PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
July 27, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Detert moved to continue the reading of the July 13, 2005 minutes. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Findings of Fact:

Mr. Biddinger moved to accept the Findings of Fact for Case 05-P-7. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Biddinger moved to accept the Findings of Fact for Case 05-P-10. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Whitten moved to accept the Findings of Fact for Case 05-P-11. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Whitten moved to accept the Findings of Fact for Case 05-P-12. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 05-FP-8. Petition of Innovative Communities, Inc., 18505 CR 28, Goshen, Indiana seeking Secondary Plat approval for Fox Burrow Run, Unit 3, to be located on the North side of CR 550 N., between CR 250 W. and CR 175 W., in Center Township. (To contain 16 lots on 7.263 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Case 05-FP-9. Petition of Innovative Communities, Inc., 18505 Cr. 28, Goshen, Indiana seeking Secondary Plat approval for Fox Burrow Run, Unit 4, to be located North of Vulpine Drive on


Fox Burrow Ct., in Center Township. (To contain 4 lots on 1.465 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Mr. Breitzke stated the Chair would also entertain a motion to combine both of these cases.

Mr. Detert moved to hear Case 05-FP-8 and Case 05-FP-9 at the same time. Mr. Whitten seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated when we reach the conclusion of these we will have to vote of these separately.

Tim Saylor stated I am the President of Innovative Communities the new developer of Fox Burrow Run Unit 3 and Unit 4. He stated I really don’t have anything to add from when I was here back in May except to say at that time the only issue left unresolved was the sanitary sewer service from South Haven. He stated the EPA has issued a letter specifically naming Fox Burrow. He stated 20 lots for Fox Burrow Run Units 3 and 4. He stated with that I would request final plat approval for Units 3 and 4 contingent on a letter of credit or bond being accepted by the Commissioners.

Mr. Biddinger moved to approve Case 05-FP-8 for secondary plat contingent on a bond in the amount of $238540. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Whitten moved to approve Case 05-FP-9 for secondary plat contingent of a bond in the amount of $46500. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-FP-12. Petition of Timberland, LLC, P.O. Box 472, Valparaiso, Indiana, seeking secondary plat approval for Timberland Subdivision (Damon Run), Phase I, to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road, in Liberty Township. (To contain 60 lots on 40.38 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Mr. Breitzke stated before we begin we did have a discussion about this and we have a number of members still with outstanding concerns and they want to review the 2002 minutes specific to commitments made by the prior developer and his agents. He stated specifically there were issues with water quality for storm water and I believe that is what was requested and how you are going to follow through with that. He stated the permits referred to and the context of what they were one of them being the Army Corps of Engineer permits on relocation. He stated given that is the next phase there were still some


questions about how that related to the development and some of the issues related to that. He stated there were some other outstanding issues and concerns but they don’t come to mind right now. He stated the consensus was to continue this for another four (4) weeks.

Attorney Tallian stated there were comments, I mean, there were obvious comments set out in the last minutes. She stated I have not seen them. She stated we just heard about this. She stated there were various promises made and what we need to do is to get all the minutes from the last meetings and find out what the scope of those promises were because I do believe that they probably constitute commitments for the approval of the primary and we just haven’t had a chance to see it. She stated I just found out about it and it has been my recommendation that we continue this. She stated I can’t make a motion, but it is my recommendation.

Mr. Ferngren stated I guess our position is that the law requires approval of a secondary plat, a primary plat for that matter if it meets the concrete standards of your ordinance, which this did. He stated no one has identified to us what or where any deficiencies exist with respect to this plat. He stated we have been here over and over. He stated we went to TAC as requested at the last meeting and quite frankly we weren’t required to do but we agreed to do. He stated now to say to wait another 30 days because we don’t know what the commitments are. He stated no one has identified any of those things for us. He stated the law requires approval of the plat that meets the terms of the ordinance.

Attorney Tallian stated maybe the secondary plat didn’t come up…

Mr. Whitten moved to continue Case 05-FP-12 to the August 24, 2005 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Mr. Ferngren stated just for the record I don’t believe that this continuance complies with Indiana Law, which requires approval of a plat that meets your standards. He stated it is not a discretionary act. He stated it is administerial. He stated this developer has gone over and above everything that this county has asked him to do on all of these projects. He stated to send this forward for another four (4) weeks without knowing even what you are looking for is very problematic.

Mr. Whitten stated I call for the question.



Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Biddinger - No Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Whitten - Yes Breitzke - No

Public Hearing:

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

Case 05-Z-9. Petition of Aberdeen Limited Partnership, c/o Benchmark, LTD, a Limited Liability Partnership, General Partner, 57 S. Franklin, Suite 207, Valparaiso, Indiana 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 be located on a parcel of land that is the extension of Larwick Circle between Prairie Parkway and Hawick Drive in Union Township.

Laura Frost stated I am an attorney with Hodges and Davis in Merrillville, Indiana. She stated I am here on behalf of the applicant tonight, Aberdeen Limited Partnership. She stated they are applying for a rezoning from an RR designation to an R-1 designation for a piece of land that is part of the proposed Aberdeen, Phase I, which is the final phase of the Aberdeen prime residential development in Porter County. She stated I also have with me here tonight on behalf of the developer Larry Hitz of Century 21 Executive and also Jim Hipskind who is with Palm and Associates the engineering firm for the project. She stated as I mentioned the request that we are here for tonight is a zoning change from the RR designation to the R-1 classification for about 7.3 acres or so, which is a portion of the Phase I proposed to complete Aberdeen. She stated briefly to put this in context; this is the plat that was submitted with the application. She stated this is Phase I. She stated this is the entirety of the proposed Phase I development. She stated the portion of the land that we are requesting rezoned is this part here, which is in Union Township. She stated it consists of lots 12 through 27 of the proposed development. She stated this part here, which also would be part of Phase I, which eventually if this is approved we would come in for the subdivision request, is already zoned R-1 with a PRD overlay zoning. She stated it was part of the original Aberdeen plat, which was done about ten years ago or so when they initially came in. She stated that part is in Center Township. She stated this part is zoned RR right now and this is the piece that we are asking to be rezoned. She stated put this in context of the rest of the Aberdeen development. She stated up here is the Links, which goes up to CR 100 N. She stated down here is the Prairie and down here is the Fairways part of the


Aberdeen development. She stated that kind of puts it in context with the rest of the development. She stated as I had mentioned just to briefly give you an overlay of what the proposal is going to be for this development and why we are asking for this rezone request. She stated the proposed development would be for a 27-lot subdivision. She stated for single-family home development. She stated it would be comparable in quality to the Fairways and the other parts of Aberdeen. She stated Larry Hitz will speak in more detail to give you an overview of what types of homes they are thinking about putting in this development. She stated the proposed lots would meet all of the R-1 requirements in accordance with your ordinances. She stated the one exception would be with the roadway width but we would go in for a variance for that for the private road. She stated that of course would be addressed at the time of the subdivision application but I am just letting you know what would be proposed. She stated it is proposed that this development would have public water and sewer service from the Nature Works Conservancy District. She stated water service would be from the Valparaiso Water Department. She stated we submitted capacity letters with this rezoning request where they have indicated they have the capacity to serve this development. She stated this development will also have sidewalks in it just like the rest of Aberdeen. She stated as I mentioned before the part in Center Township is not part of the rezone request. She stated just the part in Union Township that we are asking for the rezoning right now. She stated there is a couple of reasons why we believe the rezoning would be appropriate for this request. She stated first of all development of Phase I of Aberdeen this is the last phase part of Aberdeen. She stated this is the last phase of the Aberdeen Planned Residential Development. She stated completion of Phase I will complete the development. She stated it will provide an important connection between the Links on the North, which I pointed out before, and the Prairies and the Fairways parts of Aberdeen by extending Larwick Circle as a street access through Phase I to connect the Links to the North and the rest of Aberdeen to the South. She stated this is important for a couple of reasons. She stated for one it will increase the safety because it will allow access between the Links and the rest of Aberdeen and vise versa rather than go out on CR 100 N. and down Tower Road. She stated it will provide sidewalk access like the rest of Aberdeen. She stated so it will increase the safety of the children and residents being able to go onto residential roads and sidewalks to access the different parts of Aberdeen versus having to go out on CR 100 N. and Tower Road, which are not strictly the residential streets and don’t have sidewalks. She stated it will also provide an alternative fire and emergency vehicles access to the Links because there will be another way to get in there besides off of CR 100 N. She stated in addition I have spoke on


the phone prior to this meeting with Valparaiso Community Schools and they indicated to me that the Transportation Department of the schools system and they indicated to me that they would be in favor of this development because it would provide improved school bus access for their buses if this roadway was put in through Phase I. She stated rezoning the portion of this parcel that is in Union Township from RR to R-1 is consistent with the adjacent piece of the proposed Phase I, which is already zoned R-1. She stated it is also consistent with the development of the rest of Aberdeen. She stated the lot sizes in RR are larger than that in R-1 and they are that way to accommodate well and septic service, which is not planned for this development. She stated this development would have water and sewer service consistent with the rest of Aberdeen and is more compatible with the R-1 designation. She stated both the RR and the R-1 designation are limited to single family use, which is what we have planned here. She stated single-family residential use in this area is also consistent with the comprehensive plan for this area of Porter County. She stated development of Phase I would promote the preservation of the property values and would have a positive affect on the surrounding property values in the surrounding areas.

Larry Hitz, 53 Tayside St., Valparaiso. He stated in addition, as Laura has just said, with the convenience and safety issues this will positively impact not only the residents in the Links, the Fairways, the Prairie and Highland Villas it will also positively impact those folks that have property adjoining this fronting on CR 325 W. He stated let me just tell you a little bit about that. He stated first of all these home sites are 80 feet widths or better. He stated that is equivalent to what was done along the golf course in the Links and in the Fairways. He stated in this section we expect these prices to be anywhere from about $60,000 into the $90,000 range for a lot. He stated then you add that price into the cost of a home today we would anticipate that these homes would be anywhere from $350,000 up. He stated so we could be looking at homes along the golf course especially to be over $600,000. He asked how does that relate to the others? He stated in the Aberdeen Highland Villas this product over here these homes are averaging around $400,000. He stated in the Fairways we are over $350,000. He stated in the Links we are around $350,000. He stated this product is going to run anywhere from $250,000 to $400,000. He stated then there is a product called Rolling Meadows, which is on the other side of CR 325 W. which runs from $178,000 to $229,000 in price. He stated this is certainly a positive product going into the neighboring and surrounding communities. He stated I have a letter from the Aberdeen Transition Committee for the Home Owners Association. At this time, Mr. Hitz read the letter from the Home


Owners Association. This letter is in the rezone file.

Ms. Frost stated as mentioned before Jim Hipskind from Palm and Associates is here if there are any technical questions about the layout. She stated in conclusion I would just like to ask that we would request you would grant our rezoning for all the foregoing reasons that Larry and I spoke about and also everything that we submitted with our application.

Meredith Klemm, 88 North Larwick Circle. She asked are the lots going to be sold on an individual basis or if there is going to be established builders in that area?

Bruce Roth, 280 Scotscraig. He stated I am here to support the project. He stated the project fits the spirit of Aberdeen.

Robert McDonald, 2306 Club Court. He stated I am an architect and I have done architect reviews for the Aberdeen community and for a couple of others in Northwest Indiana. He stated I am here to speak for this petition. He stated all the issues that were discussed and presented are quite clear and simple and I think it is the best use for that property.

Mr. Hitz stated at this stage this is an open development. He stated it is not closed to exclusive builders. He stated if a person would purchase a home site today they could choose their own builder.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated I have no issues.

Mr. Whitten stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read stated I have no questions.

Mrs. Marshall asked are the roads going to be public or private?

Ms. Frost stated at this time they will be private.

Mrs. Marshall stated so you are never going to have them cored by the county to ever be accepted into the county system?


Ms. Frost stated no. She stated it is planned that these will be private roads and the responsibility for maintenance will be the Property Owners Association.

Barb Young, 39 Braemar Dr. stated I am President of Benchmark Limited and we are the developers of Aberdeen. She stated the reason that we are suggesting that this be private roads is because it connects to a private road on each side. She stated it really would not make sense for the county to come in and maintain this one small portion. She stated it would be consistent with the two roads that it is proposed to connect to.

Mrs. Marshall stated you say that this parcel is in Union Township. She asked will the children in this subdivision go to Union Township Schools?

Ms. Frost stated yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated so you will have two sets of busses going in there everyday from Center Township and Union Township. She asked is that correct?

Ms. Frost stated I would assume so.

Ms. Young stated I would like to point out that this is already the case in the Prairie. She stated the Prairie is in Union Township so we already have two school systems.

Mrs. Marshall stated this is in the area of CR 325 W. She asked is there any access off of CR 325 W. into this portion of the subdivision?

Ms. Frost stated no.

Mrs. Marshall stated an interesting recent development is that the Nature Conservancy District sewer plant failed. She stated the creek is now contaminated. She asked is the Natural Conservancy District telling you that they have the capacity and what are they doing about this spill that they recently had?

Ms. Frost stated we requested a capacity letter from the Nature Conservancy District. She stated they indicated that they do have the capacity. She stated they are a separate legal entity from this developer. She stated my understanding is that the spill was cleaned up.

Mrs. Marshall stated I live right across the street and the stream through my property is contaminated. She stated I am concerned about it. She stated I want to be sure that it doesn’t


fail again. She stated it shouldn’t have failed the first time.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 05-Z-9 with a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners. Mr. Burns seconded the motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Whitten - Yes Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on August 16, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

Mike Bucko from Netnitco to discuss a possible amendment to the current Tower Ordinance.

Mike Bucko stated the last time we were here it was the direction of the Commission to ask their counsel to device some kind of questions and maybe work with the project that she saw fit and we would come back to find out how that is.

Attorney Tallian stated I sent around a draft and then I sent one more with a couple of extra little changes. She stated Herb had brought up that we might have a problem because there are public right-of-way easements through the National Lake Shore and through some of the State Parks. She stated we added that and had an exclusion for that. She stated I would like to explain what I think this does. She stated it says that when there is an applicant who is a public utility and they want to put these power poles and I did not put any restrictions on the height of the power poles. She stated I don’t care if it is a 50-foot pole or a 150-foot pole you have to come in. She stated I am assuming that this is going to be done as part of a project to do towers in several locations. She stated they would come in with their application and explain their project to the Plan Commission. She stated the Plan Commission would get all that information on the size the spacing the type of materials and all of that kind of stuff as part of an initial project plan. She stated then you would approve or disapprove the plan. She stated once that is done they don’t have to go in for a special exception on each and every single pole they want to put up. She stated they do it one time as an entire plan. She stated if you define that there are reasons to deny this then they could go to the IURC. She stated that is what we put together.

Mr. Whitten asked there are no special requests for each tower?


Attorney Tallian stated right.

Mr. Whitten asked so if there is a project involved how would the public no about…you would have to give public notice to everybody, every interested party that each tower affects?

At this time, the Commission had a small discussion on this question.

Kent Earl stated I am an attorney from Indianapolis and I have been working on this project in conjunction with Netnitco and FBN Indiana since the beginning. He stated I have spoken with Karen a number of times about sort of what the intention of this is and how the process might function. He stated I think the idea here is that when we originally put the proposal together I had originally drafted it as a blanket exemption from the Tower Ordinance. He stated when we were here last time it became clear in discussions with Karen and others, that something a little less broad than that was appropriate. He stated the idea here is that as a public utility we are going to provide a public utility service. He stated what we are essentially proposing to do is instead of running a wire from our network into everybody’s house what we would do is connect you to the phone network by a wireless connection. He stated that would be done by a series of poles that are placed in the public right-of-way. He stated the poles will be placed at what we suspect will be about two miles apart. He stated a lot depends on the technology and how many trees are in between. He stated that is what we are trying to provide. He stated I might add that the way the draft reads right now there is reference to pole or tower. He stated the practical reality is that was pointed out to me late this afternoon is that it is going to be a pole. He stated if you are putting something into the public right-of-way anything that I think that would meet the definition of a tower would have to be so broad at the bottom of it that it would in essence swallow up almost all of the public right-of-way. He stated for a lot of practical reasons that doesn’t make any sense. He stated for all intention purposes here we are talking about poles. He stated what would happen is a provider such as FBN would come before the Plan Commission and say what their general project plan is, what they are planning to do, what the scope of it is, where they are planning to provide service and generally how they intend to do it. He stated they would intend to use the public right-of-way as a public utility. He stated once the plan is approved by the Plan Commission. He stated then we would not have to come back to the Commission for approval for each individual pole that goes into the right-of-way. He stated it is much like NIPSCO putting electric utility poles in. He stated my guess is and I don’t know, my suspicion is that NIPSCO doesn’t come in front of the


Plan Commission every time they are going to run distribution lines down the right-of-way. He stated the idea is your ordinance as it exists really to me is targeted towards cell carries and cellular towers. He stated there are a lot of very good reasons why the county doesn’t want big cell towers strewn about the county. He stated the distinction here is that cellular carries are not public utilities and they wouldn’t be able to make use of this exemption that we are crafting here. He stated so that is kind of the intent behind it. He stated I did have one question. He stated we talked in the ordinance about getting individual permits from the building department. He asked where does that approval come from?

Mr. Thompson stated in the case of NIPSCO or Verizon or whoever is going to be putting up utility poles within the right-of-way within the counties they must file application with the County Engineering Department which then takes a permit up to the County Commissioners for approval before any poles are placed within the county right-of-way.

Mr. Earl stated it would be my expectation as a public utility that we would follow the same kind of process.

Mr. Breitzke stated we feel pretty strongly about that part so that will go on. He stated the other issue you brought up in Section B, special exception. He stated it states, “The applicant desires to place utility poles or towers.” He stated I am going to suggest you put monopole towers just to make it clear.

Mike Bucko stated I am from Netnitco. He stated we are talking about poles that are 68 feet to 70 feet in height.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have the word “towers” in there. He stated either eliminate the word “tower.”

Mr. Bucko stated I don’t foresee us putting in a metal tower in an easement.

Attorney Tallian stated let me say that I know that your interest is in your tower or your utility pole. She stated we are writing an exception that is going to apply to any public utility. She stated what I don’t want to happen and the only thing I am worried about is getting somebody who says, “Oh I’m not putting in a pole. I am putting in a tower.” She stated I was trying to cover all bases.

Mr. Burns asked will all these poles be in the easement?



Mr. Bucko stated yes. He stated they will be in the public right-of-way.

Mr. Burns stated the concern that I have is that we are trying to control towers and poles in the county and we are reversing it. He stated we are going in the other direction. He asked how are other communities handling this? He asked have you checked with other communities and are they approving this?

Mr. Earl stated what I can tell you is that I saw an article in the Times from Northwest Indiana today about a company called Midwest Telecom. He stated I think they are a Merrillville company. He stated they are competitors of ours and they provide a similar product in what we are talking about doing.

Mr. Detert stated currently they are servicing businesses. He stated although they might go to residential.

Mr. Earl stated that I am not familiar with any ordinances that were strict with placement of public utility facilities in the public right-of-way at all whether it is this type or anything else. He stated my suspicion is there are reasons why public utility facilities on occasion don’t belong there. He stated if there is an adverse impact on public health and safety as an example where it creates a hazard to the roadway or whatever it is. He stated I am not familiar with any ordinances that prohibit placement of those kinds of facilities.

Mr. Burns stated most of the new utilities going in are underground. He stated I still think that we are going in reverse.

Mr. Detert stated I have to reiterate that. He stated I hate to go against you Mike but you know where I live. He stated I live in a community with underground utilities. He stated there are a lot of those in the county. He stated the developers have spent a large amount of money to bury these things and now we are going to start sticking up poles. He stated you are telling me that there is going to be one every two miles. He stated if this is open to everybody your one company then the next one comes in and then the next one. He stated if it is anything like cell towers we are going to have these things all over. He stated it seems to me that we are going backwards.

Mr. Bucko stated first of all you are using an example of your private organization called Lakes of the Four Seasons. He stated it does have private utilities. He stated there are easements in there. He stated then again you look at the


covenants and see if the covenants say anything about that. He stated the covenants say they don’t allow them then they wouldn’t be allowed to be in there under the covenants of the organization. He stated as a company that wants to provide service then it would not be advantageous to us to put poles in an environment like you talking about. He stated you are looking at it as someone who wants to sell a service. He stated you can’t provide something that is detrimental to the community in looks and everything else and then try to provide the service. He stated looked down the road every place you go and it borders Aberdeen, it borders this road here. He stated there are telephone poles there ladies and gentlemen. He stated there are poles there 65-feet tall, 70-feet tall and 80-feet tall with a base as much as 20 plus inches across. He stated we are looking at a 68-foot pole that is in the ground with a base of 17-inches. He stated the profile of this pole that we are using is far less than what is in the ground today and what people are used to and seeing all the time.

Mr. Detert stated it is another pole.

Mr. Bucko stated it is a pole but it is a public utility and the utility has the right to put a pole in the easement for communication services.

Mr. Earl stated it is my view legally even as a public utility without obtaining a private easement or some other authority to come in and plant a pole in the middle of your neighborhood or my neighborhood we can’t do that. He stated if you go out to the road outside of my development where the public right-of-way is there are electric utility lines that are run in places not every place. He stated that is the only location where under this exception to this ordinance we would be authorize or anybody else would be authorized to…

Mr. Detert stated it is just the point of all these telephone poles and now we are sticking a whole bunch of more poles in. He stated now there is another competitor that comes along and he wants to compete with you and now he is going to stick a pole and then there is a third guy. He stated this is what we fought with the cell towers. He stated Mr. Burns and I went through heck with those cell towers.

Mr. Bucko stated it is really not the same thing. He stated you are talking utility company and you are talking local roof and local service to the company.

Mr. Detert stated I am talking poles.



Mr. Bucko stated I know you are talking poles. He stated it is another type of technology and the technology of the past put poles down every 150 feet and strung a wire between them. He stated even if the technology puts a pedestal down every 150 feet this puts one every two miles. He stated it is a type of service from the public utility to serve the public. He stated the public is out there wanting the service because they can’t get it under the conditions that are available to them. He stated in the same area there is a public utility with the telephone pole as high if not higher than what is being proposed to put in.

Mr. Detert stated it just seems that we are going backwards.

Mr. Burns stated my opinion is that we should look into this a little bit further. He stated I think that we are moving a little too fast on this. He stated we need to investigate this and look at other communities to see how they handle this.

At this time, the Commission had a discussion on this project.

Mr. Biddinger stated there are a couple of other things to stop and think about. He stated number one the first thing that came to my mind a situation where a right-of-way always has a power line or a telephone line running down through it and the problematic nature of putting in another pole in that right-of-way, which is only forty feet wide. He stated the hazard that it might produce by putting in another pole within that right-of-way and I am not sure how that would be addressed. He stated the second thing is right now your technology is about two miles.

Mr. Bucko stated technology is actually ten miles but for aesthetic purposes and for the homeowner as a user two miles is a usable distance that is actually more aesthetically acceptable.

Mr. Biddinger stated the reason why I bring that up is let me ask what was the ability five years ago to do this.

Mr. Bucko stated they didn’t have it.

Mr. Biddinger asked what do you foresee for how many poles would need per mile in five years? He asked would it be five miles, ten miles or fifteen miles?

Mr. Bucko stated if the line of sight was flat and nobody had a tree it could be ten miles today. He stated those are restrictions that keep us to the two miles. He stated when technology goes to something perhaps where it doesn’t matter and


it permeates through the walls and stuff like this for this type of service then it may not matter. He stated it could be ten miles away.

Mr. Biddinger stated I guess the point that I am making here is you are saying two miles. He stated in five years from now when you are actually starting to install things and really get going with this technology by the time you finish up with the county the technology will probably be improved as well. He stated I guess the point that I am making is that while we are talking about poles every two miles now in five years it might be a pole every five miles or something along that line. He stated one thing that bothers me a little bit as far as technology goes United States is way behind on infrastructure for technology. He stated if you ever go to Japan you can go through a tunnel and you will never loose your cell phone signal. He stated and it is free just about everywhere you go. He stated I guess I am putting a voice more on the technology and less on the ordinance. He stated I just get a little worried when we try and maybe over legislate or over impede technology that can allow this community to have an economic commercial and industrial advantage to bring in new business’s. He stated that is exactly what this utility sort of does.

Mr. Earl stated reality is that in rural areas in particular broad ban service is very difficult to get. He stated there are very good reasons for that. He stated it is not economical efficient for a cable company to try to run their lines out into rural areas because it cost so much money to run the cable. He stated with phone company’s to a certain extent the economics is about the same and secondly the primary technology that is used by the phone company is by its very nature distance limited. He stated this has an advantage of being able to provide service in rural areas where you are not going to be seeing any time soon. He stated with what Mr. Biddinger said about other countries and broad ban is very true.

Commissioner Harper asked if this ordinance gets passed how soon will you start putting up poles?

Mr. Bucko stated first of all we have to set a plan.

Commissioner Harper asked is this what your hold up is and are you ready to go?

Mr. Bucko stated we have to order poles and things and technology to do it is there. He stated it is here now.

Mr. Earl stated my understanding is that if the


modification ordinance is passed it is strictly a function on how long it takes to get the poles in. He stated we have access to both the transmitters and the box that would go in the towns to receive the signals. He stated virtually immediately.

Mr. Burns stated what we are concerned about Bob is that not only are they putting poles up but they will have competition from other company’s and we are going to have poles all over. He stated I don’t know if we want that. He stated I am not saying that I am totally against this. He stated I just think that we should have some tighter controls. He stated we should look at what other communities are doing before we just into this.

Mr. Cole stated I for one embrace all technology. He stated however I do know that some competitors do share poles. He stated it is just a cost of rent and a little give and take here. He stated there are also cases where there are types of antennas are put on windmills, water towers and they are really indiscriminate as far as the technology goes. He stated technology changes day by day but essentially you are dealing with a bandwidth of a certain frequency that is Federally controlled and until that changes the technology doesn’t really go very far unless you can increase the power of transmission whatever the device you are using personally. He asked am I right?

Mr. Breitzke stated there is more refinement of bandwidths and they are getting this closer to…

Mr. Bucko stated the stuff that is used today is unlicensed bandwidth. He stated some of the stuff that you are using your portable phones on, your garage door opener it is 5.8 megahertz stuff that is unlicensed.

Mr. Cole stated but there are Federal regulations and where those ranges are and those frequencies.

Mr. Bucko stated absolutely. He stated that is where the equipment is manufactured to serve that. He stated that is where they serve and they cannot be altered nor can the power be increased on them. He stated so they have ranges and distances and capabilities.

Mr. Earl stated you raise a good point about sharing towers. He stated the cellular industry is completely different than what we do. He stated it is not uncommon at all for actually third party tower companies to erect a tower than leave space on the tower to have two or three different carriers. He stated that is why you see cell towers with three different antenna rays on them.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is a requirement here.

Mr. Earl stated I am confident that we would be open to talking about the sharing of our facilities with somebody else if that option came up. He stated what I don’t know there are engineering concerns as well. He stated when you talk about wind loading and adding additional weight and interference with transmission devices and that sort of thing. He stated using water towers we do that already.

Mr. Bucko stated we have put them on cell towers already.

At this time, the Commission had a discussion on where the poles could be safely placed.

Mr. Burns asked if the pole or tower was up to capacity or over capacity would you have to put another tower between the two towers?

Mr. Bucko stated there are about 1100 people that would literally be served off of one 360º range. He stated to give you an example there is a new subdivision going up on CR 250 S. on Rt. 49. He stated there are 100 homes in there. He stated there will have to be 1100 more homes go in that whole area around there to man another pole somewhere within two miles of that pole.

Mr. Read stated I would like to address your attention to paragraph F, which refers to the National Park and the State Park. He stated let me give you a little background on that. He stated the Authorization Act for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore left all easements in place. He stated in other words the National Park Service cannot buy NIPSCO easements or roadways or anything else. He stated as various houses are being taken down and the service is no longer required NIPSCO has been removing the wires. He stated sometimes they remove the poles and sometimes that wait until the poles rot and fall down. He stated but the easement is still there. He stated I do not want the blanket approval or ability to run for you or anybody else new poles through those easements without approval of the park service or the Indiana DNR. He stated obviously they have to have some internal easements for their own communication and their own lights. He stated on that basis I am opposed to this broad blanket exceptions that you propose. He stated I also sympathize with and agree with the other concerns that have been raised here. He asked do you have any objection to Paragraph F? He stated now the other matters…

Mr. Breitzke asked now Paragraph F covers your concerns does it not?

Mr. Read stated Paragraph F covers my primary concerns although I agree with the concerns raised by Bob and Rick.

Mr. Earl stated we have no problem with that and we fully understand what anytime we are dealing with State owned land or Federal property we have to deal with those folks before we can do anything. He stated the practical reality is likelihood of us seeking to provide telecommunication service in the middle of the State Park is practically non-existent.

At this time, Mr. Whitten left the meeting.

Mrs. Marshall stated in Porter County some of the right-of-ways are not…just because the road goes down it doesn’t mean you have easements on each side of the road. She stated property owners pay taxes to the centerline of the road. She stated I know that this is true because I have a recent inquiry for a piece of property that I own in another township here and a neighbor across the street made a request to bring REMC poles down my side of the street. She stated I didn’t have to give them an easement. She stated all roads are not a public right-of-way.

Mr. Bucko stated that is probably true. He stated we have an engineer that drafts permitting process and they submit it to the highway and they say whether there is an easement there or not.

Attorney Tallian stated I would like to remind you of why we did this in the first place. She stated as it stands right now if this public utility company needed to go out and put 30 towers across the county they would have to go to the BZA 30 times. She stated we are trying to alleviate that problem and trying to set up kind of a master plan for…instead of going to the BZA one at a times 30 towers you come here and you do one master plan as it were and all these questions I would envision being the questions you would ask at the time they came to you with a plan.

Commissioner Harper stated they are saying what is going to stop somebody coming one month later with 30 more poles right next to these 30 poles.

Attorney Tallian stated I would imagine that at the time that the second group came with their 30 pole plan you would have to ask them what are they doing and what are they providing and why do we need this here.




Mr. Detert stated I just know what we went through with cell towers. He stated I don’t want to create that situation again.

Commissioner Harper asked how would you solve that situation?

Mr. Detert stated by forcing co-location.

Commissioner Harper asked how did you do that?

Mr. Detert stated by the ordinance and whenever they came in we were very hard on them to prove that they needed a tower in that particular location.


Mr. Burns stated your thought is one plan for 30 towers. He asked would the public be contacted around the 30 towers?

Attorney Tallian stated if you want to have a public notice requirement I could see that when you submit this plan to the Plan Commission you advertise a public hearing. She stated I don’t know if you situation is such that your plan would identify each and every location and you would have to notify them all there or whether you would publish a public hearing as a general publication of notice.

Mr. Burns stated I was just thinking back on the cell towers if we had 30 notifications it might be overwhelming at one hearing.

Attorney Tallian stated you could do it as a general notice published in the paper.

Mr. Detert move to continue this discussion for yet another draft. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


David Gertz, 775 S. 250 W., Hebron. He stated the reason I am here I am installing a fence at 8 feet. He stated we got a permit back in February for 7 foot. He stated it is my understanding that the ordinance states 7 foot but there is a clause in the ordinance saying if it is used for agricultural use the land is zoned AG that there is no limit on height restrictions. He stated I did have my attorney write Mr. Thompson a letter back in March and I didn’t get a response. He stated in June we started to install the fence. He stated my attorney advised me to go ahead and install the fence. He stated


at that time the Building Commissioner came out at the end of June and we had all the posts set. He stated I told him what we were doing and he didn’t seem to have a problem with it and then he came back on July 7 and by that time we had all the rails set at 8 feet. He stated I told him the first time he was out that I was going to do 8 feet. He stated the rails have been set about 650 feet about the total length of the fence. He stated then he seemed to have a problem and I explained to him why we were putting up the fence. He stated I showed him around the property. He stated we do have a hay bale in the back. He stated we let the land grow up in the back and bale hay there. He stated then I was written a letter after that which stated we had to knock the fence down or file for a variance. He stated it seems that what the ordinance says that we shouldn’t have to file a variance. He stated that is my question.

Mr. Breitzke asked do we have any opinion from the attorney? He stated typically in this situation we really need to put you on public notice about any decisions we make here tonight. He stated basically I think that this should be considered informational.

Mr. Gertz stated okay.

Attorney Tallian stated I think that this matter has already been brought to our attention. She stated Mr. Gertz is represented by an attorney who has been corresponding with Bob and I advise that maybe the attorney should put his concerns in writing and then once it is in writing what the questions are and what the stipulations are I can then give an opinion but not the way it is right now. She stated I think he is being represented by an attorney and I think he should have his attorney bring those questions to the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated or at least write to you in correspondence.

Mr. Gertz stated he did send a correspondence on the 21st. He stated I don’t know if it has been received yet.

Mrs. Marshall asked why is it going to be 8 feet high?

Mr. Gertz stated for a couple of reasons. He stated we do need a wind block. He stated it is very windy on the south end of my property and on the west end of the property where the fence is going. He stated I did have some trees and a neighbor did buy the property behind me and the trees over hung on his property. He stated I had four blue spruce trees about 20 feet high. He stated they were hanging about probably 3 or 4 feet into his


property and he cut the whole back sections off. He stated he was sending me letters saying he was wanting to do that. He stated I don’t know why. He stated he doesn’t like me so he cut the trees off. He stated that was a lot of wind block on the south end of me. He stated so now that is gone and I do need wind blockage there and to get a tree to grow that high takes ten to fifteen years. He stated you have to buy a tree at six feet. He stated the other reason 8-foot wood is easier to find in 8-foot sections.

Attorney Tallian stated there is one other problem with this and that is Indiana State Statute talks 8-foot fences being spite fences and is assumed to be spite fences. She stated that is why we need to take care of this with the attorney.

Mr. Gertz asked what is a spite fence?

Attorney Tallian stated read the statute or talk to your attorney.

Mr. Gertz stated I did read the statute and it said anything over six-foot fence could be considered a spite and then seven-foot fence is allowable. He asked wouldn’t that be considered spit also?

Attorney Tallian stated I can’t sit here and give legal opinions right now.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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