a community meeting at the Hilton Garden Hotel on 49, near Chesterton. Four owners came to that meeting, and we had an hour to an hour and a half discussion with them regarding their concerns. We were also contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Duncan, who were unable to make that meeting, and Mr. Dunbar and I met with Mr. and Mrs. Duncan on the 31st of January in Mr. Dunbar’s office.
We’ve also now secured--and it should be in your file--utility letters, both from the Town of Chesterton, who will be providing sanitary sewer for the property in question, as well as, Indiana American Water Company, who will be providing the water to the property as well. So those utility letters have been secured. Also joining me tonight is Attorney Greg Babcock, who has been representing the petitioner in their discussions with the utility service board in Chesterton regarding the sanitary sewer. So if we have any utility questions, Mr. Babcock can help us answer those as well.
Following those meetings, we then formulated a contract--if you will--called an Agreement for Written Commitments, and I mailed that to you, I think in the early part of February--February 4th, I think--trying to get that to you in advance so that you had the opportunity to review that. As you know, you’ve seen these agreements before, most typically however, with regard to commercial or industrial properties, in providing for certain development standards and requirements that, that might be more appropriate in those types of circumstances. However, given the concerns of the citizens, we thought that we could perhaps agree to certain issues with regard to the residential subdivision, and that’s what we’ve done or attempted to do in the Agreement for Written Commitments. Let me take you through a part of that document, which is really, the commitments are manifested in Section 4 of that.

Mr. Harper, Excuse me just a second, Todd.

Atty. Leeth, Sure.

Mr. Harper, Bob, does everyone have one of these?

Mr. Read, I don’t have a copy.

Mr. Whitten, I do.

Mr. Read, Does somebody have a spare copy?

Atty. Leeth, I have one.

Mr. Harper, Liz doesn’t have a copy. She and I can share on, if somebody else will share theirs.

Mr. Read, Is this the one that was mailed out initially?

Atty. Leeth, Yes.

Mr. Read, Okay. This is not the latest, or is it the latest?

Atty. Leeth, The one that I want to visit with you about is the one that was mailed to each one of you.

Mr. Read, Oh, okay. I did get it in the mail, but I didn’t bring it with me. Is there a subsequent updated one to this?

Atty. Leeth, I’ll visit regarding that.

Mr. Read, Okay, then let’s proceed.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s get on with it.

Atty. Leeth, Yes. What I want to do--as I was starting out--is go through the heart of this, which is manifested in Section 4. There are, A through K, different restrictions. First, and foremost, all of the lots--buildable lots--in the single family subdivision will be on the North part, 11,000 square feet in size, and on the South, 13,000 square feet in size. The second drawing that was provided to you shows the sizes of each of the lots in the proposed conceptual subdivision drawing. As you can tell, there is a significant numbers of the lots in each of the different sizes, size rather, that exceed those minimum standard or minimum sizes that we’ve indicated.
But, I think it’s important to note that the 11,000 square foot size, which is the minimum on the North, and would be the smallest lot in the subdivision at all, meets your zoning ordinance requirements. You know that under your open space requirements, we are setting aside open space, and we would be entitled to an intensity bonus, which would allow us to further reduce the size of lots, in order to recapture some of the lost land.
We have forgone that provision of the open space ordinance. In other words, we will not be utilizing the intensity bonus to reduce the lots sizes beyond the minimum requirements on the North side of CR 1050, that 11,000 square foot minimum lot size. So 4-A is the commitment that says that’s what will happen. B provides that we are providing open space as required under the open space ordinance. The conceptual drawing that we have provided to you has approximately 28%, I’m sorry, 24% open space, and the minimum requirements would be 20% under your open space ordinance. So the conceptual plan clearly meets that requirement.
Thirdly, under C, we have committed that the wetland area--the large wetland area--would be offered to the Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy Corporation for maintenance and control of that wetland area.. Recognizing that the Drainage Board and the Plan Commission--you folks-- that once we bring the plat back to you, you must agree with that. But we will offer that for control to them.
Number 4, the existing tree lines around the perimeter of the subdivision will be maintained. And if there is not a tree line in any particular area of the perimeter, then the owner shall install suitable landscaping, either trees, evergreens, shrubs, hedges or other natural plantings to provide screening. That, in my opinion, highly unusual. It’s unusual that we would be required or asked to screen a residential subdivision. Typically, you screen a noxious type of use; industry, a commercial building, something along those lines you would screen that from homes. But it’s unusual, and in fact, your ordinance never provides for screening from homes to another type of a home. It’s always a requirement of a commercial area to screen to a home, and not for homes to other homes. But nonetheless, we’ve provided for that in 4-D.
4-E provides that we are going to have restrictive covenants that will provide for premium exterior house materials. 4-F provides that there will be no outbuildings or accessory buildings or structures allowed on the exterior lots of the subdivision. G provides that the storm water management practices will ensure water quality runoff, and comply with county standards and the State’s, Rule 5 soil and erosion management practices. H requires that we have sanitary sewer and water, and as I indicated, we have the letters in the file regarding that. 4-I provides that fire hydrants will be installed, as required by the fire department providing the emergency response. J provides that we’ll have sidewalks within the subdivision. And lastly, 4-K provides that we’ll have no boats, recreational vehicles or trailers to be permitted to be stored within the subdivision, unless they are enclosed in a garage, and screened from public view. Those are the commitments that we have provided to you to address the concerns that we heard; at least the ones that we could articulate and place in a format to provide for a contract--if you will--from our meetings with the neighbors, and from the public hearing that we had on the 12th.
Following my mailing out to you, Mr. Read contacted me, and wanted to add additional concerns, which are in principle, acceptable to my client. Those were that the ownership of the wetland by the Coffee Creek Watershed would be supplemented with an assessment from the owners to provide for reasonable maintenance of that wetland area. That’s acceptable as well. There is going to be some language changes or redrafting needed to incorporate that, as well as the change I need to make that I talked with Mr. Read about on the telephone recently. His second concern had to do with the drainage facilities within the subdivision, meeting standards and so forth. Again, in principle, that’s certainly acceptable. In my opinion, it’s required of a sub-divider to come before you. They have to properly manage the storm water, acceptable to the Plan Commission, and in adherence to the subdivision control ordinance.
So those changes are acceptable in principal, and we can work those out between now and when the Board of Commissioners considers the agreement on final reading once we get to the Board of Commissioners, after you make your recommendation on the petition. That’s where we have been, and what’s transpired since we last visited before you at the public hearing. And as I indicated, we’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have with regard to the agreement or the petition before you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, questions from the Board?

Mr. Read, Since several of the members who are on the board weren’t here for the first public hearing--the public hearing we had--I wanted to explain a few things about the…

Mr. Breitzke, Well let’s make it clear. We had maybe two members?

Mr. Read, Two members of the board weren’t here, or was it only one? Frank, you weren’t here.

Mr. Mahnic, I was not here for that.

Mr. Read, Frank was not here, and maybe one other. Anyway, this wetland is what we sometimes call mineral springs. The water is bubbling out of the ground; you can’t turn a switch and shut if off. It then runs Southwest past a low swale owned partially by Mr. Baker, and across another three-quarters of a mile or so, and adjoins the Coffee Creek Conservancy, land either owned or controlled by Coffee Creek Conservancy, Shooter Ditch, as it’s sometimes known, and into Coffee Creek.
So that’s how Coffee Creek got involved into this situation. It’s headwaters to Coffee Creek, and as you all know, or some of you know, I’ve been involved in trying to protect Coffee Creek for a long time. And I’m currently vice president of the Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy; no financial investment here one way or the other. So that’s how Coffee Creek got involved, but I made it clear to the petitioner that if he was willing donate or turn over some of the ownership control of this wetland, it’s up to him, I gave him the name of three or four, 501C3 organizations that would be capable of doing this. So I wanted to distance myself from that particular point.
But now it just came to my attention from Mr. Grant, that there were some neighbors who were not properly notified for the first public hearing. If that is the case, Mr. Leeth, we’ve got to do something about that.. Is there such a procedure, Mr. President?

Mr. Breitzke, Well first, I’ll have Mr. Leeth answer a question. Were there some neighbors not properly notified to your knowledge?

Atty. Leeth, Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Mahnic, Yes, I had that question brought up also that there were some neighbors who were not properly identified or were not properly notified. I do not know who they are but I do have a person in the audience who I will recognize later on who can elaborate on that, who has some names of who should have been.

Mr. Breitzke, Why don’t you recognize them now.

Mr. Mahnic, Well fine, then I’d be willing to recognize Bruce Snyder, and you have the floor.

Bruce Snyder, Mr. Chairman, the knowledge that I have concerning that is rather limited. I was going to present it and make another presentation, if it would be allowable concerning the development. I’m a professional real estate appraiser, certified in the State of Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke, Well this isn’t an open public hearing, and what we are actually after is information regarding the notice, and your knowledge of it.

Mr. Snyder, I can just have them stand up if that would be alright.

Mr. Breitzke, Well wait a minute.

Mr. Mahnic, Bruce, do you have names of people who were not notified?

Mr. Snyder, Yes.

A gentleman from the audience, I am one that was…

Mr. Breitzke, Sir, you have to be recognized if you are going to speak. I’ll recognize you if you have the names. Give me your name and address.

Robert Kallay, Robert Kallay.

Mr. Breitzke, Please stand up.

Mr. Kallay, I’m Robert Kallay.

Mr. Breitzke, Could you spell your last name for us?

Mr. Kallay, K-A-L-L-A-Y.

Mr. Breitzke, And your address.

Mr. Kallay, 283 Windermere Drive.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Kallay, And I never received the notification.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Mahnic, Bruce, do you have anything additional that you want to bring up, since you asked to speak?

Mr. Breitzke, Well let me just ask one quick question.

Mr. Mahnic, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, When did you purchase your home?

Mr. Kallay, We moved in, in June.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, they base the notice on the tax records. I have a suspicion that the records weren’t up to date at the time they gave notice. So they basically, they may have notified the previous owner, but the notice went out to--while you may laugh about it, but that’s just the state of the way it is, and that’s the rules of the notice. Bob.

Mr. Thompson, Mr. Robert Kallay, is your wife named Christine?

Mr. Kallay, Yes.

Mr. Thompson, You were sent this certified mail, and it was returned to Duneland Group who sent it out, saying that they attempted the delivery, and they do not know the reason why it was not picked up. It is in our list, and they tried to deliver it.

Mr. Kallay, Okay, I assumed it was something in that regard.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have any other information on the notice?

Mr. Snyder, Mr. Chairman, yes, I have another name here. Pamela Smith, her address is 303 E. 1050 N.

Mr. Thompson, I do not see that name. Is it within 300 feet? Let me explain real quickly. If it’s within 300 feet, and the person recently purchased the land within, probably the last six months, I will say that our county is still probably in the process of transferring it.

Mr. Snyder, I understand that.

Mr. Thompson, What the petitioner uses is what is accurately on the county auditor’s maps at that time. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to make sure that it is accurate--the information that is handed to us--and that’s why they have a certified affidavit. But if they are using county information, we will be the first to admit that we are behind in these property transfers.
I know for a fact when buying my house a year and a half ago, it did not get on the county records for over six months. So if it is in the process of being purchased, and it was purchased within the past six months, this information probably was not on it, and it cannot be held, in my opinion, to the petitioner, because of our county records.

Mr. Snyder, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that she has lived there for 25 years, and she is within 300 feet.

Mr. Read, Is she here?

Mr. Snyder, No, she couldn’t be here.

Mr. Read, Can anybody speak for her?

Mr. Thompson, What’s the address again, please?

Mr. Snyder, It’s 303 E. 1050 N.

Mr. Read, Bruce, are you the designated speaker?

Mr. Snyder, I’m the designated speaker.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Leeth, do you have anybody with that name on your list?

Atty. Leeth, My list is exactly the same as yours, Mr. President.

Mr. Thompson, I do not see anybody with that address.

Mr. Burns, Is she within 300 feet, Bob?

Atty. Leeth, Maybe she is not even the property owner. I mean there’s a lot of speculation; there could be five or six reasons why.

Mr. Snyder, No, she is the property owner.

Mr. Burns, Kevin, you have someone in the back.

Mr. Breitzke, I’ll recognize you, sir.

Kevin Walker, Yes, I’m Kevin Walker, and I live at 295 E, and Pam has been there since I’ve been there. She lived there in 1980, and I’ve been there since 1980.

Mr. Breitzke, We appreciate that, but we need to know the recorded legal owner, and it could be in trust, it could be any number of things.

Jan Meyers, Kevin, Pam owns it.

Mr. Breitzke, Oh, Janice, Jan, you need to say your name, because we need it for the record. Jan Meyers.

Mrs. Meyers, I’m sorry, Jan Meyers.

Mr. Breitzke, Who is the assessor trustee.

Mrs. Meyers, I am the trustee assessor.

Mr. Breitzke, For Jackson Township.

Mrs. Meyers, It’s in her name.

Mr. Thompson, It’s not listed here.

Mr. Whitten, Mr. Chairman, if we’ve got a flawed notice.

Mr. Breitzke, Just a minute, just a minute.

Mr. Whitten, I think I have a right to finish my sentence. Can I?

Mr. Breitzke, Well our attorney was just about to say something.

Mr. Whitten, Okay.

Ms. Tallian, Finish it up.

Mr. Whitten, As I was saying, if we’ve got a flawed notice, then I would ask that we reopen the public hearing, and give proper notice. But I’m sorry, Karen, go ahead.

Ms. Tallian, I was basically going to say that if you have a flawed notice, and if this person is within the legal, you know, distance, you could hold open the public for…

Mr. Breitzke, For that individual.

Ms. Tallian, For that individual at the next meeting.

Atty. Leeth, To open the public hearing tonight will not solve the deficiency of the public notice.

Mr. Whitten, I’m not suggesting tonight.

Mr. Breitzke, Well the individual is not here; it would be open for that individual.

Atty. Leeth, And that’s the way that we, I agree, we should remedy the issue. However, I am not convinced that there is a flaw in the notice. We don’t even have the individual who has apparently been missed in the notice. We have a representative who has no authority other than his own admissions to you. When I come before you representing an owner, I have to provide to you a certification that is signed by the owner that I’m their…

Mr. Breitzke, I don’t think he represented that he represented her. He just told us that…

Atty. Leeth, Then we don’t have an issue tonight.

Ms. Tallian, Well we don’t want to have anything next week.

Atty. Leeth, I understand that, but what I’m suggesting to you is, if there is a problem, then we have to come back to this body, and admit to you that that’s happened, and we will reopen the public hearing for that purpose, to allow Ms. Smith to testify.

Mr. Breitzke, What’s more is, they’re at risk.

Atty. Leeth, But I’m not convinced that there’s a deficiency.
Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Atty. Leeth, And I’m willing to proceed with the petition, recognizing that if we have that problem, we’re going to have to stop the process before it gets to the Board of Commissioners, and come back to you, and have that corrected.

Mr. Mahnic, Mr. Chairman, if I’m not mistaken, when I looked at the people who were notified and certified the day before yesterday, there were only about seven or eight people that are related to this case that are within that area. How many people do you have there, about? There isn’t a whole slew of people.

Atty. Leeth, Is that a legal term, Frank, a slew.

Mr. Mahnic, Well, a slew is.

Mr. Read, It’s not a legal term, Frank.

Mr. Thompson, There’s 34 parcel owners listed on the affidavit.

Mr. Mahnic, But how many certified papers did we get back, the cards?

Mr. Thompson, Well they got…

Mr. Mahnic, That’s what I was referring to, there are about seven or eight of them

Mr. Breitzke, That’s not the issue. All of them were sent out.

Mr. Mahnic, Right.

Mr. Breitzke, So they came back in form or the other.

Mr. Mahnic, Right.

Mr. Snyder, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breitzke, Sir, just one last time; we’ve got to move on.

Mr. Snyder, Okay, would it be possible for you, I have a list here, there’s more than one name on here to double check this list with that list.

Mr. Breitzke, I think we have to proceed on. He’s at risk for his hearing, until we resolve this after next week, then we would have to hold the hearing for the one individual.

Ms. Tallian, What I would say is, let them proceed. Let them proceed with their presentation tonight. You could hold your vote until the next meeting. At the next meeting if it’s determined that there were some people that were missed, then you can give them notice, and they can appear for the next public hearing; you can allow them an opportunity to speak then. If it’s the case that nobody was missed, and that the notice was fine, you can do your vote without having to reopen.

Mr. Breitzke, The next meeting.

Ms. Tallian, Yes, without having to reopen.

Mr. Mahnic, You’re right. We should proceed with this.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s proceed then.

Mr. Read, I have a further question.

Mr. Breitzke, You can present your list, but it’s going to become part of the Plan Commission record, or if you want to make a copy and just send it to the office tomorrow, that’s fine.

Mr. Snyder, Okay, alright, I’ll do that.

Mr. Read, There are a number of people who took the time tonight, in the kind of snowy weather to come out, would they have to come back or just the ones who missed?

Mr. Breitzke, Just the ones who were missed. It’s an open public hearing limited those who didn’t have the opportunity to speak before.

Mr. Read, Okay, then we don’t know the number of people at this time.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, and bear in mind those that were noticed, and the cards were returned, you were properly noticed.

Mr. Kallay, You mean we can’t speak?

Mr. Read, Well we have many people here that….

Mr. Breitzke, Bob, you can’t speak until somebody recognizes you. Okay, let’s proceed with this, and go on. Any questions from the Board?

Mr. Mahnic, I have something in your commitment.

Atty. Leeth, Yes.
Mr. Mahnic, That I don’t totally understand; C of part 4, where the ownership of the open space will go to Coffee Creek Conservancy, and if they don’t want it, it ends up with the County’s responsibility?

Atty. Leeth, No, that’s not what I’m suggesting there at all. I’m suggesting that we will offer to the Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy, that wetland area and the surrounding…

Mr. Mahnic, Open space.

Atty. Leeth, Open space, thank you. If the Drainage Board does not agree with that, then we will simply comply with the open space law, which provides for three ways to handle it. One of which quite frankly is a conservancy district, a 501C3 organization. The second would be some kind of public maintenance, and thirdly, probably the most logical would be the property owners association would maintain that as well.
But I wanted to provide in there, that if for whatever reason beyond our control, that the Drainage Board or you or whoever didn’t want us to do what we are offering to do, then we would simply comply with the law. We will make the offer, and if it is accepted and agreed upon by the Drainage Board and by the Plan Commission, then that’s what will happen.

Mr. Mahnic, The only thing I’m concerned with is, if all those three options don’t work, I don’t want, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t want the County to accept responsibility of that.

Atty. Leeth, It’s not. It will fall to the property owners association.

Mr. Mahnic, Okay, then the last one is in J. You mentioned sidewalks. Have you got a particular size? What does Chesterton normally have, four foot sidewalks?

Atty. Leeth, Four foot.

Mr. Mahnic, So you’re talking four foot sidewalks.

Atty. Leeth, Yes we are.

Mr. Mahnic, Okay, thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, Well I don’t understand why we’re discussing all the details of the subdivision when we haven’t even got it rezoned yet. I think that this a concept--merely a concept--and the petition tonight is simply RR to R-1. Do we, you know, we want to hear the reasons for the zoning. It’s okay to present these RR.
I also find it interesting that you had a meeting off-site, and invited Plan Commission members to it, when after four members you have quorum. You know, I don’t understand why we don’t have this in public, these hearings.
Mr. Breitzke, Liz, can I interrupt you for a minute. I don’t think there was four members at this hearing.

Ms. Marshall, It doesn’t make any difference. I’m suggesting that.

Mr. Breitzke, No, there wasn’t a quorum there, and…

Ms. Marshall, Were you there?

Mr. Breitzke, No, I was not.

Mr. Read, If you’re referring to the hearing of…

Mr. Breitzke, No, we are not referring to the hearing, we’re referring to their meeting with the citizens.

Atty. Leeth, Right.

Mr. Breitzke, They did extend an invitation. Plan Commission members are wisely advised by Ms. Marshall that we have to be careful. We can’t have five members, which makes a quorum, at any one place, and that did not occur.

Ms. Marshall, Well I think that the purpose of the meeting is to sell those, I mean you have the public there, you zero in on the people that are opposed to it, and invite them to an off-site meeting, which is fine. But we’re not bound by that. The other thing is, to think that you are going to put something in a conservancy district, when in fact the subdivision itself has to come up with the plan for the drainage. Conservancy districts are where other people to drain, because we have failed to have a drainage plan.

Atty. Leeth, This is not a conservancy district that you and I think of when we talk about an Indiana unit of local government, like the Valparaiso Lakes Areas Conservancy District. That is not this animal at all. The Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy Corporation is a private 501C3 corporation; it is not a public entity; it’s not a governmental entity. Mr. Read is an officer of that corporation, and it is a private organization. I fell victim to that same misunderstanding until Mr. Read explained to me exactly what the Coffee Watershed Conservancy Corporation was, and what it was intended to do.

Ms. Marshall, Well Mr. Read is even going beyond membership here at the Plan Commission, because he is associated with that conservancy district. He doesn’t speak for all of us; he doesn’t speak for me. So he doesn’t speak for all of us, and to even suggest in what you’ve planned to do, I think that focus of this meeting tonight is to talk about the rezoning from RR to R-1, and why it should happen, or why it should not happen. That’s what I think this meeting is about. We’re going beyond the scope of this meeting. We’re going to the next meeting. We’re going to the preliminary.
Mr. Mahnic, Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt Ms. Marshall.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Ms. Marshall, Go ahead.

Mr. Mahnic, Since Ms. Marshall was on the commission years ago things have changed a little bit. Today, when we ask people for rezoning, we ask them, what will you put there under that zoning. In the past, historically, somebody would say we want to go to an RR, and God only knows what ended up there. So what we have asked the petitioners to do in the past few years, tell us exactly what you’re going to put in there, if it means making a written agreement that we can tie you down to and hold you to that. This is why we are talking plans. These are conceptual plans. So when they make a commitment that they are going to do this in an R-1, they are committed, legally, to do that, and not come off and say, well I know what we said at that meeting, but we’ve changed our mind, and here’s what we’re going to put in. We’ve got burned in the past, and if I’m not correct, please correct me.

Mr. Breitzke, Well it is it a relatively new concept, and bear in mind, we don’t make the commitment, it’s up to the executives. It’s a contract between the county commissioners and the petitioner, whoever they may be, and the ideas could give more for the local community out of the development, such as the sidewalks, for example, something we don’t require. Public utilities, many of things that, hopefully, would improve the overall development; should they own it or should they pass it onto somebody else. Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, My question is, perhaps R-1 is not the proper zoning here. Maybe we should have RR zoning. That’s my question.

Mr. Breitzke, It currently is.

Ms. Marshall, It is, but we don’t see any development plan for RR, and this rezoning will change that neighborhood. It will have an impact on that neighborhood when all of the people that live in that neighborhood have developed or bought their property, and followed the rules of RR, and now we’re bringing R-1 into this community, it will change the community. It will change the density. It will change the travel. It will change a lot of things in that area.
So I think you’re out of order. It’s fine for him to suggest that’s what he’s going to do in R-1. I haven’t seen any other, I asked him directly last, at the last meeting, what is the compelling argument you have for changing it to R-1. What was his response; my developer wants to make money. That, you know, I mean, people live in that community.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s let him respond again to your question.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Breitzke, What is the?
Atty. Leeth, As I indicated to you, the third drawing that you have tonight shows that we touch the existing corporate boundaries of the Town of Chesterton today. This property will be developed in smaller lot developments on sanitary sewer. It will not, in my opinion, be developed as Rural Residential with septics and wells, and I think that’s a good thing, quite frankly.
We want to encourage the extension of utilities. Your growth plan--your Comprehensive Plan--calls for that. I read to you from your own comprehensive plan the fact that this was in an urban fringe area, and all of the requirements and suggestions of that tells me and you--as you should be guided by it because that’s its purpose--that this is a development that should have smaller lots with densities suggested in that commitment, between four and six units per acre. This proposal is less than two units per acres.
I think that there is a great deal of testimony, evidence in support for the petition that it should be the R-1 zoning classification. If it’s not, it will eventually be annexed by the Town of Chesterton. They have no open space requirements. They have minimum lot sizes of 9,500 square feet. You’re going to find your density to be in the 300.

Attorney Greg Babcock, Plus.

Atty. Leeth, Yes, it will be significantly more than the proposal that’s before you. Quite frankly, the proposal before you incorporates a reduction from the minimum standards of even the County’s ordinance. So I think the petition is very meritorious as it has been presented.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper, Could I say something?

Mr. Breitzke Sure.

Mr. Harper, You know I have real mixed emotions, because I have been in the actual position of some of these neighbors out there. I mean the exact same scenario myself. I did the meeting, virtually the exact same scenario, talking against a subdivision. But the reality is, and I think, you know, before the next couple meetings, everybody should think about the reality. Because I had to think about the reality, and the reality is, this land is going to be subdivided. That’s the reality.
And if you read in the paper last night, I think it talked about Valpo annexing a little donut, a strip of land. What they are doing is, they’re annexing, which they will continue doing, all the cities and towns, Portage and Chesterton, they are annexing those areas that they are providing sewer and water to.
Today, if those areas were developed, they would have to be developed under our green space ordinance. We would have a chance to get some written commitments and things. I know the exact scenario, because I’ve been out in that audience, and I know what’s going to happen, because the land I was petitioning against has gone right to the City of Valpo. And it’s going to be, it’s not going to be subdivided, I don’t think, according to our standards, it’s going to be subdivided according to their standards.
So everybody should really, you know, think about what they want there, because it’s a tough problem. But you know, it’s going to happen. Chesterton is going to; if Chesterton gets this land, it will not, they will not be required to have the green space and to do the things we are trying have them do. So it’s a real, you know, and as I’ve said, I sit in on a ten-acre spot. They are going to do it, and it’s going to happen, because the Town is going to do it, and that’s what’s going to happen here. So everybody, they have a chance, at least here, to have some input, something’s on it, lots sizes and so forth, because everything is going to change if it’s done the other way.
I hate to say that, because it’s going to happen me too. Although, we weren’t so lucky, and I think the town is going to take the land that I was involved with. But the article in the paper just points out what’s happening. You know, if the Town comes out, and they want to build those smaller lots and no green space and that, so they annex them and put them on the sewer. So it’s a real dilemma. There’s two sides to it, but I just think everybody should think about it.

Mr. Mahnic, Well, Bob, do you feel the way this is being proposed, if they get the change in the zoning, that they are better off with the County’s standards than they would be with the city’s standards.

Mr. Harper, Oh I don’t think there’s any question about that. Now, you might have, I mean, you know, they might get annexed, and someone might decide to build on five-acre lots in there, putting $5,000,000 homes, that could happen. But there’s no guarantee that’s going to happen; it’s not happening across the street from me. And the money in putting as many lots as you can on this, you know that’s where the money is, so. I don’t think Chesterton has any green space ordinance that I know of, so.
One thing I wanted to ask our attorney is, if they made these comments, are these commitments binding. I mean do you feel these commitments are binding, if it’s entered into with a contract with the commissioners?

Ms. Tallian, Well a contract with the commissioners is done all the time.

Mr. Harper, Alright, so you think it would be binding, whatever it ends up.

Mr. Breitzke, I would like to add, amongst those commitments, we would like to see you comply with to our erosion control ordinance, that’s about to be passed. But of course, because your petition date sets our expectations…

Mr. Read, I think it’s in there.

Ms. Tallian, No, not the erosion control.

Mr. Breitzke, No.

Mr. Harper, The other thing I’d like to say, because everyone is going to get another chance to talk about this. Okay? So everyone should know there is going to be another public hearing on this, so everyone is going to get another chance to talk about it.

Mr. Breitzke, Well there’s not a, there’s a public hearing at your meeting.

Mr. Harper, At the commissioners’ meeting, right?

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Harper, So everyone is going to get another chance to go over this and the contract, so this isn’t the end of it. So those are just some of my thoughts.

Ms. Marshall, There’s one other thing I’d like to say. The Chesterton sewer plant has problems, storm water and drain-off. They’re bypassing, so apparently, do they have the capacity, is my question. And the only reason that Chesterton would want sewer and water forwarded to this subdivision is the fact that, eventually, this is in a fringe area, and I understand that, but eventually, if they do have Chesterton sewer and water, then when they get ready to annex, and the only reason a city annexes is for money, I mean they’re going to have income from it, then the residents in that subdivision will never have the right to object to be annexed into the city. You know, that’s the reason for city sewers and waters. And I’ve only known of one petition that ever failed that they did have city sewer and water, and then they protested, and I don’t know if they’re in there or not, because I’ve been kind of out of the, you know, what’s going on.

Mr. Breitzke, Well Heritage Valley successfully…

Ms. Marshall, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Remonstrated…

Ms. Marshall, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Against the City of Valpo.

Ms. Marshall, But otherwise, the purpose of the city extending these amenities is for the purpose of annexing. But I still tell you that changing the zoning will have an impact on those people that are living there now. It will, and I haven’t heard you address that.

Mr. Read, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breitzke, Just, I need to let some of the other members talk.

Mr. Read, I just wanted to clarify something.

Mr. Mahnic, The right wing has to speak now.

Mr. Read, The right wing.
Mr. Whitten, I want to change seats if I’m the right wing.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Biddinger.

Mr. Biddinger, Well I think I might be right where I’m supposed to be then. Just a couple of comments. The last time this came up, I made the comment, and I think I might need to clarify this a little bit. I made a comment that this is a subdivision that’s ahead of its time. I think that needs to be clarified, because some people took that, not as what I intended.
This is an area that it will be developed. How fast Chesterton is moving that way? If there was a lot more pressure, if Chesterton was coming East a lot faster, we would rezone this in a snap. However, because it’s a slower growing area, and its traditionally been RR, we’re hesitating to do that. So that’s where, as a plan commission, you need to pull out the crystal and be a little visionary and try to figure out what’s going to happen in the future; not an easy task.
The second thing is--and this comment is directed to Ms. Marshall--anytime you put a house in; anytime you make any changes, you’re changing the quality of life everywhere. Change is what we do, and whether it’s a small subdivision or a corner grocery store or a gas station or anything that changes, a Big Lot store going out of business or moving, it changes the flow of traffic in the area.
We just have to be prepared, and move along with it. And in some cases, if you don’t want any change in the county whatsoever, we need to stop all building; stop all rezoning. Let’s face it, we’re growing, whether it’s the effect of Chicago or whether it’s the effect of this community, Valparaiso, Chesterton, whatever, we’re growing, and we need to go with that.
I guess to continue back on that comment of being ahead of its time. You know, if there was no pressure whatsoever out there, I couldn’t see this rezoning. But seeing that Chesterton is growing, yes, and concerning our rezoning, if we had to do with RR with septic and well, or do this at R-1 with sanitary sewer; I have a colleague at Purdue who is very often quoted as saying: ‘There’s two types of septic systems; those that have failed and those that are failing.’ I’d much rather see a system on sanitary sewer, even if it is smaller lots. I think it’s more environmentally sensitive, especially considering that you’re right in that Coffee Creek area.
You know, so it’s a matter of taking a good look at this, and weighing all the pluses and minuses on it. So, frankly, I think this is an interesting proposal. And I understand Bob’s dilemma, and there’s another, I guess saying of plan commission’s that you kind of have to remember is: ‘Don’t buy for a view you don’t own.’ And if you don’t own the lots across, don’t expect that view to stay there forever. You know, that’s just the way it is, I guess.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Whitten.

Mr. Whitten, I don’t have a whole lot to say that probably hasn’t been said tonight. However, I do have some concerns with the number of lots, the effect of the traffic in the surrounding areas, things of that nature.
I guess I agree with Liz to a large degree, in so far as, we’re not really here to talk about the subdivision and its particulars. We’re here to talk about the effect of the zoning change on the surrounding area. I think there were some concerns raised about what permitted uses in a changed zoning would do to the surrounding area.
I am not, now, nor am I probably ever going to try to vote on a rezoning based on what I think a town or city might do in the future or what might happen with the land in the future. I don’t think that’s our job, necessarily, and I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think we are here to look--like Liz said--at what is before us. There is a petition for a rezone in front of us, and do we think it’s proper to rezone it. That’s the question of the hour, and I think that’s what we need to be centered on. Not what Chesterton might do. Quite frankly, I don’t much care what Chesterton is going to do. I care about what we are going to do. That’s all I have to say.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Burns.

Mr. Burns, I don’t have much to add. I have mixed emotions also on this case. When I first looked at it, I thought it was spot zoning. But hearing the comments of what Chesterton may or may not do concerns me too. It apparently is going to be developed in the future. Again, I have mixed emotions right now.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, Well I wanted it entered into the record that I, along with other members of the Board got the invitation to the meeting called by the developer to discuss with the residents around this proposed area. I went; I was the only plan commission member to go. I went because I was concerned about what the residents around had to say, and I make no apology for that. I wanted to see what they were concerned about, and if their concerns can be met or at least eliminated.
Now, based upon that meeting that we had, I see in this memo that you had prepared, at least some of the things that we talked about at that meeting with the neighbors, seem to have been addressed. I’m not sure whether it meets their approval yet, but at least it has been addressed in many respects.
You have addressed my environmental concerns that I raised at the last public hearing, and made revisions in this plan. By the way, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether the wetlands are owned by Coffee Creek or some other 501C3. It is your decision, and you know what the open space ordinance legally requires you to do on that.
There was, and I’m going to give you an example of some of the screening. And I applaud you making a concession on that point, and I applaud you for making a concession on a previously non-negotiable item, which was lot size. Remember, that was previously non-negotiable, and became slightly negotiable.

Atty. Leeth, I’m not sure where that came from, but the lots were…

Mr. Read, Yes.

Atty. Leeth, I don’t know that we ever said they were non-negotiable. We just provided you with a conceptual drawing, but continue.

Mr. Read, Alright, now one other thing that has not been discussed here tonight, but came out at our meeting, besides things like traffic and so forth and drainage. As you know, I don’t use the term, drainage. I use the term, water management. I never, as long as I sit here, will use the term, drainage, only. It will be sometimes, drainage; sometimes, retention.
There was objection by some of the cookie-cutter development here. There’s a nice subdivision to East, that have curving roads and some very attractive sites. I’ve driven it all. And I seem to recall Mr. Hedg--if I’ve kept the name right?

Atty. Leeth, Yes, you did.

Mr. Read, The owner or the developer, agreeing that he would take a second look at this area in the lower right-hand corner, and try to get some additional environmental amenities in there.

Atty. Leeth, He very much wants to reconfigure the layout of the development, and the orientation of the lots, and the roads, to create more a community sense, rather than a grid-pattern or block sense. He shared that with Mr. Dunbar and I, and I know he will do that as he puts Mr. Dunbar’s talents to task in designing the primary plat, when we come back before you for the subdivision, if we receive the zoning.

Mr. Read, So I seem to think that you and them have a lot of work ahead of you yet?

Atty. Leeth, Indeed we do, yes.

Mr. Read, Well I’m not sure what is going to happen tonight, but in any event, do I have your pledge that if this project moves forward at any time, that that will be part of the conditions. Or at least look into them.

Atty. Leeth, It will certainly…

Mr. Mahnic, Herb, he can’t make a commitment to you.

Mr. Read, Okay.

Atty. Leeth, It will certainly happen. That I can pledge to you, because I know Mr. Hedg has made it crystal clear to Mr. Dunbar and I that he wants to revisit the layout and configuration.

Mr. Read, These are things that were brought up by the residents.

Atty. Leeth, Right.

Mr. Read, And that’s why I am bringing them up now.

Atty. Leeth, But what we can, what is part of the contract, is the lot sizes on the South side will be no smaller than 13,000 square feet. That’s a legal commitment. It’s not a pledge. It’s not something that, you know, that I’m asking you to trust me. It’s a legal commitment. It’s a contract.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continued Case 05-Z-2 to give the Developer and the Plan Commission office to double check the property owners who live within the legal notification area, and if so, reopen the public hearing to allow those persons to speak. Mr. Whitten seconded. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, eight to zero.

Atty. Leeth, Thank you very much.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s take a moment for the room to clear; let’s take five minutes.

At this time, there was a five-minute break.

Public Hearing

Mr. Breitzke, Folks, we need to clear the room. We have another hearing. Okay, we’re going to resume. Now we’re going to actually have the public hearings.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the Rules of Conduct for the public hearing.

Case 05-APP-1. Petition of Joseph M. Simatovich, 348 N. 375 W., Valparaiso, Indiana, appealing the Technical Advisory Committee’s decision to approve Union Minor Subdivision 931-C-1, located on the West side of CR 375 W., between Joliet Road and CR 400 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke, We have Case 05-APP-1, the petition of Joseph M. Simatovich, 348 N. 375 W., Valparaiso, Indiana, appealing the Technical Advisory Committee’s decision to approve Union Minor Subdivision 931-C-1, located on the West side of CR 375 W., between Joliet Road and CR 400 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. Mr. Simatovich, since you’re the petitioner, please come up front and introduce yourself, and give us your address again.

Joseph Simatovich, My name is Joe Simatovich.

Mr. Breitzke, Can you hear him?

Ms. Noll, If he could, please speak a little louder.

Mr. Breitzke, If you want to sit down, the microphone right in front of you there.

Mr. Simatovich, Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, We’re just getting a voice check, because she needs to identify your voice on the tape.

Mr. Simatovich, Okay.

Mr. Mahnic, Thank you, Jan.

Mr. Breitzke, One more time, your name and address.

Mr. Simatovich, Joe Simatovich, 348 N. 375 W.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, sir, and why are you here before us today?

Mr. Simatovich, Why am I here, to get some of this stuff clarified.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Simatovich, For reason I don’t know, it should never have been here in the first place, and I don’t want to be mad at my neighbor. I gave them a break before, all the time. But they want to get a mini subdivision going, which I don’t think they have the room for it. And the reason is, well did you get the notice written out? It says, if I don’t come here, it’s automatic. They get anything they want, and I don’t think that’s right. And I’ve got copies of it, if you guys want to see it.

Mr. Breitzke, Oh that’s the standard form that I send out on all petitions to the...

Mr. Simatovich, Well, it says, I’ve got pay $200 to get here; I’ve never heard of that at all. Then they come and change it around to $275. And I asked some of the people on the floor that worked there; they said they never heard of it either. And a lot of ordinary people in the county never heard of this, I have to deposit, $275 just to be here. Is that, that’s procedure?

Mr. Breitzke, That’s procedure. Mr. Thompson can explain that. You’re here to remonstrate against the Greens and their petition.

Mr. Simatovich, Well.

Mr. Breitzke, What are your issues with what they are doing, I guess.

Mr. Simatovich, What’s the issues. You know originally I sold the farm, three acres, a little bit better than three acres to their mother. Then the daughter wanted to build a house, and I never objected. The barn burned down, and they built, which you know, I even don’t know if they got a permit to build it, but you said they did. So I says, well.
Mr. Breitzke, I think Mr. Thompson, did they get a permit?

Mr. Thompson, For what, their house? I know that was mentioned during the TAC meeting we were talking about that, but I did not research…

Mr. Simatovich, I didn’t research it, but I, even if, I wanted to be neighborly, and she wanted the house, I didn’t complain at all. But now they want to put another house, which they don’t have the ground. Now, Mr. Thompson says if I don’t come here, they got a clear bill, they can, you know, anything they want right there, to build another house. They don’t, and you know, you’ve been on the TAC Committee, which I’ve been there and I’ve seen, they got the well too close. You never gave me a plan. They never give a plan where this second house is going to be.
Then they don’t have no, even in the commission, the surveyor says it’s kind of a peculiar place that they can’t kind of figure it out. It is. It’s a curve, and it’s hard to figure out. That’s what I told him. Tell me how you figure out a lot. Do you okay people to build a house on a lot? How big a lot? How close to some other people? Where is it? He couldn’t, because he doesn’t know. Even the surveyor has a hard time to telling me how much land there is.
And then, you guys are all engineers, they went up there, this particular subdivision doesn’t need a driveway. Only one driveway with three houses. And if they needed a driveway, then they still wouldn’t have enough ground to build this other house that they’re trying to build. So I wish I had some more of that writing in here that, oh, you say, well, we’ll shift it this way a little bit, and we’ll shift it this way, the ground. And I don’t know if it’s possible. She’s got a lot and it’s measured out, 1.54 acres.
This other one doesn’t have enough ground, so they’re going to take a half acre of this, what they got, and put it on this one to try to squeeze, which I heard someone say, well, maybe we could squeeze that house in. What do you mean you can squeeze it in? You know, I wouldn’t be here at all, if you just got it. Hey, you’ve got, you want to build a house, you got so many feet this way and that way, hey, there’s no problem. But to put it like we got this one, it’s curve. It’s a dangerous, even a house there is a hindrance for all the people of Porter County coming around there. It’s not feasible. But, if I didn’t come here, hey, that goes. Whatever I tell you, it’ll be okay. I don’t see how one guy could okay something that is not exactly right, and you’ve been there.

Mr. Whitten, What guy?

Mr. Breitzke, Whoa, wait a minute.

Mr. Simatovich, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Whitten, Oh, okay, I’m sorry. I just want to keep up with it.

Mr. Simatovich, He sent me this paper. That’s all I got.

Mr. Whitten, Okay.

Mr. Whitten, A slip, and it says there, if I don’t come with $200, and everybody, I went down to the other, to the TAC Committee, and they come, they spring up $200, then they say that, the surveyor says, another $75. What has he got to tell you guys how much more money? Now if you want another batch of money, just let me know.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s have Mr. Thompson explain the fees and cost structure.

Mr. Thompson, Alright, maybe I should back up for the new members. The minor subdivision ordinance, the way it was written out, and the way the rule of procedures go, and the ordinance did go, was that the TAC Committee may approve minor subdivisions. The way it was written was according the state statutes, which I showed Karen, right there, it’s 36-7-4-701, I believe it is, where the plan commission may designate a site review committee--which is TAC--to approve certain minor subdivisions, which they have done that in this situation through the definition. So the process is, an application will come in--we have since repealed the minor subdivision ordinance--and the deadline for any application for minor subdivisions coming in was essentially December 31, 2005. We are no longer accepting them.

Mr. Breitzke, It’s 2004.

Mr. Thompson, Or 2004, excuse me. We were no longer accepting applications to these minor subdivisions. This application made it in before that. It was in the beginning or mid-December that it was brought in. Anyway, they followed the rules that were laid out. TAC did approve the primary plat. Now I’m not the only person that approved it. I’m not the one at TAC who approved it; I did vote for, I admit that. I was one of the members that did vote for it.
In that situation after the primary plat is approved, we send out public notification, which Mr. Simatovich did receive, which notifies them that a minor subdivision--a primary plat--has been approved, and if they so decide, they can appeal this. Mr. Simatovich appealed it.
The reason for the $200 fee is because it costs to put on this meeting. The Plan Commission, even back in ’94 when this ordinance was written, did put on the appeal fee for this because of the cost it incurred. The $75, which was brought up later by Mr. Bengel--the surveryor-- yes, it is true.
We started this year, the members that were on last year, if you remember, we did tack on the $75 fee for the purposes of legal advertisements. It used to be paid by the Plan Commission, but during the budget crunch with the steel mill bankruptcies, I had to take that out of the budget to be able to save employment of people. So we introduced it again this year, and we were asking $75 to cover the cost of the fee, because of that fact, we are no longer paid by tax money or the general fund money, and we have to be self supporting.

Mr. Simatovich, Well, the 75, I don’t know. That’s why Bengel knows, because he added that on the morning was at that.

Mr. Breitzke, He didn’t add that on, sir.

Mr. Simatovich, But he told me.
Mr. Breitzke, He was just aware of it.

Mr. Simatovich, Remember, $75. That mini subdivision never was no good in the first place. They say, oh, now we got it out. This shouldn’t have been issued anyhow. Now, another thing is, they give you ten days to appeal this. Then I says, ten days when; and they start from Christmas to New Year, and they say consecutive days. I say, hey, it should be working days. Well, in the office one says, consecutive days; the other one says working days.

Mr. Breitzke, Well, what does Mr. Thompson say?

Mr. Simatovich, Huh?

Mr. Thompson, We honored the appeal. Mr. Simatovich came in and filled out the application, and even with that, I mentioned, fine, we’ll keep it at ten working days. Mr. Simatovich did not want to pay the fee at the time. He wanted to go in front of TAC, so I went ahead and honored the application without the fee being paid at that time to get it in front of TAC. When Mr. Simatovich was not happy with what TAC’s decision was, then I told him if he wanted to get in front of the Plan Commission, then he must pay the fee.
So, I mean it was well after the ten days of the approval of the primary plat. I was still honoring the application that he did file. He did file it. He didn’t want to pay. I honored that, and we tried to work things out. We weren’t able to work it out, so to be able to get in front of the Plan Commission I said a fee had to be paid.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, let’s get onto, and we’ll come back to you. Let’s get onto the other side, and answer specifically. Mr. Simatovich asked about the traffic, the lot design, and the other planning related issues.

Don Bengel, Thank you. My name is Don Bengel. I’m an engineer and surveyor here in Porter County. I am representing the Miller’s in their petition for this minor sub. Some of you guys are lucky, you’re not going to hear any minor subs anymore. Right, Bob? There’s a few more left, but not many.
Just to give you some background. Mr. Simatovich sold this ground in 1966. In 1980, Mrs. Miller built her house as part of that. Now, her mom, who bought the original ground is almost incapacitated and will have to move in with her daughter. In addition, they want their daughter and son-in-law to live with them, beside them, and that was the reason that they did this minor sub.
The septic conditions were approved by the Porter County Health Department. Their report is 2004-0848. We’ve actually designed the septic that will fit on the ground. It needs drainage; there’s plenty of fall for drainage. So there’s no question on the septic.
Driveways, we’re going to keep the existing drive to serve the new lot, as well as the existing lots. The County Highway is pretty happy about that, because if you look at the plat--I’ve marked everything in yellow that’s existing--the driveway is North of curve, which Mr. Simatovich thinks is a pretty dangerous curve. I’ve been out there several times, and if you’re driving decently, there doesn’t seem to be a problem.
The subdivision is one new lot. I want to make that clear, there’s one new lot. Drainage is not going to be a problem. The one house will be up on the higher part of the ground, which will not cause any drainage problems. The subdivision does meet the ordinance, and it conforms to all the requirements. We think the appeal should be overridden and this plat approved.
I don’t know what else I can say in response to Mr. Simatovich. I think we tried to work it out at TAC, and Mr. Thompson was polite to Mr. Simatovich. He gave him a lot of extra time, but it just didn’t work out at TAC. But I think the main thing is that the subdivision does meet the ordinance, and conforms with the requirements, and should be platted. I will be happy to answer any other questions.

Mr. Breitzke, Is there anybody from the audience that has something to say?

Mr. Bengel, Mr. and Mrs. Miller are here, but I think they would rather just move on.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Simatovich.

Mr. Simatovich, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s stick more with the technical related questions or the planning related questions.

Mr. Simatovich, If they put three drives in there like they should have for each house. Now, you get somebody, buys one of them houses, he’s got to have a driveway. Now what are you going to do about it? The first one didn’t. The original house had the driveway. Now, if you put in driveways, then he ain’t got enough for a septic tank. He’s so squashed up, he does not have the room to put this house. Yeah, he says you can squeeze it in there. That’s not the way to do it.
And he says it not a dangerous curve. Hey, they’re out there in the boondocks all the time as soon they come off that straight-away. And then it’s for public safety. It’s not right to put a house on a curve, and they don’t have, there is not enough ground. I don’t care what he says, there’s not enough ground for a house. You could squeeze or get something smaller.
Hey, I’m not against the neighbors, and I allowed them to put the other house. I didn’t even ask for a permit, and I don’t know if they got it. You could research it or make another print.

Mr. Breitzke, I’ll let Mr. Bengel answer your questions or the issues you raised.

Mr. Bengel, As far as the septic, the Health Department has approved this. Every lot is assumed to have a driveway, but we have the extra bonus now of not needing the driveway, because the existing drive will serve these two houses, and that drive is away from the curve. And we can’t change the curve in the road, but that’s really when you’re dedicating the proper right-of-way, to enable that curve to function.
I might mention at TAC, it was a unanimous vote, so we had no problems with neither department, as a representative on TAC. As far as a permit for the Miller’s house, I’ve got a copy of their septic permit. I do not have a copy of the original building permit. But their septic permit was approved, September 11, 1984 by the Health Department.
Mr. Simatovich, 1984 is…

Mr. Breitzke, Sir, just a second. Were you done?

Mr. Bengel, Yes, I think so.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, Mr. Simatovich.

Mr. Simatovich, 1984 for this house, was approved. And over here it says, states that she wanted help here, and the well is pretty close to the line. Well we’ll move that a little bit. What kind of Mickey Mouse rules are these.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s go one last time to Mr. Bengel, then we’re going to close the public hearing. You still get to speak Mr. Simatovich, but we’ll have questions from the Board.

Mr. Bengel, If you look at where I have the existing house marked out in yellow, right off the corner--the Northeast corner--it shows a well. I think I can find a lot of wells that are much closer to the property line. But that won’t present a problem.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Simatovich, would you come back and sit at the table.

Mr. Simatovich, Anything.

Mr. Breitzke, We’re closing the public hearing now, and opening it to the Board.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Harper, do you have any questions?

Mr. Harper, I don’t have any questions.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, Yes, I do. When did TAC give approval for this subdivision?

Mr. Thompson, December 23, 2004.

Ms. Marshall, December 23rd.

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, And then this hearing that was conducted, Mr. Simatovich was aware, I mean it was at this meeting? We only had one meeting then that Mr. Simatovich was there, and the people, and Mr. Bengel were there.
Mr. Thompson, No, at the December 23rd meeting, Mr. Bengel presented the subdivision to the Technical Advisory Committee.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, and then…

Mr. Thompson, The meeting with Mr. Simatovich happened in January. I don’t know the exact date right offhand.

Ms. Marshall, And so that was after that.

Mr. Thompson, Correct.

Ms. Marshall, So Mr. Simatovich was not at the original TAC meeting. Is that right? He was not notified before the meeting that this was going to be heard?

Mr. Thompson, Correct.

Ms. Marshall, Okay. We don’t have the benefit of any kind of a narrative as to what happened. We just simply have a summary here of what happened at the TAC. I want to question the authority of TAC approving the subdivision, when in fact, the TAC, comprised of the technical groups here in the County, and that is not the purpose of TAC. The purpose of TAC is to gather information so we have the Health Department, we have the Highway Department, we have, I believe, you know, years ago, Chuck Walker, I don’t know if he’s still around.

Mr. Thompson, Chuck is still on it.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, so he was at the meeting, right?

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, And who else was there?

Mr. Breitzke, Myself and Bob Thompson. However, it was back in the…

Mr. Thompson, Kelly.

Mr. Breitzke, In the early 90’s that authority was given by the Plan Commission as Bob cited in the statutes, that the Plan Commission can give the authority for minor development. So that was given to the Technical Advisory Committee.

Mr. Mahnic, By state law it’s allowed.

Mr. Breitzke, Its not that we wanted it or anything. Basically, we eliminated minor subdivisions.
Ms. Marshall, When did you do that?

Mr. Breitzke, At the end of this year.

Mr. Mahnic, A few months ago.

Mr. Harper, It was effective January 1st this year.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, because you know, technically, Mr. Thompson is not a voting member of the Plan Commission, so. He’s the secretary and he doesn’t vote in these matters, so you sent him to TAC, and he apparently voted.

Mr. Breitzke, While I appreciate what you are saying, but it’s a moot point because of two things. One, it no longer happens; two, it was an assignment given by this Board, which…

Mr. Mahnic, Which legally was correct.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, correct. It was a statute-driven responsibility.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, we’ll accept that.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you.

Ms. Marshall, Then this proposal, I don’t know, I mean I went out there. I’m kind of from Union Township, so you know, years ago I went out there too. First of all, I drove up in their drive. So we’re going to service three houses from one driveway. And that second house that you have indicated in yellow doesn’t even have a driveway to it. I mean the walk across the lawn, I guess. I don’t know how they get there.

Mr. Bengel, They walk across the lawn. That’s their wish. They’ve done that since 1984.

Ms. Marshall, But it says in this narrative that we got that there is some kind of family hardship. If we based this kind of approval on a hardship, what happens when somebody wants to sell their property, and they don’t have access to that house off of the road.

Mr. Bengel, They will have access. There’s a maintenance agreement between the parties that use that drive. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have brought up a hardship. That has nothing to do with it. The petition rests on the merits of the case. It meets the ordinance. It’s been approved, technically, and that’s it.
When we do the final plat, there will be a maintenance agreement between the three parties on the plat. Now the house that Mrs. Miller is moving out of now is pretty old, and there’s an excellent chance if that were to be rebuilt, it would go further North, and maybe a new drive would be put in, but that would be far away from the curve than the existing drive is. So that’s…

Ms. Marshall, So does Mrs. Miller live in the old house?

Mr. Bengel, She’s still in the old house until they build an addition on her daughter’s house.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, and the addition is on the yellow house?

Mr. Bengel, Yes, it will be.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, then why are we establishing another lot?

Mr. Bengel, Mrs. Miller, the elder Mrs. Miller, who is Mrs. O’Hearn now, it’s her grandson that wants to build a house on this Lot #2.

Ms. Marshall, Okay. Would you cite that state statute again that says the TAC Committee can approve these things. Could you tell me what that is again?

Mr. Thompson, It’s 36-7-4-700, Chapter.

Ms. Tallian, Wait a minute.

Mr. Thompson, Karen’s looking it up.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, somebody here, I believe it was Mr. Bengel, I have it marked. Hold on a minute here. There’s a lot rhetoric here.

Mr. Breitzke, Just a minute, Liz, can I go to somebody else, and I’ll come back to you.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Simatovich.

Mr. Simatovich, Yes. You already got this house, and the ground is allocating for the permit of the existing house. Now you can take a half acre off of that house to add it on this here to make this house?

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, sir. Mr. Bengel.

Mr. Bengel, As long as what is left is enough to support the existing house and septic, and it is.

Mr. Simatovich, You’re…

Mr. Breitzke, As long as they have one acre.
Mr. Simatovich, You’re taking a half-acre off the first house

Mr. Bengel, Right.

Mr. Simatovich, And putting it on the second house.

Mr. Bengel, Yes.

Mr. Simatovich, Well I don’t know how you can do that. Legally, you’re taking somebody’s, say it was somebody else’s house here, and he’s got a boundary, now you’re going to take a half of an acre of his ground to put it over here to make this house work.

Mr. Breitzke, Just for clarity, as long as they have at least an acre on that parcel, that’s not an issue.

Mr. Simatovich, Yes, but...

Mr. Breitzke, And they’re subdividing

Mr. Simatovich, Where did he get the acre.

Mr. Breitzke, Well let me say this. They are subdividing all these parcels, including that house. We need to go to Mr. Mahnic.

Mr. Mahnic, No, I’m a little confused though. We’ve spent a lot of time arguing back and forth.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read.

Mr. Mahnic, Well here. The only advice I can give Joe is if he doesn’t like what is done, because it’s all done legally, and it’s done through the TAC, who has the authority to do this at that particular time. The sanitation was approved by people who know what they are doing, and if you have any other thing, your recourse is to see an attorney, and go to court with it, and resolve it that way. Because we are not going to be able to resolve it here. As far as what I see, Joe, he did everything right. It may be a screwy plat, okay.

Mr. Simatovich, How could you say it’s right when we’re going to move some of the ground, or the well and stuff. You just got so much ground to do it. And he’s…

Mr. Mahnic, But he has, Joe; he has enough ground to do it. Otherwise, believe me, the gal at the sanitation department and Chuck Walker would have looked at this and said, you can’t do that. The reason it’s a screwed up messed is that Bengel, with his sharp pencil--excuse me--Bengel. Don with his sharp pencil was able to reconfigure this to comply with our ordinance.

Mr. Simatovich, Yes, but that’s, he maneuvered that, which I say is wrong.

Mr. Mahnic, Which he is allowed to do.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, let’s go to Mr. Burns.

Mr. Burns, Mr. Chairman…

Mr. Read, You missed me.

Mr. Breitzke, I’ll get back to you.

Mr. Burns, The proposed house is behind the building line. Correct?

Mr. Bengel, Yes.

Mr. Burns, The existing house could have been built there in 1996. Is that correct?

Mr. Bengel, Yes.

Mr. Burns, And this meets all the ordinances.

Mr. Bengel, Yes, it does.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Whitten.

Mr. Whitten, I don’t have anything.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Biddinger.

Mr. Biddinger, My series of questions have already been asked.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, Yes, Mr. Bengel.

Mr. Bengel, Yes.

Mr. Read, This is the first time I’ve seen this map, and if you heard me before, I said that I would make it practice to visit every site that came before me, if at all possible. And part of that is having you mail me maps like this. What happened? I didn’t get this in the mail?

Mr. Bengel, It’s my understanding, Herb, it’s Mr. Simatovich’s job to mail any plats out. We’re just kind of the defendants here.
Mr. Breitzke, This is true. There is a…

Mr. Simatovich, How am I going to mail it, you got something there that I never seen and…

Mr. Breitzke, He is the petitioner.

Mr. Simatovich, All of this bookwork that he’s got that I don’t have.

Mr. Breitzke, Well.

Mr. Simatovich, He’s got the well and septic, and we’re going to okay something that’s…

Mr. Breitzke, Hold it.

Mr. Simatovich, And then blame me for not having that. Come on.

Mr. Breitzke, Let’s go back to Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, I’m the new kid on the block here. I have no background on this thing at all. But anybody who has had a barn burn down deserves my sympathy. But I’m totally confused as to what is before us, as to what we, as a plan commission are voting on. What are we voting on?

Mr. Breitzke, We’re voting on the acceptance of this as a preliminary plat.

Mr. Mahnic, Upholding TAC’s decision.

Mr. Breitzke, The recourse of the minor subdivision, they were very voluminous, we had a lot of them coming through, and the Plan Commission, before my time, put the responsibility onto TAC to address these. But, there was a vehicle for the public to remonstrate, and that’s what Mr. Simatovich is doing right now. So it’s up to us if we want to approve it or not.

Mr. Read, What we are voting on then, is voting to approve the TAC approval. Right?

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, To uphold TAC’s approval.

Mr. Read, To uphold TAC approval.

Mr. Thompson, Right.

Mr. Read, So a yes vote upholds TAC’s approval.

Mr. Thompson, If that’s what the motion is.

Mr. Breitzke, If that’s the motion.

Mr. Read, Yes, okay, alright.

Ms. Tallian, If we frame the motion it is.

Mr. Read, If we frame it, yes. Who knows how it’s going to be framed. Mr. Bengel, or whoever can answer this question. The existing house in yellow, then we have another square out here on Lot 2.

Mr. Bengel, Yes, that’s the…

Mr. Read, Is that the proposed new house?

Mr. Bengel, Yes, and let me tell you, Mrs. Green, I’m sorry I called you Miller. Mrs. Miller was the original purchaser of the ground from Mr. Simatovich. Okay? Then Mrs. Miller sold her daughter a piece of that ground to put a house on, which is the house on Lot 1. Then she also gave her daughter additional land so that she was able to do a subdivision of two lots; one to keep her house, and one to have her son build on Lot 2.

Mr. Read, And where does the remonstrator live?

Mr. Bengel, He’s down the road, further South.

Mr. Simatovich, Right next to, I just sold off the corner of the curve. There’s two curves there.

Mr. Read, Yes, I see that.

Mr. Simatovich, And see, I don’t have that information in front of me, like you have. And now to do it, he’s going to take a half-acre off of this other house to put it on this house to make this other house. They’re going to squeeze it in there, and I can’t see how anybody wants to okay that.

Mr. Read, Let me clarify where you live. Do you live South? Does he live South of this site?

Mr. Bengel, Yes, this house is 366; he lives at 348, so he’s South.

Mr. Simatovich, This line here.

Mr. Read, Yes, right.

Mr. Simatovich, It goes all the way down there, and all the way here is my ground. It’s all my ground.

Mr. Read, This all your ground.

Mr. Simatovich, That’s right.

Mr. Read, And where do you live?

Mr. Simatovich, I live up here. I don’t have that plan.

Mr. Read, And your objection is based upon the septic tank?

Mr. Simatovich, Well the whole, whole works, because the road goes around here, people fly in here, but if you put this house it’s the safety of everybody. In order to get this, they don’t have enough ground, and that’s why they don’t put three drives in. This house ain’t got a driveway. So they don’t put three drives in there because they can’t put this house properly in there. Now, you think it’s, here’s the line, the original house right here. Now they’re going to take ground off to put this here.

Mr. Read, Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Simatovich, And I think, and this house comes right up here and the well and stuff, they got problems here.

Mr. Read, There’s another house over here?

Mr. Simatovich, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, Ms. Marshall.

Mr. Read, Alright, okay. I won’t hold everybody up anymore.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, Okay. You want me to say something?

Mr. Breitzke, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, I don’t think in 1994, that you received, the Technical Advisory Committee received the approval to waive or hear minor subdivisions. Because it says here, the subdivision control ordinance may provide that the subdivision of land that does not involve the opening of a new public way and that complies in all other respects with the subdivision control ordinance and the zoning ordinance may be granted preliminary approval by the plat committee.
Now let’s go back to what the Technical Advisory Committee is, and why was it established. When I was at the Plan Commission in 19--a long time ago. Let’s see here, 1983, that’s a long time ago. We, as a part of, let’s go through the history of this. We, as a part of reviewing subdivisions had in the ordinance, the fact that the Highway Department had input. The Health Department had input as to the lots that were being established in the subdivision. Agriculture had a thing, and they all submitted their things, and Don Bengel knows this. He submitted enough of those.
So then by the time we got to the public hearing, these people were all supposed to be bringing that in. When I got there in ’83, it was a hit and miss thing. If we had something that was going to be reviewed by all of these groups, and I think there were five, then we would call, I would call all these people up and they’d come to my office and we’d sit down and talk about the technical aspects of the proposal. That’s all it was. It was a committee so we could get all of the things together so we could have the public hearing. We don’t have, it says here, a plat committee. The Technical Advisory Committee is not a plat committee. It also goes on to tell you whose going to serve on this.

Mr. Breitzke, Liz, let me say this. There is some legislation, we just can’t find it right now. The thing is, prior to the minor subdivision, there was metes and bounds split-offs; no benefit of right-of-way, no consistency in the utilities, no consideration of drainage whatsoever. They were basically taking little pieces of ground, and we all knew people; that was their retirement account; they’d sell a one-acre parcel off the road, per year for so many years. The minor subdivision was created in order to have a more orderly development, back in the early 90’s. Like I said, it’s before my time. We had to wrestle with it from the development side, when I was active in that as well.

Mr. Harper, Kevin, let me just say something. Excuse me, I need about two minutes.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Harper, I’ve got an ill wife at home and I just got a page. I’d like to vote on this, I’ll come right back.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, thanks.

Ms. Marshall, I’ll hold it open. Go ahead.

At this time, Mr. Harper left the meeting.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, but…

Mr. Breitzke, But there is, because I’ve seen the statute that actually names the specific people that are representatives on it, because there is direction for the Technical Advisory Committee or the plat review committee.

Ms. Marshall, Absolutely. Absolutely, but this does not talk about the Technical Advisory Committee. This talks about the plat committee, consists of three, four or five persons, with at least one of the members being a member of the commission.

Mr. Breitzke, Right.

Ms. Marshall, Each appointment, a member of the plat committee is for a term of one year. These are not appointed, these are people that serve because of what they do in the County.

Mr. Breitzke, No, ma’am, they are appointed. They are appointed every year. It’s an annual appointment to the Technical Advisory.

Ms. Marshall, The Health Department is not.

Mr. Thompson, Yes, they are.

Mr. Breitzke, It’s an annual appointment.

Ms. Marshall, It’s outlined as to who the Technical Advisory Committee is.

Ms. Breitzke, Every year we’ve fallen under that situation. The one exception was when Bob Detert was on the Technical Advisory for several years as a representative of the Plan Commission, and that was when the Health Department wasn’t represented on the plat review committee. But we brought back the Health Department by appointment in 1998, so they had a person that was representing that could speak to the well and the septic issues.
But we’re getting a little bit away from the issue at hand, this specific subdivision. We should discuss this more, I don’t disagree with you. But this issue is one of a specific land development. They are in front of use tonight with a public hearing. They’ve had the public hearing, and it’s up to this Board whether it gets approved or not.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, I have a further question.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Ms. Marshall, How much did Don Bengel and his, who he represents, how much did they pay to get heard by the TAC, what you are saying should be a plat committee. What did they, did they have to pay to be heard?

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Oh, absolutely.

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, Because I think it’s…

Mr. Bengel, Can I tell you. We had to pay a fee to the Plan Commission, I think it was $100, plus $2 a lot. This is under the fee schedule. Plus we paid to mail the notices out, which is $5 a person. Plus we paid about $200 in advertising to the two newspapers. So all of the fees were paid.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, well I think it’s ridiculous that Mr. Simatovich has to pay to appeal when he didn’t have his time in at a hearing, you know, I think, I disagree with it.

At this time, Mr. Harper returned to the meeting.

Mr. Thompson, Alright, I’ll answer Ms. Marshall’s comments. If this Board wants to make a motion to so order me to refund Mr. Simatovich’s money, I will do so.

Mr. Mahnic moved to refund the money Mr. Simatovich paid to appeal Union Minor Subdivision 931-C-1.

Mr. Mahnic, And it shouldn’t have a bearing on the future of anybody else coming forward.

Ms. Marshall, I’m…

Mr. Mahnic, We are not going to open a door by my motion that everybody gets it free.

Mr. Biddinger, Point of order. We have a case in front of us. That motion is not really appropriate, until after the case has been settled.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, not yet.

Motion died for the lack of a second.

Ms. Marshall, I would like to say one other thing. Mr. Simatovich, did serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals, either in the late 70’s or the early 80’s. So I’m sure, and with all the projects that he has certainly been superintendent of and so forth, that he does know how to read these plans. So I don’t ever want to belittle Mr. Simatovich for his knowledge of what’s going on in that area, you know. I think he has merit, and you know, I just want everybody to be aware that at one time he was on the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Breitzke, Anything else from the Board?

Mr. Mahnic, Yes, one other item. I think that this problem that Ms. Marshall brings up about TAC and the legality of TAC, and I know we put that away to resolve it, but why doesn’t our attorney at some time in the next two weeks, find the place where we were allowed to do this. Not that we can come back and say, you know, for the last five years, everything you did in TAC was illegal.

Mr. Breitzke, Well, it’s probably the last 11 years.

Mr. Mahnic, I would like that clarified. Okay?

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Bengel.

Mr. Bengel, I’d just like to make one comment. I think we all agree on the biggest, in my mind, the biggest problem with the minor subs was the notification. I mean I never cared for it. But here, TAC takes their action on Friday morning, and Monday the people get a letter saying this is how, this what happened without you knowing anything. I mean I’ve always complained about that, but it a moot point now.

Mr. Breitzke, But you helped write the ordinance, Don.

Mr. Bengel, No, I didn’t help. No, I didn’t.

Mr. Breitzke, You were on the Plan Commission at that time.

Mr. Bengel, No, not that part.

Mr. Breitzke, Oh, not that part, sorry. Okay, we need to get back to the subdivision at hand. Do we have a motion specific to, whether we want to accept TAC’s decision or reject TAC’s decision.

Mr. Biddinger moved to uphold the decision of the Technical Advisory Committee, and deny Case 05-APP-1. Mr. Mahnic seconded, motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Marshall - No Read - Abstain
Whitten - No Biddinger - Yes
Burn - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, five to two

Mr. Harper, Mr. Chairman, I am leaving.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you, Bob.

Mr. Mahnic, Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, sir.
Mr. Mahnic, For the new members, and I don’t know who they are. On this commission, you cannot abstain unless you have a financial interest in the project.

Mr. Breitzke, You should not. It’s a little unseemly.

Mr. Read, Yes, I’m new kid on the block.

Mr. Mahnic, I didn’t mention you, Herb.

At this time, there were many conversations going on in the room.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Simatovich, could you sit down for a second. Frank.

Mr. Thompson, Mr. Mahnic, do you want to bring back that motion you made about refunding the motion?

Mr. Mahnic, Yes.

Mr. Mahnic moved to make an exception to the Plan Commission’s rules and refund the money Mr. Simatovich paid to appeal Union Minor Subdivision 931-C-1. Ms. Marshall seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, Any discussion?

Mr. Whitten, I do.

Mr. Breitzke, Like Frank said, we don’t want to make this a practice. Mr. Whitten.

Mr. Whitten, I’m sorry. I have great concerns about us setting precedent here. I understand the concerns of Mr. Simatovich, but it just seems like an odd precedent for us to set.

Mr. Breitzke, Well I think this is the exception, because this minor subdivision ordinance is ending

Mr. Thompson, The minor subdivisions are ending, and I, you know, the Plan Commission can live on.

Mr. Whitten, As a lawyer, I love exceptions.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Mahnic - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Whitten - Yes
Biddinger - No Burns - Yes
Breitzke - Yes
Mr. Thompson, Motion carries.

Mr. Simatovich, Can I get it back.

Mr. Whitten, I voted to give it back to you.

Mr. Breitzke, We can’t have a conversation.

Mr. Simatovich, Oh.

Mr. Thompson, Mr. Simatovich, you can come in Friday. If Pat Gibson is there, she will be able to start the process for refunding your money. Okay?

Mr. Simatovich, Well if it’s too much of a process.

Mr. Thompson, Now I will tell you this, it will probably take a month, to a month and a half possibly to get the money back. But we will get it back to you.

Mr. Simatovich, I want to thank you, because it’s worth the education that I got here, because I spent a lot of money, tens of thousands for education. But this kind of a deal is as sad as you can get. And you being an engineer and the other ones to okay something that is really on the borderline of not being right.

Mr. Breitzke, What you want to make clear is that this body made the rules. We clearly followed the rules of the Plan Commission in the creation of a lot, and that’s the end of it. Thank you. We’ll talk later.

Mr. Simatovich, You did it.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Case 05-M-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana, for a proposed Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance. (Continued from the 1-26-05 meeting. The public hearing is closed)

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

Mr. Thompson, Karen Tallian met with Kevin and I to go through this ordinance. Since I originally handed it out, there’s been some rather new merits and significant changes I would say that Karen has made within it, and suggested what we should do, Kevin and I. Karen and I even had a second meeting last week, and talked about some of the other procedures in which we did change.
So, I know I didn’t get it to you. Karen did type this up. She got it to me Friday afternoon, and I just didn’t have the time to get it to the members. So I guess in that case, I know you all would want to read this, so I’m going to ask that we put this on the second meeting in February, because there is a lot involved in this ordinance. From the draft that I originally sent out, Karen has made some changes.
I apologize again. Karen, in our second meeting, when I met with Karen, we discussed how we would proceed in the future with ordinances, proposals in front the of Plan Commission, so therefore we do not have these advertisements and continuances like this. The next time an ordinance is proposed by the Board, I’m going to write it up, and I’m going to get a draft to Karen, and we’re going to sit down and talk about before we advertise it. We will have it ironed out and written before it’s advertised and to the Commission. So at this time, I guess I’m going to ask that, you know, it’s up to you. I know I just gave it to you guys tonight. I’m going to ask that it be continued.

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

Mr. Mahnic, I have one item in the discussion, and I have other things, but I’ll save them. It says, the purpose of this ordinance is to control or eliminate soil erosion or sedimentation with in Porter County. Does that mean that we control what goes on in Valparaiso and in Chesterton? Or do we want to put unincorporated Porter County?

Mr. Thompson, We’re going to put unincorporated Porter County. Thank you, Mr. Mahnic.

Mr. Breitzke, Regardless, we can only administer to what we have, and that changes constantly. So yes…

Mr. Thompson, Point well taken. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Well…

Mr. Mahnic, I just wanted everyone to know I read the thing.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay. It’s fine, but we can only enforce what we can enforce, and that’s typical language throughout all our other ordinances. Maybe the attorney needs to look at all of them. Voice vote.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson, So it will be on the February 23rd meeting.

Mr. Breitzke, This is continued to the February 23rd meeting before the Plan Commission. Okay, is there any other matter to come before us?

Mr. Biddinger, One quick announcement. Two weeks ago during our meeting, Purdue University sponsored a seminar on defensible decision making. I’ve since discovered that seminar is available via video streaming on the Web, if anybody is interested. It’s about two hours. I can set it up in my office. It’s an excellent presentation. I’ve only watched about the first half, but.

Ms. Tallian, What is it?

Mr. Biddinger, It was a seminar in defensible decision making for plan commissions.

Mr. Read, When is it?

Ms. Marshall, Is that the one that was on the 6th?

Mr. Biddinger, Yes.

Mr. Read, And you have a copy of this?

Mr. Biddinger, I can, it’s streaming on video. I can pull it down on demand.

Mr. Read, Anyway, yes, I’d like to see it at some point.

Mr. Biddinger, Swing by my office or make an appointment with me.

Mr. Breitzke, It has to be through one of the Purdue Education Centers, they own it.

Mr. Biddinger, Yes, it’s password protected, so I can’t give out a website.

Mr. Breitzke, Well sure you could.

Mr. Biddinger, Well I could, but I’m not giving out my password.

Mr. Breitzke, You like your job. Is there any other business to come before us?

Mr. Thompson, The only thing I want to mention.

Mr. Mahnic, Mr. Chairman, the next meeting will be my last meeting, as I will be resigning from this Commission. Amen.

Mr. Read, I was just getting use to you, Frank.

Mr. Breitzke, Me too, it’s been eight years.

Mr. Mahnic, Well, the problem is, as I look on, there’s nine democrats, one republican, Not really, I’m leaving the area. We are moving back to Ohio where I came from 35 years ago, and the opportunity was there now to go there. Day before yesterday I celebrated my 82nd birthday, and it’s getting to the point, better go home.

Ms. Tallian, Never slow down.

Mr. Mahnic, I appreciate working with you fellows and ladies. I did learn a lot. Like Joe said, he learned a lot, and I did too. I appreciate the fact that you guys, you know, kind of laughed at me sometimes when I joked around, and didn’t take me too serious at those times. Hopefully, from the time I came on, 13 years ago to now, Porter County is just a little bit better than it was then.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you. And you will be here for the last meeting?

Mr. Mahnic, Yes.

Mr. Thompson, My last comment is, I handed out the annual report for the Plan Commission and the BZA for 2004, so if you have any questions on that, please give me a call.

Ms. Marshall, There’s one thing I’d like to ask. I see that we are looking, we have a job description for a code enforcement.

Mr. Thompson, Correct.

Ms. Marshall, I’d like to know if its possible to get the names of all of the people that work in the office, and a copy of their job description. I’d just like to know that.

Mr. Thompson, Sure.

Mr. Breitzke, No problem.

Mr. Thompson, I’ll make that available to you.

Ms. Marshall, Fine, thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Anything else?

Ms. Tallian, If anybody has any comments about the ordinance or the language or typos or other stuff like that, and you want to fax it over to me. Just, you know, send me a fax, and maybe I can get some of that stuff cleared. Because this ordinance is long. It’s involved. I spent a lot of time on it, but ordinances always end up with, you know, there’s always like one more little thing to fix, so.

Ms. Marshall, Could you give us fax number, please.

Ms. Tallian, Yes, 762-7525.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, thank you.

Ms. Marshall, And could we have your phone number also?

Ms. Tallian, Yes, 764-0434.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, thank you.

Mr. Mahnic, If a man answers, hang up.

Ms. Marshall, Not in my case.

Mr. Breitzke, Karen has been quick to respond, even before you came on this board. So are there any other matters before us?

There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

s/Kevin Breitzke, President

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