PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
February 23, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Rick Burns, Frank Mahnic, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke. Those members absent were Robert Detert, Commissioner Harper and Dan Whitten. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Patricia S. Gibson, Attorney Karen Tallian and Fred Siminski.

Mr. Burns moved to continue the reading of the January 12 and February 9, 2005 until the next meeting. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Mr. Breitzke stated we are going to go onto Pending Business. He stated normally a public hearing is closed at this point, however, our petitioner has augmented the notice list with seven more names. He stated the public hearing will be open to those individuals. He stated bearing in mind we are making a recommendation for rezoning. He stated after this it will go to the Commissioners regardless of how we vote tonight, whether it is favorable or unfavorable recommendation or no recommendation. He stated it goes to the County Commissioners and there will be another public hearing on the rezoning. He stated the three County Commissioners make the final decision.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the conduct of a public hearing.

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. (Con’t form the 2-9-05 meeting. The public hearing is open to those not officially notified for this case.)

Todd Leeth stated I am here on behalf of Moser Enterprises and Don Hedg who are the petitioners in this matter. He stated joining me is Jim Dunbar from the Duneland Group Engineering firm


in Chesterton. He stated as you indicated on February 12 we conducted a public hearing. He stated following that hearing there was some concerns raised by the public. He stated we held a meeting with the neighbors who were in attendance on the 12th of January. He stated we returned to the Plan Commission on the 9th of February with an agreement for written commitments addressing what we thought were some of the concerns raised at the public hearing and at our private meeting with the neighbors. He stated at that time there was a question regarding notices and we have supplemented the list based upon an error perceived. He stated also we were provided with information that there were additional property owners who had acquired property within the notice area but whose names were not on the tax records, which we rely upon when we search for the property owners list. Mr. Leeth stated constitutionally, however, I think that we are duty bound to give them the opportunity to speak as well. He stated I have provided Mr. Thompson prior to tonight’s meeting a list of the seven owners who we think should be given the opportunity to speak again. He stated it is my understanding that the hearing tonight is a reopened hearing. He stated in other words, this is a continuation of the hearing from January 12 and because of that I was going to be very brief in my comments with regards to this petition and save my opportunity to answer any questions that the new members of the public might have that were not addressed in my brief comments. He stated we have asked for in this petition to rezone 150 acres of land from the RR, Rural Residential zoning classification to the R-1, Single Family zoning classification. He stated if you will recall we spoke in great detail on January 12 about the location of this property and the fact that it physically touches the existing corporate boundaries of the Town of Chesterton. He stated this petition is contingent upon the extension of utilities from the Town of Chesterton to service the property with sanitary sewer. He stated municipal water will also be provided by the private water company of the Indiana American Water Company. He stated so this will have the public utilities that are frankly, anticipated by your Comprehensive Plan from 2001 where this property is intended to be developed, in my opinion, as the R-1 zoning classification. He stated your Comprehensive Plan shows this as an Urban Fringe Development. He stated we recited the paragraph that defines that and it says that the “anticipated density in that area is four to six units per acre.” He stated the proposal the Mr. Hedg is brining to you shows lots sizes on the north 50 acres of no less than 11,000 square feet and on the south side, the 100-acre parcel, no less than 13,000 square feet, which would provide for 267 homes on the 150 acres. He stated the density gross density calculation therefore, is less than two units per acre, half of your own Comprehensive Plans suggested range of density’s between four and six units per acre. He stated in addition we are complying with


the open space requirements of the new County Open Space Ordinance with regard to wetland and the open space areas that we have set-aside on the preliminary conceptual drawings that have been circulated. He stated those drawings show 24% open space. He stated your ordinance requires 20% open space. He stated again we are exceeding the minimum standard requirements for open space. He stated in addition because we are providing the open space we are entitled under that ordinance to an intensity bonus to recapture the lots lost due to the set aside. He stated we are foregoing that by the written commitments that specifically state that 11,000 square foot and 13,000 square foot provisions that I outlined before and that is all set out in the agreement for written commitments. Mr. Leeth stated Mr. President that is in a thumbnail the petition that is before you. He stated I recognize that we have somewhat glossed over much of the evidence and without objection I am going to rely upon the evidence that was presented on January 12, 2005 and I would be happy to answer any of the questions that the seven members might bring forward when the public hearing has taken place.

Mr. Breitzke stated the first person on the list is Henedina Macalbalitan of 1546 Spyglass Circle. He asked is anyone here from that family or to represent her? He stated not seeing anyone is there anyone here for Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Mueller? Mr. Breitzke asked is Ms. Marcia Brady was present?

Marcia Brady stated I live at 297-1 E. 1050 N. She stated I have a couple of concerns. She stated one is that CR 1050 is not exactly a thoroughfare for 260 homes. She stated my main concern is when you get up to SR 49 you can’t turn left. She stated you have to go through Lake Erie Land Development. She stated we are a two car family country and you are talking about 260 homes and over 500 cars. She asked are we all headed left into Lake Erie Land Development and are we going to widen CR 1050 N. later on? She stated I am real close to there where he is talking about and I don’t see how he is going to handle that kind of traffic coming through there. She stated if they responded to that before I would like to know what their response was at that time. She asked have they talked to the Town of Chesterton about the sewer and do they have a commitment from Chesterton for annexing them and having the utilities? She asked if that doesn’t happen is this all null and void?

Mr. Breitzke asked if Mr. William West was present. No one was present for Mr. West.

Carolyn Trepper stated I am on the Board of Directors for Windermere Woods Property Owners Association. She stated I live at 315 Windermere Dr. She stated I would like to state that our


subdivision is not against development of this property. She stated it is against the rezoning from RR to R-1. She stated if they would just like to stay within the current RR zoning we would never remonstrate against them and we would actually support them and support your duty to fulfill the laws of the building commission. She stated I would like to place our arguments on the Indiana Legislative Code Guiding. She stated it is Indiana Code 36-7-4-603 Section 603, which gives you Plan Commission members guidelines as to when you should or shouldn’t consider and make changes in the zone. She stated so you have an obligation to actually follow these guidelines. She stated there are five. She stated I will read Section 603. She stated “In preparing and considering proposals under the 600 series the Plan Commission and the Legislative Body shall pay regard to: 1) the Comprehensive Plan.” She stated we agree that in reading the Comprehensive Plan for this area that the developer is in compliance with what the Comprehensive Plan is. She stated one out of the five they comply with and you would support them. She stated No. 2 “The current conditions and the character of the current structures and the uses in each districts.” She stated the current structures are single family and so that the structures in each district are single family but on bigger lots. She stated No. 3 “The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted.” She stated the land in this area is adapted for a buffer zone. She stated it is not considered part of the City of Chesterton. She stated the highest and best use would be one acre lots and larger to build on. She stated No. 4, “The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction.” She stated this is probably one that the developer would tend to argue that he is not bringing down property values. She stated however, I would argue that the neighboring subdivisions within a one-mile area are of higher dollar value then would ever be going into this property. She stated Windermere Woods for example, has 36 lots on 80 acres. She stated that is the direct subdivision to the south of the proposed property. She stated Sand Creek Phase 4 is the direct subdivision to the Northwest of the proposed property. She stated it is zoned R-1, however, they are not squeezing full use of R-1 out of it and the lots exceed one acre in size even though they are on city water and sewer. She stated they have the knowledge that the best use is not to get 11,000 square foot lots out of it but rather to have one-acre and larger lots. She stated the houses in Phase 4 of Sand Creek I would dare say average in excess of one and a half million dollars. She stated the average in Windermere Woods is between $300,000 on the low end and $750,000 on the high end. She stated the subdivision directly to the East, which is Country Creek I am not sure on how many lots are in there but it has average lot sizes of in access of 2.5 acres per lot size. She stated a person can’t sell their


lots for $90,000 for 2.5 acres if the border right behind it has five small lots backing up to the one four acre wooded parcel in County Creek. She stated that would be an economic hardship for that developer to sell his remaining lots. She stated No. 5, probably the strongest of them all, “The responsible development and growth.” She stated give them the type of growth that is already out there. She stated I feel that it is irresponsible and imprudent to develop these lots in under one acre lot size. She stated the structures of the roads do not deem it feasible at all. She stated an extra 500 plus cars will be nothing but dangerous. She stated there is a hump in the terrain that needs to be mandated to be reduced in size so that the egress and the ingress to this subdivision would allow visibility to the west. She stated if you have been personally to the site and you stand where they want to make the entrance and you look west. She stated you will see nothing but an increase in the elevation of the hill and cars will be flying down there going over the speed limit flying over the top and after we have had a few wrecks then it will be shown that the narrow, narrow forty-foot paved road…and I do not believe that CR 1050 N. is any wider than 30-feet of pavement. She stated Mr. Schelling from the Highway Department could comment on that. She stated it is not equipped to handle any more traffic. She stated once we get Coffee Creek and Morgan’s Corner with their hundreds of houses in there it will be mandatory to widen that. She stated I do not believe that is responsible planning for that in advance. She stated I do not know that there is enough easement and once this is already in then the City or the County will have to pay to have that road widening. She stated I also believe that the current layout of the subdivision is not taking into consideration police and fire protection in that there are long distances between turnarounds for the fire department trucks. She stated safety should be our number one concern for your obligation. She stated I implore you to do the right thing tonight and vote against rezoning this property to R-1. She stated please leave it RR.

David Appel stated I am an attorney practicing in Porter County and I am here on behalf of Pamela Smith who resides at 303 E. 1050 N., which basically puts her adjacent to the land that would be subject to this development should it be approved. He stated she has a number of concerns. He stated Pam built on her property back in 1997. He stated back in that period of time Jackson Township for those who were here and around at that point there were essentially no houses on CR 250 E. south of CR 1050 N. He stated the subdivision that incorporates Paul Revere Dr. is immediately to the north and CR 250 E. abuts Sand Creek immediately to the east was not there. He stated Windermere Woods was not there. He stated probably 50% to 70% of the houses on CR 1050 N. were not there during that period of time. He


stated during the 30 years of that time this land and all the surrounding land was and has been zoned RR. He stated during that 30-year period we all know that the land has developed in a very orderly and organized manner. He stated there has been no problem with developing all of the adjacent property within a three to four square mile area as RR zoning. He stated people go to the country but my client says because they want to live in the country and they want to see the animals and they want to have the space. He stated if they want to live in the city then they go and buy a house within city limits and that is where they live. He stated it is a personal preference. He stated Pam’s concern is that probably within the three square mile that encompasses this 150 acres if you drove around and added up the houses that are there, there probably aren’t 270 houses there now. He stated this rezoning proposes to put 270 houses on 150 acres. Mr. Appel stated it is radically different than the character of not only right here but of anything that exists in Jackson Township today or in Liberty Township. He stated it is true that if we look at just the fringe part of the language in the Comprehensive Plan that Mr. Leeth recites we can talk about enhanced density’s and this that and the other. He stated but that doesn’t change one reality. He stated there are 43,560 square feet in an acre. He stated and they are talking about putting lots here on ¼ of that land. He stated so we are reducing lot size by four times. He stated that is what they are asking to do. He stated I am not sure if CR 1050 N. is 30-feet wide. He stated when you have a high school kid going to CHS in the morning pass you at 65 mph going down 1050 N. on that narrow of a road it is extremely dangerous. He stated if you figure, I believe the demographic study that are done indicate two cars per family and an average of two trips per day for each of those cars. He stated that means that we are going to put by my math, 1080 additional trips on that road when this is developed with no improvements to the road. He stated unfortunately in improving Coffee Creek immediately to the west the Town of Chesterton overlooked improving the character of CR 1050 N. He stated we have a huge problem there. He stated I have spoken to my client on the phone earlier and one of the things that we talked about was Mr. Biddinger’s comment about “If you don’t buy the view you can’t complain when it changes.” He stated I agree with him and my client agrees with him up to a point. He stated the point is this when you went to buy land in RR zoning you are relying on the fact that there are officials in the county that have planned that zoning so that what you are going to look at is going to be part of that RR zoning. He stated there is a reliance interest there. He stated this is not what they are going to do here. He stated I think if this was a conventional RR subdivision my client would likely not oppose it. He stated she would want to see that it had proper standards impose for the development etc.


etc. but the concern about the view so to speak and the intensity and risk that go on it would not be there. He stated she is also concerned about some of the generic evils that go along with population density such as animals running loose, potential vandalism and so on and so forth. Mr. Appel stated typically when someone comes before this Body on a rezoning request one of two things is going on. He stated either it is due to a change in the area that is immediately adjacent to the land that someone wants to rezone. He stated such as the farmland on the east end of town that got developed into the Market Place. He stated the other typical reason that someone comes in on a rezone is because there is something about the character of the land that makes it unsuitable to develop for the zoning that it has imposed on. He stated neither of those apply here. He stated there is no demonstrated need for a greater housing density. He stated you have Coffee Creek Subdivision up the road and there was an article in the Chesterton Tribune within the last seven to ten days, which specifically referenced the fact that the sale of residential lots, which by the way are roughly the same size as what Mr. Hedg wants to put in, is languishing and there is no interest. He stated there is no unmet demand for housing in Jackson Township. He stated there is no evidence that the subject property is not suitable for RR and an RR subdivision. He stated there is a concern about dedication of green space or that the green space set aside to a nature conservancy. He stated my client feels that this is set aside can be encompassed to the conservancy headed by Mr. Read or some other Body just as well in the context of an RR subdivision as it can be in the context of an R-1 subdivision. He stated there is no argument why this can’t all be accomplished in an RR. He stated the potential for annexation; I think when we look at the potential for annexation you have to look at what happened in the Chesterton area over the course of the last 30 to 35 years. He stated Chesterton basically has not annexed to the east. He stated they could have annexed Graham Woods years ago but they didn’t. He stated it took them over 20 years to get sewers from the Town of Chesterton to Graham Woods. He stated there is a nice mix there. He stated you have RR zoning in Graham Woods butting up to the more dense residential zoning in Duneland Cove. He stated the same thing applies if you go down CR 250 E. by the Paul Revere Road subdivision. He stated you have Sand Creek butting up against an RR subdivision there on CR 250 E. and Burdick Road. He stated there is no reason why that same kind of natural mix can’t occur here where the RR zoning in Jackson Township is continued up to the town boundaries and the town can develop its own higher density housing within the town limits that already exist. Mr. Appel stated the rezone in fact would probably stimulate annexation, which I don’t think under the standards that were recited by Ms. Trepper comes under the code. He stated if you


run the numbers on the subdivision there was figure that the average land and home cost is in the nature of $280,000 in Porter County Indiana. He stated if you run the math on that for the 270 homes roughly that they are talking about here that comes out to somewhere between $77,000,000 and $78,000,000 on 150 acres of ground. He asked what town isn’t going to pick that for annexation. He stated the problem being that what Mr. Leeth is seeking to do here on behalf of his client is going to stimulate a lot of other people being in that end of the Town of Chesterton who are oppose to it and who really want no part of it. He stated the septic versus the city sewer. He stated there has been no evidence here that this ground is not suitable for conventional residential subdivision. He stated I know it is considered proper now days to bash residential septic systems but in my case, for example, I have lived in Jackson Township for 25 years and in three different homes and never had a system failure. He stated if I had to count how many dozens or even hundreds of times during that twenty-five years the City of Valparaiso’s plant or the Town of Chesterton’s plant or the other cities plants have gone on bypass and pumped raw sewage in the Little Calumet River or Salt Creek or whatever there would be no comparison. He stated good septic systems work. He stated my client believes that the responsibility of the Plan Commission is to maintain the character and the integrity of Jackson Township as it has evolved under the County’s zoning plan for the last 30 years. He stated this is what the people want and this is why all these people are here.

Lawrence Janowski stated I would like Bruce Snyder to speak on my behalf.

Bruce Snyder stated and I am from the Town of Porter. He stated I am a State Certified Real Estate Appraiser and I am also involved with zoning issues in my community. He stated I was contacted by the opponents of the zoning change to investigate the affects on area market values if the proposed rezoning and subdivision were to go through. He stated I too am going to cite Indiana Code 36-7-4. He stated No. 2 states, “Current conditions and character of current structures and uses in each district.” He stated Mr. Janowski’s parcel is in the adjacent subdivision called Country Creek, which is just east of there. He stated the smallest lot in that subdivision is 1¼ acre by its nature and by its design and even by its name it denotes a country rural setting. He stated it could be argued that the zoning change and the eventual developing of this type of subdivision would greatly restrict his use of his property in there by the fact that it would be less attractive, less appealing and would have a difficult time as far as marketability would be concerned. He stated all other surrounding properties are rural in nature and


country also. He stated No. 3 says, “Most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted.” He stated this district has naturally adapted to larger parcels and it is obvious to anyone that it is a major jump. He stated actually it is kind of a leapfrog jump to put a high-density subdivision into this zoned rural district. He stated this type of proposal would have a negative affect on land use because there is a lack of consistency, compatibility and land use sequence. He stated normal sequence or flow would be from a more intense land use to a less intense land use and that would be a gradual affect and you don’t have that here because you are going from an intense and you are leapfrogging over rural area to a high-density land use. He stated No. 4 says, “The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction.” He stated it is my belief that as a professional certified residential appraiser that when you take a rural setting and you inject high-density housing there would be an adverse net affect on the property values in that area. He stated one could say that when you consider the fact that there may be sewer coming in, we have no guarantee. He stated in fact the Chesterton Tribune on February 15 says that Chesterton has not guaranteed sewage treatment. He stated finally No.5 “You shall pay reasonable regard to responsible development and growth.” He stated I think the lack of consistency and compatibility to the other and the land use sequence, which I have already talked about, will greatly hinder responsible development and growth for this area. He stated in my profession we use the term when we look at land use we call it the highest and best use. He stated in my opinion this might be a very profitable use for somebody for this particular land here but in my opinion it is not the best use and for that reason I would be against any kind of zoning change at this time for this area.

Mr. Leeth stated Ms. Brady referred to and raised the issue of traffic with regard to the request. He stated as you all know this is a parcel that is already zoned residential and we are asking to have the zoning change to allow for a subdivision that would allow for the extension of sanitary sewer. He stated because of that there would certainly be more homes within this parcel. He stated the ingress and egress to the subdivision is at a location where there is an existing hill in the road, in CR 1050 N. He stated the developers consultants, Mr. Dunbar, has met with the County Highway Department and explored with them the possibility of taking that hill and shaving it down six or seven feet to provide for the site distances that are necessary to have that new intersection have the visibility that is necessary. He stated not only will that improve the visibility of the intersection that is proposed at the location of the new subdivision but it will also make the traffic safety of the existing traffic that is there today more safe as well by


removing an existing impediment to the safe movement of traffic. He stated with regard to road improvements as you know any subdivision and if this is approve we will return to the Plan Commission with a plat and ask for your approval of a subdivision. He stated at that time we will have to provide for additional right-of-way, perhaps road widening within the confines of the frontage that we have on CR 1050 N. He stated we will have to provide for acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes, tapers and whatever the entrance plan that is set forth in Ordinance 90-3, the design specifications and the County Highway Department require of us we will have to do that and that is something that Mr. Dunbar and his organization and the Highway Department and TAC work out in the details of all of that. He stated this is what will happen at the next step. He stated with regard to the width of the county road the intersection at CR 1050 N. and SR 49; those things are simply beyond the control of my client or the owner of the land or frankly any subdivider. He stated that is under the jurisdiction of the County Highway Department and the State Department of Transportation. He stated we can’t control how that is handled. He stated Ms. Brady also indicated or questioned Chesterton and annexation questions. He stated this is an aerial photograph of our property in question here today. He stated this is the 700 acres in the northern 50 acres and this is CR 1050 N. He stated the existing boundary of the Town of Chesterton is crosshatched in this area. He stated as you can see there are subdivisions outside of the jurisdiction, Wyndham Prairie, Burdick Place. He stated Windermere Woods Subdivision is here and Mr. Grant’s subdivision, Country Creek, is in this location and not crosshatched either. He stated as you can see we have a lot of subdivision both inside the town boundaries and outside the town boundaries. He stated as I indicated we actually touch in the northwest corner of the parcel in question. He stated however, because we are in such close proximity to the Town of Chesterton under State Law Chesterton cannot annex this property because we do not have enough connection with the existing town. He stated State Law requires that the perimeter boundaries of annexed territory be one-eighth contiguity with their existing town limits. He stated we don’t have that. He stated so the town cannot annex this property today without taking a larger parcel in the annexed territory. He stated this is something that they are not willing to do. He stated with regard to sewers, I have provided you with a letter from the Town of Chesterton and the sewer utility director and I am going to let that letter speak for itself. He stated it did indicate that there has been some agreement by the Service Utility Board to allow Mr. Dunbar and his group on behalf of the petitioner to conduct a feasibility study which will then hopefully resolve issues so that this property can be serviced by sanitary sewer. He stated if it cannot be serviced by sanitary


sewer and you approve the rezoning, and frankly even the subdivision; there is no way that we could build a lot in this subdivision because we could not get a septic permit. He stated Mr. Thompson and his office would not issue a building permit unless we had the availability of sanitary sewer or a septic permit from the Health Department. He stated we could not receive a septic permit because we would not have an acre of usuable ground or suitable soil. He stated yes it is contingent upon the extension of utilities from the Town of Chesterton when the Service Utility Board from the town ultimately makes that determination in the future. He stated Ms. Trepper on behalf of the Property Owners Association spoke against the rezoning indicating that they would be in favor of development of this property if it were done in the rural residential one acre types of development. He stated that is going to require that the property, whoever develops this property, if they would do it without utilities, would develop it in that manner without the extension of utilities. He stated I don’t believe that this is a responsible development of this property given its proximity to sanitary sewer. He stated I am going to go through later in my responses the Code Section that she referred to and that has to do with Section 603. He stated Ms. Trepper also indicated that she felt the internal roadways in the proposed subdivision were dangerous and didn’t allow for the safe movement of emergency vehicles and so forth. He stated I can tell you that the internal roadway system as I understand meets the County Codes. He stated there is a block length requirement under your code. He stated if it doesn’t meet that requirement then we simply have to change the conceptual layout of the road system or ask for a variance at that time. He stated in my recollection of reviewing the conceptual plan there simply was not an indication where there was any long cul-de-sac unlike Country Creek to our east that has a single road that runs a great distance in cul-de-sacs at the end. He stated our subdivision does not have such a long block length that would impose a danger to any traffic, commercial, emergency or otherwise. Mr. Leeth stated Ms. Trepper indicated that she felt that this property was a buffer zone to the Town of Chesterton. He stated that is not what your Comprehensive Plan calls it. He stated the Comprehensive Plan calls it an urban fringe area and sets out in very detail what that means. He stated it doesn’t refer to a buffer zone at all. He stated if you look at the aerial map this is not a buffer area. He stated it is connected to the Town of Chesterton in the corner. He stated it is in the Town of Chesterton’s Comprehensive Plan too. He stated the Town in their Comprehensive Plan just as you have done in yours have recognized that it is going to be at some point in time part of the Town of Chesterton serviced by their utilities and serviced by their infrastructure and capital and non-capital services in the future. He stated


that is why they have incorporated into their planning zone appropriately so under the State Law. Mr. Leeth stated during under the initial hearing back on January 12 I indicated to you I also felt that it was important and responsible development for you and the county as a matter of public policy to develop property in order to preserve land for the future. He stated land is a limited natural resource. He stated we as a growing society require that we provide homes for our children and for others who come to our county, wish to stay in our county and work in our factory’s. He stated those are the needs that we have that clients, such as Mr. Hedg, provide housing stock in a supply demand economy. He stated in this 150 acres Mr. Hedg is proposing 267 homes. He stated if we develop this property as Ms. Trepper suggests we are going to have 80 homes there. He stated in five or six or seven years that housing stock is gone and Mr. Hedg or one of his colleagues in the building industry are going to have look for the next 150 acres. He stated however, if Mr. Hedg is allowed to develop this property with 267 homes then that housing stock will last three times longer and the next farm doesn’t have to be developed for three times longer than that. He stated in my opinion if you develop property under the guidelines that Mr. Hedg is proposing that is responsible development. He stated it is not a dense development. He stated he is not jam packed in there, as some would let you believe. He stated as your comprehensive plan suggests we are talking about four to six units per acre. He stated we have less than two. He stated half of the low end of the suggested range. He stated this is not a dense development. He stated Mr. Appel spoke on behalf of Ms. Smith and part of the comments that Mr. Snyder raised when he spoke on behalf of the Jankowski’s talked about property values. He stated I found it interesting that Mr. Appel indicated when he was speaking that his client built in 1977, which was prior in time to Windermere Woods. He stated there is no suggestion that Ms. Smith’s property values were devalued because Windermere Woods was developed and I suggest to you that there is a similar analogy that there will be no diminution in value in Windermere Woods if this proposal proceeds as well. Mr. Leeth stated there is another point that needs to be made that Mr. Appel was referring to density issues. He stated it is important to note that while we are preserving the 11,000 and 13,000 minimum requirements, which is a concession from what we would otherwise be allowed to have under the R-1 development and the County Open Space Ordinance. He stated we also are preserving that open space, approximately 24%. He stated if this were to be annexed under the Town of Chesterton and developed you would have 9,500 square foot lots and currently no open space requirements by the Town of Chesterton. He stated we are providing for that open space and we are preserving the wetland areas within that open space in a responsible manner and I


suggest to you again that is responsible development. He stated Mr. Appel also suggests to you that his client relied upon the RR zoning classification. He stated I can tell you that the case law in the State of Indiana is replete with case after case that holds that the law is that you cannot rely upon your zoning. He stated you do not have a property interest in your zoning unless you put your property to that use. He stated those residents, Ms. Smith, is no exception had placed her property to use in a residential manner. He stated that is not inconsistent with the proposal that is before you. He stated we have been referring to this Comprehensive Plan tonight. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is also spelled out in the Indiana Code. He stated as Ms. Trepper referred to Section 603 I want to refer to the section in the Indiana Code that talks about the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that is covered in what is referred to as the 500 Series. He stated in Section 503 of the 500 Series there is a detail as to what is required to be included in your Comprehensive Plan. He stated your Comprehensive Plan with the assistance of HNTB, your consultants, guided you through the process to comply with Section 503 in the 500 Series. He stated this is the Comprehensive Plan that is the guide to the future land use in Porter County. He stated what Mr. Appel is asking you to do is not look at the future, which is the Comprehensive Plan, but he is asking you to look at the past, the 1983 Zoning Ordinance. He stated I suggest to you that a lot has changed since 1983. He stated that is why you saw fit to study and to look to the future and that is what the Comprehensive Plan does. He stated dictated by State Statue follow through with study after study resulting in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, looking to the future that says this land is in the urban fringe and should be developed with high density. He stated Mr. Hedg comes along sees this piece of property places it under contract, hires Mr. Dunbar and they prepare this plan, which is far from the density’s that are being suggested in your own Comprehensive Plan. He stated it is not high density. He stated Mr. Appel also indicated that this proposal would stimulate annexation. He stated if you would recall on January 12 I indicated to you that that was indeed a possibility but I also proposed to you an alternative that it might in fact slow down annexation. He stated the answer to the question however, is we simply don’t know whether this will spur or hindered or slow down annexation. He stated it may very well do so and it may not. He stated lastly Mr. Appel indicated that he felt that septic systems were a fine and proven method to handle sanitary waste. He stated I think that environmentalists will generally agree that if you can avoid it we should encourage development on sanitary sewers rather than septic systems. He stated but I don’t have to rely upon environmentalists or on my own opinion. He stated your own comprehensive plan says that as well in its Objectives. He stated it is to encourage development


in the urban fringe areas on sanitary sewers rather than allowance on septic systems. He stated your own comprehensive plan says that. He stated lastly Mr. Snyder appeared on behalf of the Jankowski’s and referred to lot sizes and compared lot sizes with Country Creek and the proposed development. He stated he said it could be argued that our development would impinge upon the enjoyment of the Jankowski’s and their lot but he didn’t say it would. He stated I simply don’t believe that the development of the proposed subdivision in any way is going to affect the property values in the neighboring properties. He stated Mr. Hedg, as you know, has developed two subdivisions in Porter County. He stated one of those was St. Andre’s Subdivision. He stated Mr. Hedg has with the assistance of one of his builders in that subdivision provided me with some photographs of homes within that subdivision. He stated with your permission I am going to circulate those to you. He stated we have a series of photographs and there are twelve of them. He stated the lowest priced home in the selection that we have for you is $400,000 and the highest value home in the same subdivision is $1.5 million. He stated the point is that within one development you can have a wide variety and a significant range of property values. He stated one doesn’t impinge upon the other. He stated that differential is 375% difference between the low and the high in the sampling that we have provided to you. He stated they simply do not impact on the property values on one another. He stated the other thing that is interesting to note is you might have gathered that I appear in front of you from time to time on many different cases. He stated I have over the years had the opportunity to speak with appraisers and conduct some research of my own with regard to property value issues from one use to the other. He stated I am not accustomed to residential subdivisions having claims that they will impact the property values of other home owners. He stated typically this is an argument made when I am representing a developer or a property owner who is proposing a commercial or an industrial type of development that those types of uses will adversely impact the property values of the homes in the vicinity. He stated here there is a suggestion that this type of product in Mr. Hedg’s development is going to impact other residential homes in close proximity. He stated I have an article from the appraisal journal, which is published by the Appraisal Institute from January of 1996. He stated it is a study by a gentleman from a Chicago suburb of low-income housing and its impact on residential property values. He stated I am not going to go into great detail of this article but far from it Mr. Hedg is certainly not having any development of a low-income development. He stated we know that the quality of homes that Mr. Hedg has developed in his other properties is far from that. He stated for the sake of this study it was a study on the impact of low-income


housing on adjacent housing. He stated there were four properties that were studied. He stated in Streamwood, Illinois in Gurnee, Illinois in Lake Zurich, Illinois and in Zion, Illinois. He stated the conclusion that the author comes to say, “A dampening affect of 3% to 5% of the market values of residential property values adjacent to low-income and very low-income housing was expected however, there was no evidence of this. Instead evidence showed market values consistent with not adjacent to low-income units and values rising at rates consistent with the community as a whole. A dampening affect on investment in new development in the immediate area was also expected. There was no evidence of this either. Instead developers are constructing and are selling good quality single family housing right next door to very low-income buildings.” He stated my point is the empirical studies that I have reviewed in my research find no correlation between housing devaluations with the development of other housing in relationship to that. He stated even if it is low income housing is the result of that study.

Ms. Brady asked what size lots are in St. Andre? She stated in regards to the hill being shaved by the Porter County Highway Department who is going to pay for that?

Ms. Trepper stated she would like to read a letter to put into the record from another adjoining homeowner that was not notified until today.

Mr. Breitzke stated you can submit the letter for the record but please don’t read it.

At this time, Ms. Trepper submitted the letter for the record.

Ms. Trepper stated I would like to address the issue of possible annexation to the Town of Chesterton. She stated we are at the county level. She stated we are not supposed to surmise what the Town of Chesterton will or won’t do. She stated if they want to annex it that is fine but my feeling from talking with members of the City and the sewer department is that they are not eager to annex anything. She stated it costs them money to annex large parcels of property like this. She stated if Mr. Hedg wants to buy adjoining property and property and property until he gets right up into the city that is a speculation that I say and encourage him to try to do. She stated it is a big financial gamble. She stated for us to say that the comprehensive plan is for this to happen anyway. She stated I don’t believe this will happen in the short run. She stated I think it will happen in the long run. She stated if you see the timeline of how lots are


being absorbed take a look at Coffee Creek. She stated that
subdivision is an albatross around the neighborhoods neck. She stated it is not being absorbed quickly. She stated there are hundreds of lots that need to be absorbed before we need to flood the market with another 267 lots. She stated I also don’t think that it is prudent to put a contract on a piece of property and say that you will buy this property if you can get it zoned R-1 and if you don’t get it zoned R-1 then you can just walk away and you will have some tax deductible expenses for the engineer. She asked what reason beyond financial greed is there to cut this into so many lots.

Mr. Appel stated I drive by St. Andre’s coming home every night. He stated my understanding is that the lots in St. Andre and minimum of one to two acres and possibly bigger. He stated we are talking about imagining these houses on lots that are one-fourth to one-eighth in size. He stated I would like to know the specific lot sizes in each of these 12 lots and the square footages of the homes. He stated if you have 6000 square foot home on 11,000 square foot lot how is that going to work. He stated I would like to know the contractual covenants submitted to this Board regarding rezoning. He stated I don’t recall reading anything in those contractual covenants that binds this developer to develop a particular price range quality of homes. He asked if there was a written commitment made to the Commission at this point regarding character of the housing to be built there. He stated I believe I read the same article and also the ordinance encouraging development that connects to sanitary but I believe that the underlying philosophical premise that was based on was that you would be connecting to a sanitary system that did not have to go on bypass whenever there was a major storm. He stated if you have to connect to a system that has to go on bypass whenever there is a major storm whatever environmental you are saving in terms of not going to septic you are giving up by a system that is polluting the public rivers. He stated you talk about looking to the future and my question to you is this. He stated I am looking to the future from the point of view of a kid who graduated from Jackson Township High School in 1968 and has seen Jackson Township develop into the future for some 36 years now. He asked if this is approved is the character of Jackson Township 36 years from now going to be as good as it is today. He stated the reliance interest I agree with you. He stated case law does not recognize that nevertheless when anybody buys they look at the zoning. He stated regarding annexation my question is it seems to me that the suggestion to the Board is that they should approve this because it is preferable to annexation to Chesterton. He stated if we are trying to go to the Plan Commission to approve it because of the fear of annexation from Chesterton where is there any of this before the Commission that


annexation of this or adjacent property has ever even been discussed at the Town of Chesterton government level. He stated on preserving open space I would like to when was the last time you drove through Jackson Township and if you have any figures on how many thousands of acres of open space currently exists in Jackson Township following 40 years of residential development out there. He asked do you have any figures on the open acreage still available? He asked would it be more responsible in your opinion to see Jackson Township continue to develop on one acre lots so that some day when it is all filled up it is all filled up with the kind of housing that is there or instead have it all filled up with the kind of development your client wants to propose. He stated my last comment is on the devaluation of property. He stated I question based on articles that I have read whether it is fair to compare, you made a comment regarding comparing my clients home to Windermere. He stated that is like comparing apples and apples. He stated Ms. Smith resides on two acres. He stated the Windermere lots to my knowledge from having done some work for that subdivision are basically one to three acre parcels. He stated so we have apples and apples. He stated to compare the Smith property to an 11000 square foot lot isn’t that like comparing camels to parakeets.

Mr. Snyder stated I just want to draw your attention to the land use sequence here and we are referring to particularly no. 5 in Indiana Code 36-7-4-603. He stated the natural tendency is to go to high intensity land use gradually to lower intensity. He stated what they want to attempt to do is going to a higher intensity than the Town of Chesterton. He stated you are going to leap frog over rural area into a high intensity area.

Mr. Leeth stated St. Andre is in fact in a rural residential zoning classification, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. He stated the hill road improvements that I referred to the shaving of that hill would be at the developers cost. He stated there would be no taxpayer expenditures to do that whatsoever. He stated Ms. Trepper was referring at one point to Coffee Creek and suggesting that we don’t need any more residential developments because we have a housing stock there. He stated I suggest to you that Coffee Creek is a very unique product and life style that they are trying to sell there. He stated the success or failure of that I will leave to your judgment. He stated Mr. Hedg and the proposal that we have is far far different than what is being proposed there and I don’t believe there is any comparison between those two types of products. He stated she also asked what my clients’ motivation was in bringing this petition to you and she referred to financial greed. He stated greed is a negative connotation word. He stated there is no doubt that my client comes before you with


a financial interest in developing the property. He stated what we have proposed to you is in my opinion a very responsible development that meets all of the requirements of Section 603 that the remonstrators have referred to. He stated Mr. Appel suggests to you that or questions the lot sizes in the development. He stated earlier on I had provided to each of you a drawing with a key map that shows the different lot sizes. He stated as I have said earlier, we have on the north end lots with a minimum of 11,000 square feet, on the south side 13,000 square feet. He stated there are a significant number a high percentage of those that are even greater than that in the 14,000 to 16,000 square foot range and greater as well. He stated our commitment to you is to increase the minimum lot sizes and hit those minimum lot sizes of 11,000 and 13,000 on the north and the south respectively. He stated with regard to the quality of homes we recognize that the lot sizes in this development are smaller and therefore the size of the homes will probably be smaller as well. He stated that goes without saying. He stated the size of the house and the size of the lot does have a significant correlation. He stated however, the commitments that we have proposed to you address several of those concerns. He stated we heard those on January 12 and we heard those when we met with the neighbors on the 27th of February at the motel and we incorporated those into the agreement for written commitments. He stated specifically those are a provision to address that fact that we would have restrictive covenants with an architectural review committee that would require and mandate that there would be quality exterior building materials. He stated brick, stucco and stone with no vinyl or aluminum siding allowed. He stated in addition we would have some screening obligations that are set forth in detail in the agreement. He stated we would provide that there would be on certain lots no outside buildings or accessory buildings. He stated we are also providing that we would mandate that we would have sewers to the subdivision provided by the Town of Chesterton and that we would have sidewalks. He stated those are the kinds of things that we have set forth in detail in the agreement for written commitments to provide that there would be quality housing within the development. He stated I am not asking you to approve this petition based upon the fear that sometime the Town of Chesterton will annex this property. He stated I am suggesting to you that that possibility is there but I don’t have to in my opinion express to you or impinge upon you the requirement or suggestion that you should do it because if Chesterton does it then it could be worse. He stated I don’t have to do that because your own Comprehensive Plan suggests that this is developed in the manner that we are proposing. He stated frankly in a manner that could be as much as three times denser than is being proposed under your own Comprehensive Plan. He stated so don’t approve this


petition because of the fear of annexation of what Chesterton could do. He stated recognize that the possibilities are there that could be developed differently, both under County jurisdiction as well as under the Town of Chesterton’s jurisdiction. He stated I promised to you that I would go through the Section 603 provisions. He stated I think I have kind of done that in my responses to the others. He stated I will simply do so if you have any questions with regards to a specific item in that code. He stated I think the petition is meritorious and deserving of your approval.

The public hearing was then closed.

Ms. Marshall stated first of all according to the letter in the Chesterton paper that somebody faxed to me you are not guaranteed sewage treatment. She stated you said that you had given staff a letter, the letter that you had from the Chesterton utility. She stated either you have it or you don’t. She asked can we have that letter read.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read the letter Steven M. Yagelski, Utility Superintendent from the Town of Chesterton. The letter is in the rezone file.

Ms. Marshall stated according to the paper it is not a guarantee sewage treatment for this proposal. She stated we are here because of rezoning. She stated we are not here on what kind of houses you are going to build. She stated I think even State Law says that you cannot ask what kind of houses they are going to be.

Mr. Breitzke stated Ms. Marshall is correct however, they could commit to a certain price range and it is very difficult to enforce.

Ms. Marshall stated the second concern I have is the trend of development. She stated the trend of development where this subdivision is going to be is for larger RR zoning. She stated this is kind of an island in the sea here with this subdivision. She stated I know that Indiana Law says that spot is not illegal so it must be legal. She stated however, I think that this is a big change from what has happened over many years in that area. She stated I think people have complied with the rules that are for RR zoning. She stated many years ago I was part of a discussion group that talked about waves of development. She stated Porter County is a growing county and when you get waves of development the first ones are just knockouts. She stated that wave of development brings money, it brings huge houses, and people come here because businessmen see the opportunity to bring


business’s here and so forth. She stated I think Porter County in the 20 years that I have been involved with planning I think that we are now not on that first wave anymore. She stated I think now we are bringing something else into the County and I cannot support your rezoning this property. She stated I think that it needs to remain RR and I think that it will fit in better to the whole what happens in that community. She stated I am going to tell you that zoning has an impact on your property. She stated I don’t see that you have demonstrated a need. She stated I don’t know that there is a need for anymore housing lots to be developed I mean this density more. She stated I don’t know that we need that. She stated I think RR will bring the density that fits in and is compatible to what that area is. Ms. Marshall stated concerning the road issue every house brings a couple of cars to the road issue. She stated people are concerned about the traffic that is generated by a proposal like this. She stated I don’t know where all of these people are going to work. She asked are they all going to work in the Chicago area. She stated I don’t know what is happening in Chesterton or in that part of the County that will demand this density to have people have houses to support their families. She stated I just don’t see that and I am sorry.

Mr. Mahnic stated money is available for any amount today. He stated banks are willing to loan you money. He stated no money down and you can get a house. He stated we have all seen that. He stated I want to say something about this Commission. He stated I am upset about the Commission when out of nine members who said they will serve the County faithfully only five show up. He stated maybe others are ill or maybe they are out of town.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have six members here tonight.

Mr. Mahnic stated the point is I can’t see why six or five people have to make some kind of recommendation to the Commissioners. He stated I think that nine people must here the story before us. He stated what we have today here is if two people say we don’t want it we are going to be back here again next meeting. He stated I think that the developer did a good job. He stated I am familiar with St. Andre. He stated we are comparing something else to St. Andre. He stated this is a little bit different concept. He stated I am familiar with this road. He stated I go back and forth on that road to my doctor and so does my wife. He stated every time I go there I take a worst chance driving there then my health. He stated it is a terrible road. He stated it is a fast road and if we are going to put another 300 homes there we are talking high school kids. He stated 50% of the seniors in high school have to have a car.


He stated we have to look at the future and we can’t react to something after it is here. Mr. Mahnic stated we have to think about this now and let reaction go later. He stated we can’t do what governments normally do. He stated the governments normally let something happen and they react to it. He stated we have to be proactive. He stated I also have to consider the health and welfare. He stated this is my first responsibility. He stated I will not make up my mind until I hear a couple of other comments. He stated in some respects, yes I think we could use something nice and in other respect you people are right. He stated you don’t want anybody building something that is not really…years ago when this was zoned was not zoned to incorporate this. He stated I like R-1 and I tell you how these things happen. He stated sometimes this Commission and I am talking way back I live out in the country. He stated for some reason 35 years it was zoned R-1. He stated every lot in that area is an acre and a quarter or more. He stated it is still R-1 but everything else around there is either RR or AG. He stated I say this Commission here has a very important job to see what is going to happen in the future and what can we do. He stated the Comprehensive Plan says that and the developer is right in saying that this meets the Comprehensive Plan but the Comprehensive Plan was not made to incorporate every little detail and every little quirk that happens to fit in here. He stated it is an overall picture. He stated right now I am going to support the developer for one reason. He stated I want to see this thing come back here, not that I support it, but I want to see it back here to say, “We need nine members over here to make that decision.” He stated when this goes to the Commissioners for rezoning the Commissioners are going to see that only five people voted on this. He stated there are nine of us here and all nine of us need to be involved so that the Commissioners can say that we had nine responsible citizens of Porter County that made this decision to us.

Mr. Read stated we do have to consider future. He stated on page 225, paragraph 17 it states, “The Porter County Plan Commission must give careful consideration to the future probable use of land in the area.” He stated it is not all based upon what is there now. He stated I think that one thing that we will all agree upon is that the objectives of a subdivider and nearby homeowners do not coincide. He stated a conflict is inherent. He stated also our Porter County Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan says, “The Land Use Plan recommends that the County adopt incentives to encourage the clustering of homes and the preservation of open space within this Land Use classification with the possibility of mandating clustering or conservation subdivisions in especially sensitive areas.” He stated this is a sensitive area since the water is perking out of the ground. He


stated you will never drain this site. He stated you will have to have a water management plan and not a drainage plan. He stated I strongly disagree with the claim that this is high density. He stated if you take the total gross area, 150 acres with 267 dwelling units, which works out to be a little less than 2 dwelling units per acre. He stated if you consider only the sites, the buildable sites, that still only goes up to 2.9 and according to our recommendations it says, “The recommended density’s are between four units per acre and six dwelling units per acre. He stated that part doesn’t fly with me. He stated I think part of the problem, especially with Mr. Grant, is that your client was talking about house and land of being between $250,000 and $350,000. He stated if you can talk to your client into raising up that target we could get by with fewer buildings and he can still make money. He stated from what I have determined from talking to various people and I have done my best to bring some concessions from the developer to meet the objections. He stated I am totally opposed to a large new subdivision going in on septic tank and well. He stated it contributes to sprawl. He stated the whole idea of concentrating houses in an inner ring around the towns is to take pressure off of the agricultural lands that are two or three or four miles away. He stated there is at any one time a market for only so many houses and the larger lot that you make requires the subdivider and any future subdivider to look farther out and there goes some more farmland. He stated now there are a couple of things, which I don’t think have been answered yet. He stated I brought this up to Bob and our Technical Advisory Committee has not looked at this. He stated I think that they should look at it with regards to the traffic situation. He stated there is no doubt that the traffic will increase. He stated it is a difference between 90 to 100 new homes or 167 new homes plus everything else that would go up along there. He stated it is no doubt in my mind that this is urban fringe. He stated it meets the definition. He stated as far as lowering property values I would like to point out to the Real Estate people here that I am sure you have heard of Trion Farms and Prairie Crossing in Illinois and you ought to look at whether those developments lowered, raised or had any affect at all on surrounding areas.

Mr. Burns stated I have the same comments of Mr. Read.

Mr. Biddinger stated I would like to comment on the traffic. He stated this is just a bit of a pet peeve of mine. He stated if you want to complain about the High School kids driving to fast, don’t complain to us complain to their parents. He stated if you want to take care of traffic problems no. 1, follow the speed limits and no. 2, obey the signs. He stated most traffic accidents occur because people are driving outside


the safe limits. He stated that is not anything that we can address on this Board. He stated I will second the comment on the farm ground. He stated I grew up on a lot that was about 140 acres. He stated that to me is a large lot. He stated I grew up on a farm in the middle of Fulton County and in fact we didn’t even have the largest farm around. He stated if you want to move to the country I suggest that you look for more than two acres. He stated that is just the way it is because somebody is going to subdivide and build them lots. He stated that is what we do with development. He stated it is infilling and it is the best use of land around. He stated I could argue either side of this. He stated I have heard the arguments on both sides and I could go either way on this particular subdivision. He asked is it out there and is it inconsistent with the use? He stated maybe a little bit. He asked is it the fringe area of Chesterton? He stated most definitely. He stated it is kind of a tough decision. He stated one thing to keep in mind if this sanitary sewer does not come through it doesn’t make any difference if it is RR or R-1. He stated the Health Department is going to tell you that it will have a minimum of a one-acre lot. He stated with that being said I guess I have to echo a lot of what Mr. Read said.

Mr. Burns asked was there a traffic study done?

Mr. Breitzke stated at this time no. He stated that would be part of the preliminary planning should this be approved by the Commissioners rezoning. He stated I would like to address a few things too. He stated we do have the Comprehensive Plan, which defines that suburban fringe. He stated to try to capture that and working on infill you have to have utilities and that kind of thing. He stated otherwise we will keep growing out and out until we hit LaPorte County. He stated this is a real concern and I have real concerns about septic fields. He stated I will tell you as Mr. Biddinger put it there are two types of septic fields, those that fail or are about to fail. He stated I want people tonight to go home and think about cleaning out their septic fields because from the environmental standpoint we have a lot of people who don’t maintain those regularly. He stated you would not be the exception. He stated they should be cleaned every two to four years. He stated they should not have enzymes dumped down them. He stated the developer pays for the roadway improvements so it is not going to be County Highway or any other funds if CR 1050 needs to be improved. He stated that is something that has to be done through the developer and agreements that need to be worked out with the County Commissioner who are in charge of the roads. He stated if we need more traffic control out there you need to be discussing that with Sheriff Reynolds. He stated we need two things out there. He


stated we need more signage and we need more speed limit signs out there. He stated on the other hand the sanitary sewer is a must. He stated if this goes through as a rezoning that is a condition. He stated it must have both water and sanitary sewer to this. He stated not one or the other but both. He stated overall it would be the best thing for public safety. He stated because even though they are one acre to three-acre home sites your insurance ratings are fairly high due to the unavailability of water supply in the immediate vicinity. He stated with water that will mean the proximity of hydrants and availability of a water supply. He stated I don’t know what is going on with the Town of Chesterton. He stated I have talked to their engineers about the commitments as far as they do have what is called waste load allocation. He stated at this time at the extent that they know they are willing to commit to that but if they don’t commit to that this is all mute. He stated the zoning is off the table. He stated that big questions come with two things as an RR development. He asked how much does the county end up getting and what kind of improvements will we be able to expect with CR 1050 N. and some of the other service roads out there? He stated as hard as this is to say a lot of the local improvements come on the backs of the new developers. He stated not on the old developments. Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to remind everybody we will make a motion and it will be a recommendation and it goes to the Commissioners. He stated there will be another public hearing and it will be up to the three of them.

Mr. Leeth stated I would like to remind the Plan Commission members and perhaps even the public might be educated as you know this is the preliminary step that would allow us then if we receive the rezoning to file for a subdivision process, which brings us right back here. He stated at that point in time, Ms. Marshall is right, then we really have to dot the “i” and cross the “t.” He stated Mr. Dunbar and his group have to do all of the engineering and so forth. He stated your ordinance provides for some of the protections and concerns that I think I heard from the Plan Commission members and it is at that step of the process. He stated the subdivision process requires that if we are proposing to be hooked on to a public or private sewer or water system we have to provide documentation from the utility indicating the ability and capacity of the utility to service the subdivision. He stated that is the requirement at the subdivision process not necessarily at the zoning process. He stated right now we are in the feasibility studies. He stated with regards to traffic also in that same subdivision process the Highway Report is required. He stated that the “Plan Commission, prior to approval of a primary plan, shall request in writing a report from the highway engineering department. He stated the county highway-engineering department shall, within five days


provide a report that addresses existing roads in and around the proposed subdivision, the assessment of the adequacy of the existing traffic and an assessment of their adequacy for the increase traffic, which will result from the proposed subdivision if it is built.” He stated those are the questions that I thing you had. He stated your ordinance specifically provides the answers to those during the subdivision process. He stated I just kind of wanted to make that clear and I know that the Plan Commission members know that but I want to make it clear the everyone recognizes that is something that has to be addressed down the road if this is a successful petition.

Mr. Mahnic moved to forward Case 05-Z-2 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation to rezone from RR to R-1 contingent on the written commitments and meeting all conditions of our ordinances. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

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

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-Z-2 to the March 9, 2005 meeting. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.

Case 05-Z-4. Petition of Bette Blum Trust, 150 N. Penna Hill Rd., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-2, General Industry to I-1, Light Industry District to allow for an office complex with parking to be located on the South side of CR 150 N. (Penna Hill Road) between CR 150 E. (Sturdy Road) and the Wal-Mart Center in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Donald Bengel stated I am an engineer and surveyor here in Porter County and I am representing the Bette Blum Trust. He stated this is on Penna Hill Road, which is a connection between Sturdy Road and Wal-Mart. He stated it is about a quarter of a mile south of Rt. 30. He stated to the Northwest of us is Graceland Cemetery and to the West is Maplewood Cemetery. He stated directly North is a veterinary clinic and adjacent to that is Sears. He stated the line between the clinic and Sears is the city corporation line, which runs down between those two parcels down Penna Hill Road to where the sketch I gave you that has the funny little things on the side and that follows the city limits.


He stated this parcel will be served by city sewer and water. He stated letters of waivers and remonstrance by annexation have been signed. He stated they will be extending water from Wal-Mart over to Sturdy Road. He stated the proposal will be to do an office complex here. He stated we are asking your consideration to downzone from I-2 to I-1.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Ms. Marshal stated I really don’t have a problem with this because of the middle one already being zoned. She asked why are you rezoning this? She asked what you are planning to do will not fit in the I-2 zoning?

Mr. Bengel stated with the I-1 we are allowed to park in the front and in I-2 you can’t.

Ms. Marshall stated so they want to go from I-2 to I-1, right?

Mr. Bengel stated to be very honest with you this is going to be annexed into the city in the near future. He stated that is why we are here.

Ms. Marshall stated just because of the parking.

Mr. Mahnic asked Mr. Bengel is your client willing to make some kind of written commitment that…because there is a lot of things that you can do in I-1. He stated what would prevent you once we recommend to the Commissioners and they approve this to I-1 that you could put something other than what you are telling us today.

Mr. Bengel stated I appreciate that Frank but we are down zoning here from I-2. He stated if you read from I-2 we could still put in offices or something a lot worse in there.

Mr. Mahnic asked what happens since we are next to Wal-Mart and somebody decides to put in an ice cream stand in there or something. He stated my point is that I would like to bottle it down to say you shouldn’t do anything that the guy who presently, Mr. Peters is able to do. He stated I don’t want Mr. Peters to come back here and say, “You rezoned that and now look what he put in, which is detrimental to my I-1.” He stated if you thing that you can do anything in I-2 then do it in I-2.


Mr. Bengel stated Mr. Peters is part of this petition. He stated normally it is the other way, where you are asking to go from residential to commercial.

Mr. Read stated I have been out there and it boggles my mind as to why it was zoned industrial in the first place. He stated it is a nice residential neighborhood. He stated there are nice trees on the site. He stated if I do vote for this rezoning I do echo what Frank said that you are going to do what you are saying you’re going to do.

Mr. Burns stated I always like to see down zoning. He stated I don’t have a problem with this at all.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no problem.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am just a little concerned about the road right-of-ways and everything as we work along this.

Mr. Bengel stated this is going to be annexed into the city. He stated it is a long process and the Planning Director is not anxious. He stated they are going to go after this again but it still takes six to eight months and my people want to move. He stated as far as right-of-way you have a bigger right-of-way in the county. He stated if we do this in the county it will be an 80-foot right-of-way and if we did it in the city it would be 25-feet.

Mr. Breitzke stated I really don’t have any problem with this but one of the recommendations that I would make is that we have joint meetings with the city in the meantime to kind of coordinate or facilitate this change.

Ms. Marshall moved to forward Case 05-Z-4 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Read stated Frank and I asked for some kind of conditions. He stated I don’t see how that would take a long time to do.

Mr. Bengel stated we are down zoning this parcel.

Mr. Biddinger stated if you want to discuss to amend the motion I suggest that you make that motion to amend the motion.




Mr. Read moved to amend the motion to include that the rezoning is contingent upon building an office complex with parking in the front yard with the site to be served by Valparaiso utilities. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which failed due to a lack of a majority vote.

The first motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard before the County Commissioners on March 15, 2005 hearing. The meeting will start at 6:30 p.m.

Case 05-M-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. (Con’t from 2-9-05 mtg.)

Mr. Breitzke stated I have passed out the most current draft copy. He stated I just got comments from Larry Osterholz from the DNR within the last day or two. He stated those are incorporated with a couple of other comments that we have looked at and addressed and they are in red through these pages. He stated one of the things that I did do was there was a reference to drainage ways and waterways. He stated I just removed waterways because they are kind of used interchangeably. He stated they are the same definition and just refer to everything as a drainage way. He stated on page 3 the definitions were the thing that Larry had the most comments about. He stated Bob and I met this morning and went through some of these and talked about them. He stated it starts with the definition of Drainage Way; definition of Permit; definition of Erosion Control Inspector; definition of Land Disturbing Activity. He stated on page 4 there are more definitions. He stated on page 4 I also identified TAC, the Technical Advisory Committee. He stated on page 8, Larry suggested if vegetative stabilization cannot be achieved at the close of construction season instead of at the close where we are a little bit more specific. He stated likewise, 13 was reframed to be a little bit more specific and 15 very specific giving some idea when the optimum times for seeding were instead of just generally spring and fall. He stated there are some suggestions on dates when they plant grass. He stated on page 15 we replaced the word “incident” with “incidental.”

Ms. Marshall asked are we seeing this for the first time tonight?

Attorney Tallian stated what you are getting here are red comments from the DNR. She stated it was just recently sent down to DNR to look at and they added those things.

Mr. Breitzke stated the ordinance in its form was fine. He stated there were some commas missing that we added and things in red that use see that we are trying to clean up as we forward it to the Commissioners.

Geoff Blanco stated I live at 97 N. Tower Road, Valparaiso. He stated I am very much in favor for any ordinance associated with soil erosion and water management. He stated if there is anything that can be done to tighten this and require developers to do things like deploy erosion, retention barriers during development and build retention and detention ponds prior to denuding the landscape where erosion can simply go into the waterways with no barriers whatsoever. He stated these things need to be put in the plan now so that we don’t have these continuing situations that we have now.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think that the Board is aware of it but we had no enforcement in the County when it came to erosion control. He stated that has really been under the control of Soil and Water along with the State Department of Natural Resources. He stated they have the ability to actually take action legal or otherwise against property owners. He stated Soil and Water sometimes acts as their agent. He stated for many years it seems like it is going back to the Building Commissioner. He stated the Plan Commission is getting beat up because after all it is a development in Porter County. He stated there has been some new measures down State as far as the water quality rules are concerned that are giving direction for more local control and rule on these matters. He stated we might as well grab the steer by the horns.

The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Burns stated I really don’t have a problem with this. He stated I just have one question in regards to silt fencing. He asked what type of silt fencing can be used with this ordinance?

Mr. Breitzke stated the ordinance isn’t specific to that. He stated we are working on the details because coincident with this we will have something in the order of fact sheets or direction as development comes in. He stated this is the standard of installation of silt fence. He stated they are available out there and they will be consistent with current DNR recommendations.

Mr. Burns stated I see usually straw and I have seen stone being used.




Mr. Breitzke stated this is something that we need to look at specific to the soil types and the sites.

Mr. Thompson stated it does refer to two manuals that are prepared by the Department of Natural Resources under the Soil Conservation Group.

Mr. Burns asked if that spells it out.

Mr. Thompson stated yes. He stated they are the Indiana Storm Water Quality manual and Erosion and Sediment Control for Individual Building Sites by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Biddinger stated Section C under definitions we don’t define erosion. He stated so we might need that as an addition or correction.

Mr. Burns stated we do and if you look at page 2.

Mr. Thompson stated it is there under “Purpose and Intent.”

Mr. Biddinger stated you have it under “Intent” but we need to have a clear definition of what erosion is under definitions.

Mr. Read stated this is long over due.

Mr. Mahnic stated I am fine with this.

Ms. Marshall asked why are we not utilizing the Federal service here in Porter County. She stated we use to 20 years ago. She stated I know a subdivision has to file with the Department of Natural Resources. She stated things that I have been associated with when we have a failed project here at the Plan Commission the Soil and Water Conservation person goes out and try’s to become a part of the solution. She asked why are we not using Chuck Walker and Harvey Nix.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have very little control over that office. He stated they have been in charge in as much as they are the ones calling Larry as much as we are calling Larry. He stated they offer some solutions but ultimately it has been up to DNR.

Ms. Marshall asked on page 3, no. 5 why are we changing that.

Mr. Thompson stated the State came up and said that they


don’t have a certification program developed yet and they did not want us to put that into our ordinance.

Ms. Marshall asked if we are going to hire a person to just do this.

Mr. Thompson stated no.

Ms. Marshall asked if it is going to be part of somebody’s job here at the Plan Commission.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is not a new job. He stated it is going to be the current people in the office. He stated it is not a new job. He stated it is an additional assignment.

Mr. Thompson stated one of the people that are going to be enforcing this is the new Code Enforcement Officer that was recently approved by the Commissioners. He stated we will be going in front of the Council for. He stated that will also be one of the requirements that he will be going out doing inspections plus other members of the Plan Commission can also. He stated on a day-to-day basis I guess we would be expecting the building inspectors coming back and informing us of sites that they have seen that do not meet it so that way staff in the Plan Commission can go out and actually cite them.

Ms. Marshall stated I think the problem right now is people promise you a lot of things verbally and it is not written down so you can’t go back to any kind of record as to what was said and then people deny it.

Mr. Biddinger stated what this also does is give the county some of the same teeth that the State has to enforce some of this and what this affectively does is multiplies the number of people who are capable of enforcing erosion problems in a subdivision. He stated it gives us some ability and some teeth with some of the fines to actually not only say that this is the law but actually give us some enforcement to make it happen.

Ms. Marshall stated that is just money. She stated it is not going to correct the problem. She stated if I just read this I get the feeling that this is a money-making ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is a three strikes and you’re out type of ordinance.

Ms. Marshall asked when you are out was happens then?


Mr. Breitzke stated the Plan Commission is in charge of the permits. He stated you talk about clout to basically hold a hammer over them. He stated we don’t have that kind of clout right now.

Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 05-M-1 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation to include the amendments. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a Resolution for Frank Mahnic for his time and service with the County.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to read the Findings of Fact for Case 05-Z-4.

Request to down zone is found to be within the Comprehensive Plan of an I-2 to I-1 use.

An office building is within the use of the I-2/I-1 use, and
The more restrictive zoning is a desirable use for the site.

It will conserve all property values, since it includes all the affected parcels.

It is responsible development to include this parcel under I-1 since the city utilities and sewer are available.

Mr. Burns moved to approve the Findings of Fact on Case 05-Z-4. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

S/Kevin Breitzke, President

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