PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
September 14, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Commissioner Bob Harper, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Dan Whitten and Robert Detert, Vice-President. Kevin Breitzke was present at the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Karen Tallian.

Mr. Biddinger moved to continue the reading of the August 24, 2005 minutes. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson stated Case 05-FP-18 petition of Walnut Ridge LLC was pulled by staff. He stated their primary plat has expired so they will have to go back for primary plat on that situation. He stated that case will be continued to a date further.

Pending Business:

Case 05-SE-6. Inspection Committee Report for WNDZ Land Company, c/o Ice Miller, One American Square, Box 82001, Indianapolis, Indiana for a Special Exception to permit a 198-foot-tall commercial radio tower to be located on the West side of CR 450 S., between Robbins Road and Central Avenue, in Portage Township.

Tim Ochs stated I am an attorney at Ice Miller. He stated we are requesting a radio tower. He stated a couple of points that I would like to make. He stated this site is already the home of two towers. He stated those two towers are 328-feet-tall. He stated this tower is 199-feet-tall. He stated that is significant because at its height it will not need to be lighted or painted because it is below the 200-feet threshold that the FAA has for doing such things to towers. He stated the second point that I would like to make is this tower and this is rare that you would request a.m. radio towers these days, it is unusual and significantly different than towers that a lot of Boards are familiar with and that is cellular towers. He stated this is not a situation where we could co-locate an antenna on an existing structure of height. He stated the tower itself is used as the antenna and it works in conjunction with the other two towers that are there. He stated so it must be located on site in the position shown in order to function as a single transmitting unit with the other two towers. He stated that is significantly different than let’s say a personal communication service or wireless telecommunication facility where antennas can be mounted on any structure of height. He stated that is simply not the case here.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read the Inspection Committee Report.



Mr. Read stated the description of the location of this was pretty broad. He stated when I drove this it was at least a half a mile or a mile between the roads. He stated I assume it is going up somewhere in the vicinity of the two existing towers.

Mr. Ochs stated that is correct. He stated it will be about 200 to 300 feet.

Mr. Read asked do you have the towers that show the existing ones and the new one.

Mr. Ochs stated these are the two existing towers and this is the new one.

Mr. Read stated your new tower is north of the two existing towers.

Mr. Ochs stated yes that is correct.

Mr. Read stated there is a subdivision up to the north. He asked is that in Portage.

Mr. Ochs stated the subdivision is. He stated this is the first property right outside of Portage.

Mr. Read stated the new tower is say 213 feet away from the north boundary.

Mr. Ochs stated yes.

Mr. Read asked how high is the tower.

Mr. Ochs stated 198-feet.

Mr. Read stated there is a subdivision to the west also. He stated that is the 325 feet I see here from the existing tower.

Mr. Ochs stated yes and that tower is 328-feet.

Mr. Read stated on that small building you have on site there is a warning about radio waves. He stated how far does that go.

Mr. Ochs stated that is a little bit more complicated question. He stated we are regulated by the FCC and we are required to put the fence up at a distance that will insure that the intensity radio waves that are being generated are at below a certain level.

Mr. Burns asked why 198 feet. He asked why not 125 feet.

Mike McCarthy stated I am the Director of Engineering for the parent company that owns the radio station. He stated because the entire antenna structure is the antenna the actual length of the antenna plays into how the system operates. He stated we chose that particular height for two reasons. He stated one so that it will fit


on the property and second it would not require FAA notification and subsequent marking by paint and or lighting. He stated that is why we selected that particular height.

Mr. Burns asked can you sell to another provider.

Mr. McCarthy stated because it is an electrified tower it is a series fed electrified tower it is impractical for us to be able to supplement space on the tower and second the structural capacity of the tower would prevent us from doing the same.

Mr. Biddinger moved to forward Case 05-SE-6 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 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 spproval 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. Con’t from 8-24-05 mtg.)

Mr. Whitten stated I have no comment.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comment.

Mr. Biddinger stated no comment.

Commissioner Harper stated no comment.

Mrs. Marshall stated since this was advertise being 60 lots on 40 acres and I have a newspaper article that said that is what was happening. She stated I understand that we are going to do something else tonight. She asked do we have a legal or a notice of what we are going to do here tonight.

Mr. Detert stated I don’t believe there is a legal notice required for this.

Mrs. Marshall stated they are not going to phase and it will be the entire subdivision so we are talking about hundred and forty some lots. She stated I just want to know if it is okay to go forward with this.

Attorney Tallian stated I think that the original objections…when they submitted primary plat it was one phase. She stated I think that the original objections were that it was a substantial change if they were going to phase so the fact that they withdrawn the phasing that has the change issue…Is there another one Liz.

Mrs. Marshall stated we were talking about Army Corps of Engineer approval. She stated we discussed that. She stated they came with a different approach. She stated I just wondered if this agenda is correct. She stated the agenda is not what we are going to do.



Attorney Tallian stated you mean what is on this agenda.

Mrs. Marshall stated yes. She stated it says to contain 60 lots on 40…It is going to be the entire subdivision.

Mr. Detert stated it says Phase I but they’ve withdrawn that and our motion, if we are going to approve it, the motion has to include the changes that have been agreed to in the work shop.

Attorney Tallian stated the way the agenda is written should be revised and we should just delete Phase I. She stated I think if you go back to the way it was originally submitted originally listed on the agenda it was just listed as secondary plat approval for Timberland. She stated I don’t see that this is an issue.

Mr. Read stated I received another submittal subsequent to our committee meeting on this. He stated it seems to be in accordance with what we agreed upon. He stated so what we are doing tonight is voting on the entire thing. He stated if you want to put in part of it later I guess it is okay. He stated we are leaving the water course where it is, which I think is a great advantage. He stated it saves you the problem of going to the Corps of Engineers. He stated as you know my original objection to this was that this particular area was specified in our Master Plan as a conservation area. He stated what we are trying to do is get a better subdivision and I think that we have it.

Mr. Cole stated I guess if I had my druthers, I would say that this is the wrong subdivision in the wrong area. He stated certainly our Master Plan that we went to great lengths pretty much says that as well. He stated however, there is no question in my mind that this property will be developed in the future by somebody in some way in some manner. He stated at least through our collaboration we have agreed upon maybe the best that we can do at this time. He stated for that reason I don’t see my objecting to it. He stated I do have a couple of questions. He asked how many lots did you have to give up in order to keep this.

Mr. Ferngren stated nine.

Mr. Cole stated in the drainage for Pond B down in the southwest corner you say a pipe continues south to Damon Run. He asked are you going to have that tubed all the way down to Damon Run or is it going through open ditch.

Matt Keiser stated it will go into the existing area that we talked about.

Commissioner Harper asked the ditch cleaning on the Duzur property has that been worked out with the property owner.

Mr. Keiser stated we talked to the property owner about it and we are committed. He stated we have committed to clean that out and of course it will all depend on the Army Corps and how they want us to do it. He stated what we will do is that it will be restructured. He


stated we talked with the soil scientist “One Step Removal” to clean the siltation out of the ditch.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Bartholomew if everything has been worked out.

Mr. Bartholomew stated we have the water flowing right.

Mr. Read moved to approve Case 05-FP-12 subject to the agreements reached as itemized in the letter dated September 13, 2005 from Attorney Bill Ferngren to Attorney Tallian, which covers the best management practices for the storm water runoff. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Thompson stated the bond we have here is just for the 60 lots. He stated now we are looking at the full subdivision. He stated I am going to have to rely on the engineer for that estimated. He stated I know off site was a considerable amount of money for running the sanitary…a couple of million. He stated now we have to look at all the onsite.

Mr. Duffy stated we will provide that. He stated that is no problem.

Mr. Detert asked Mr. Burns do you want to amend the motion to read subject to the bonding requirements.

Mr. Burns stated yes.

Mr. Detert asked does the motion maker agree.

Motion reads as follows:

Mr. Read moved to approve Case 05-FP-12 subject to the agreements reached as itemized in the letter dated September 13, 2005 from Attorney Bill Ferngren to Attorney Karen Tallian, which covers the best management practices for the storm water runoff and contingent on the bond. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-FP-15. Petition of Hampton Downs, LLC, 237 W. 500 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Hampton Manor to be located on the North side of CR 500 N. between CR 175 W. and CR 250 W. in Center Township. (To contain 36 lots on 19.97 acres. Property is zoned R-1. con’t from 8-24-05 mtg.)

Todd Leeth stated I am here representing Hampton Downs LLC the petitioner in this matter. He stated as you indicated we are seeking secondary plat approval for Hampton Manor Subdivision. He stated it is an R-1 zone property approximately 20 acres in size with 36 lots. He stated the plat that we have presented to you is the entire land that my clients own and is the full amount of the land is being sought for


secondary plat approval. He stated the primary plat was approved in April of 2004 some time ago over a year ago. He stated one of the reasons why it took us so long to get back to you for final plat approval is that this property is being served by South Haven Sewer Works and as you know that utility was under some consent decree restrictions from the USEPA. He stated in June the USEPA issued a letter releasing 38 connections to this property to this development. He state as I indicated the number of lots that we are seeking approval is 36, under that number. He stated we appear back before you seeking your approval for the plat. He stated I believe there was some questions with regard to the petition primarily relating to past ordinances that have been adopted since the time that our primary plat was approved. He stated it is our opinion that these new ordinances to be retroactively applied to this land are improper under Indiana law and under the U.S. Constitution. He stated we would renew our efforts and attempts to ask your approval of the secondary plat as submitted.

Mr. Whitten stated I have no comment.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comment.

Mr. Biddinger stated no comment.

Commissioner Harper stated I have nothing at this moment.

Mrs. Marshall stated in reading through the past Plan Commission reports and the minutes I see that you had some drainage problems on this property. She stated there is a Mr. Gesse involved in this. She asked have you resolved those issues with him.

Mr. Leeth stated those were all resolved prior to the Plan Commission’s approval of the primary plat in April of 2004. He stated primarily the concern was that the outletting of the detention pond near his property line was too close. He stated that was removed or pulled back into our property with some remediation with regard to allowing that to spill over the outlet spill over before it reached his property which would be more consistent with its current natural flow today. He stated to answer your question, yes all of those questions and concerns have been addressed back in April of 2004.

Commissioner Harper stated she asked if they were resolved and they weren’t resolved. He stated it was never worked out as I recall. He stated I sat through those meetings and Mr. Gesse was never pleased with the result and it was just that the decision was made. He stated if I remember this correctly.

Mr. Leeth stated we made the changes and we returned to TAC and the Plan Commission approved the modifications that we made. He stated I don’t know if Mr. Gesse is happy with those changes or not or whether his concerns regarding drainage or land use are satisfactory. He stated the questions and concerns that he raised to the Plan Commission, I will stand by my earlier statement, have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Plan Commission.



Mrs. Marshall asked who is responsible for the pond and the maintenance.

Mr. Leeth stated there will be a Property Owners Association that is responsible for many things.

Mrs. Marshall stated you said that you worked out so that you can…the sewage goes to South Haven.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct.

Mrs. Marshall asked why did we get this addendum tonight that you are working on this afternoon. She asked what is this about.

Mr. Leeth stated the only thing that is left unresolved with regard to South Haven is the way that we are going to pipe our sewage to the existing manhole that lies west of our property. He stated whether it is through a new 8-inch line or an existing 6-inch line and or a combination of both of those. He stated that is an easement issue and not a plat issue.

Mrs. Marshall stated you say that you have approval for 38 hook ups into that sewer plant.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct.

Mrs. Marshall stated then at that time it would be a moratorium until they work out this loop with South Haven so that it can accept more. She asked is that what you are telling me.

Mr. Leeth stated no. He stated the plat that we are asking for your approval is 36 lots. He stated we have approval for up to 38 lots and that is the entire subdivision.

Mrs. Marshall stated the total subdivision is going to be only 36 lots and this is only one phase.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct.

Mrs. Marshall asked there is only going to be one phase.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct.

Mr. Burns stated if I understand this reight Hampton Downs has no main to hook up to at this point.

Mr. Leeth statead that is correct but there is an existing sewer line in the right-of-way out in front of the property.

Mr. Burns stated which you don’t have permission yet to hook to unless you get an agreement.

Mr. Leeth stated the question remains as to whether or not we have the right to tap into that. He stated that line lies both in the


right-of-way and up on our property. He stated I can’t imagine that if the sewer line is on our property we don’t have a right to tap into it. He stated there is no easement that enters into our property outside of the right-of-way even. He stated recognizing my client even owns the land to the centerline of the road. He stated in the true sense they own the entire land that the sewer runs through. He stated even outside of the easement they have that.

Public Hearing:

Case 05-P-13. Floramo Partners, 1804 Garnet Court, New Lenox, Illinois seeking a replat for Falling Waters Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 100 S., approximately ¼ mile East of Lake-Porter County Line Road in Porter Township. (To contain 10 lots on 8.09 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Mr. Breitzke asked if Mr. Capp returned to the meeting.

Mr. Thompson stated he had to go back to his office in Illinois because he forgot his paper work.

Mr. Whitten moved to continue Case 05-P-13 until the September 28, 2005 meeting. Mr. Read seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

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

Case 05-P-14. Petition of 2 Dreams, LLC, P.O. Box 448, Westville, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Hunnington Chase Subdivision to be located on the South side of CR 950 N. between Porter/LaPorte County Line road and CR 675 E. in Jackson Township. (To contain 8 lots on 17.91 acres. Property is zoned Rural Residential.)

Mike Duffy stated with me tonight is Matt Keiser and we are from the Duneland Group Engineering. He stated we are representing the developer in this case. He stated as was stated there are 8 lots on just under 18 acres. He stated this is rural residential and septic and well. He stated it has 365 feet of road going down to a small cul-de-sac right down the center of it. He stated there is a detention basin on the east side of the subdivision, which will be collecting water that is coming from a culvert pipe underneath CR 950 N. along with our own subdivision water. He stated it will slow it down and detain and released through a standpipe and out of the pipe to the county road ditch out to the east on the southeast corner of the property. He stated there is currently open space set aside at 20% along with an additional percentage as asked for…there is trees along the southern boundary of our property and it was agreed upon to put those trees in an easement, however, with a stipulation that that area can still be counted for the usable area for septic, however, the developer has to commit to not clearing those trees and the lots owners there will be a restriction on there the final plat when we get to that stage as well so as to leave that area natural so we can best comply with the open space ordinance. He stated that makes for a total percentage of about 26.3% of open space on this parcel. He stated there is a wetland in the outlot, which is the primary open space area. He stated two lots will front on CR 950 N. on the west side of the property along with one lot next to the existing home site on the far east side of the property. He stated the County Health Department asked us to put in some subsurface drains to make provisions for any issues that people might have with getting their septic systems in. He stated that has been provided for. He stated I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Phillip Blackwell, 936 N. County Line Road. He stated my property adjoins this property. He stated right now I have trouble with flooding on County Line Road because the water comes from the west, south and the north and meets right at the end of my driveway and runs under County Line Road into LaPorte. He stated we definitely have problems there with flooding. He stated if they put these homes in there all I want them to do is to make sure that their retention pond is going to stop excess water from running over there. He stated right now if we get a good rain County Line Road sits under about three inches of water for about four hours. He stated I have some drawings made up and I am sorry I don’t have enough for everyone. He stated I would like for you to look at them and read them. He stated there are three sections. He stated one section is when I applied for my house and verified that there are wetlands there. He stated the second section shows the flooding that I am getting. He stated the third section is Hunnington Chase where their wetlands are at and how it drains over to my place. He stated the first section shows that Chuck Walker from the Conservation Department and underneath my driveway south 180 feet, which puts it right on the culvert that runs under County Line Road into LaPorte. He stated in the northeast side is labeled wetlands or watershed. He stated believe me in a wet season that water comes running off of that hill like you wouldn’t believe. He stated I have pictures in the very last section here of a hickory tree. He stated the water comes washing underneath the Hickory tree right across my property. He stated all I am asking is that they put in a retention pond to stop the excess water from the houses coming across my property. He stated I have had two things happen since I have been there and I have been there nine years. He stated behind me is a swamp. He stated there is a topographical survey. He stated the gentleman that owns the property the swamp is on filled in half of it, which forced more water my way. He stated across the street in LaPorte he filled in an open ditch and left a 12-inch pipe sticking out from water that comes out of a three foot culvert going into a 12-inch pipe. He stated then it overflows and comes back over County Line Road washing out my driveway. He stated Porter County Highway Department just replaced my culvert from a 12-inch to a 27-inch. He stated I didn’t request it. He stated the gentleman from the subdivision requested it. He stated after they replaced it we had a couple of good rains and the pictures there proved what I am saying about water washing away the stones. He stated there is definitely a problem there. He stated my main concern is how are they going to retain that water to keep if from flowing over on my place.


Matt Keiser stated during the TAC session and the design of this subdivision we ran off site calculations of the area to the north. He stated there is approximately 35 acres that drains from the north to the south. He stated there is currently an 18-inch cmp or a corrugated metal pipe, which drains onto Hunnington Chase. He stated part of the design of this is to take not only the subdivision water to our pond but also detaining the offsite water that flows through here. He stated according to Porter County standards 10 year allowable release rate is 16.8 cfs. He stated to relieve the downstream problems we are proposing to release 4.8 cfs, which is along with the offsite water that is traveling through here about 19% less than what is currently coming off there. He stated we see this as a big benefit to the people downstream. He stated there will be a lot less water coming off of here then there is currently now. He stated this is a huge pond. He stated the area is about 1.8 acres at the surface level that it can hold. He stated it is size at 1.72 acre feet, which is quite substantial for this size subdivision and we did that because of the fact of the upstream that is flowing through here and to try to relieve any drainage problems down stream.

Mr. Blackwell stated as long as the water is retained and it doesn’t wash out my driveway. He stated I have no more questions or problems with it.

Jim Gorski, 1107 N. 650 E., Valparaiso. He stated my dad is adjacent to this property north of it and it also flows through his. He stated a lot of the problem is County Line Road. He stated the County doesn’t have proper ditches along it. He stated the gentleman is correct. He stated everything goes into LaPorte County. He stated County Line Road itself is problem because of this is all coming south from the peak of the county there. He stated I am assuming that Duneland Group calculates drainage so the detention pond would surely help out. He stated it is just the county has a major side road ditch problem that hasn’t been looked into.

Mr. Blackwell stated Porter County really can’t do anything until LaPorte County gets it straightened out. He stated how he buried that 12-inch pipe and he didn’t close the drainage over the ditch and backfilled it and left the 12-inch pipe sticking from a three foot culvert. He stated then he subdivided that lot and sold it. He stated I watched him do it.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Whitten stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no comments at this time.

Mr. Burns stated I have nothing.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing.

Commissioner Harper stated I have nothing.


Mrs. Marshall stated I have some questions. She stated first of all this is very severe soil. She stated my opinion is that the density is too much even though the zoning allows for you to be able to put that many houses in there. She stated I think that the density is too much. She stated I don’t know that you can get a house on those lots unless the Health Department can place them. She stated I don’t know how you are going to get those houses on those lots with the separation between…this is private wells and septic.

Mr. Keiser stated right.

Mrs. Marshall stated you need a separation there. She stated I would be concerned with the type of soils that there are that these lots are big enough to support a house. She stated I think that the density is too much.

Mr. Keiser stated I think that the County Health Department has already reviewed this. He stated we have gone through TAC.

Mr. Duffy stated the developer had the soil borings done on the property. He stated they are noted on there where they were taken. He stated it was submitted to the Health Department for their review on the soils report to make sure that they were satisfactory.

Mrs. Marshall stated the other thing that I don’t see with this submission is the watershed map as to what is flowing in it and what is coming into this property.

Mr. Keiser stated I did the drainage calculations and they are turned into TAC. He stated in those calculations I outline exactly the offsite properties that flowing through. He stated this is the offsite delineation. He stated much the same as we did with Damon Run. He stated I typically do that with each subdivision so that the reviewing party can look and then reviewed the calculations. He stated with it being on here without having the calculations with it it really wouldn’t help assist you with determining how much water is coming through here. He stated so I include those with the actual calculations that get turned in with the plans for TAC.

Mrs. Marshall stated TAC is just a gathering mechanism to get all the information together but I think it has to be a part of what is submitted to the Plan Commission members because some of us are interested in the watersheds. She stated I can’t guess as to what it is.

Mr. Duffy stated I can get you those in future packets.

Mr. Read stated I think you have more problems than just surface runoff. He stated HkA has described in here, “This soil has severe limitations for building sites because of wetness and the shrink-swell potential.” He stated it also points out a problem for local roads. He stated then it say, and this is on septic tank and well, “Limitations are severe for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness and slow or very slow permeability.” He stated I know the


County Health they don’t measure and they don’t know where the water table is. He stated they don’t even ask for it. He stated so approval by the County Health Department doesn’t mean anything to me until they start picking up the parameters that are necessary to find out whether or not a septic field will work. He stated now Wh; let me read that. He stated it says, “Limitations are severe for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness.” He stated let me go to another one here. He stated high water table, as far as I am concerned unless you have enough land to take care of these problems, and I have lived for fifty some odd years on land that has septic tank and well, and I am very familiar with the problems with high water tables because it doesn’t work at all with a high water table. He stated in my case I had two acres, which was a little bit big enough to take care of deficiency’s plus the fact that nobody else was around me and nobody else will be around me. He stated you have to have a large enough lot to take care of inadequacies of the soil. He stated so as far as I am concerned this is not suitable for septic tank and well despite any approval or test by the County Health Department.

Mr. Duffy stated the Wh soil actually is specifically excluded from all the septic calculations. He stated we had a soil scientist go out there and he delineated where that soil type was so that would not be included in any acreage so as not to cause that issue with those lots that you are speaking of over there.

Mr. Read stated the best that you got is RIB in which they say is moderate in the book here. He stated moderate is not good. He stated but moderate is usable at least if the area is large enough. He asked where are you not going to build. He stated you have lots list shown here in Wh and HkA both of which has severe limitations and high water table. He stated we don’t even know where the table is during the worse time of the wettest time of the year. He stated the book says, “At times that the water table is at or near the surface of the ground.” He stated unless somebody can show me that in the Spring of the year that it is deep enough that you can get a septic tank field functioning properly, I don’t know what you can do except maybe one house on the whole…on a very large area and you have lots here. He asked what are the sizes of your lots.

Mr. Duffy stated all of them have to have a minimum of one acre of usable soil.

Mr. Read stated you realize our Master Plan says two acres. He stated going back to the Master Plan I have to say also you are well aware and I have said this to you before that our Master Plan encourages building close to urban areas, urban fringe is its term. He stated this is not urban fringe by any stretch of the imagination. He stated it is not urban fringe. He stated so it is way out in the boonies. He stated that plus the severe limitations I think you have a problem.

Mr. Keiser stated I think that is one of the reasons that the Health Department required us to put in subsurface drainage was to combat the high water table that does happen. He stated each lot will


have its own dedicated underground subsurface drainage area that does have day light on this site.

Mr. Read asked where does it drain to. He stated all your area around here has similar type soils. He asked where is it going to drain to. He stated you got the pumps. He stated if you are going to drain something that to lower the water table you have to pump it to lower the water table. He asked where are you going to pump it to.

Mr. Keiser stated I believe that we have elevation here.

Mr. Duffy stated it is not actually being pumped. He stated the gravity the fall on site actually takes all the water.

Mr. Read stated I don’t think gravity will take this. He stated with all do respect to the Porter County Health Department I don’t think it is going to work.

Mr. Cole stated let me first say as far as the design of the site as far as using a little creativity as far as being much more than a hum drum boring subdivision I think it is certainly fulfills that. He stated it is very nice. He stated I don’t know that I would expect any less from the Duneland Group. He stated however, I do scratch my head over the Health Departments approval on these soils. He stated it pretty much says, “Don’t put any basements in here.” He stated in the same time, I am looking at a house on usable acreage and a septic field that will probably have to be replaced in set elsewhere within probably a number of years. He asked do we have that health report for review. He stated it would be nice if we saw those reports rather than having to ask for them especially when we have conditions like this. He asked are they looking at septic fields or just mounds.

Mr. Breitzke stated they give an alternate. He stated if it is very severe they will go to a mound system.

Mr. Read asked did they measure water table.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Mr. Read asked at what time of the year.

Mr. Breitzke stated the seasonal water indicator. He stated it is not the water itself. He stated it is the indicators in the soil that they measure to, which is a much more conservative approach.

Mr. Read asked what time of year.

Mr. Breitzke stated it doesn’t matter what time of year. He stated when you are looking for indicators it is the size of the water hits.

Mr. Read stated I have experienced septic fields with high water tables and low water tables and if it is high its not going to work.



Mr. Cole stated like I said I am scratching my head on this. He stated I am interested though. He asked are you controlling that runoff in the area north of Mr. Blackwell with plantings to slow down that water. He stated you said there was a 20% reduction in runoff.

Mr. Keiser stated we are routing all the water from our site into the detention pond. He stated there is a standpipe that releases it at the controlled elevations that we have determined with that 4.8, 4.6 cfs outlet.

Mr. Cole asked what is the condition of this field now. He asked is it being farmed.

Mr. Duffy stated this residual parcel was a farm.

Mr. Cole asked do you have any idea how long ago it was farmed.

John Kadish, 678 E. 950 N., and I am one of the owners of the property. He stated it was farmed last year.

Mr. Biddinger stated I was doing a quick calculation here and based on the same soil map that Mr. Read was reading from. He stated if I took all the soils in Porter County that were not limited as severe according to the soil maps I have 14.2% of the county that is actually adequate for septic systems.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is true.

Mr. Biddinger stated the other thing is these soil maps are an average and they are also a…I have seen cases where I went out and looked at soils. He stated the map says it should be one thing and I have seen totally different soils there and totally different situations. He stated places where drainage has changed and the maps weren’t always adequate. He stated there are cases where work arounds on septic system are quite simple. He stated that being said I would like to see a little bit larger size because one of my biggest fears is a failed septic system. He stated with the one acre lots sometimes you are not going to have an extra place to put them. He stated especially on some of the slopes and the limits. He stated the other thing is your best soils also happen to be your highest slopes, which throw in a little bit of an odd situation as well. He stated I don’t know if I have any good answers for you. He stated I just had some comments and some thoughts as I was looking through this stuff.

Mr. Detert stated we have been fighting this battle on septic system for a long time but it is not our battle to fight. He stated I would agree with the comments that have been made. He stated from what I have been involved in there is a lot of work around septic systems. He stated I think we are beating our head against the wall because we don’t have the authority here on septic systems. He stated I can get a legal opinion on that but I don’t know what we can do. He stated it is very frustrating. He stated we have a lot of failed septic systems in the county and I have seen them. He stated as a Plan Commission member I have always been told, “That is none of your business.”


Mr. Breitzke stated it probably would be the best interest of the home owners to recommend mound systems in these cases. He stated that is a relatively safe way to go and easy to repair. He stated the State Board of Health, which directs the Porter County Health Department, has its rules. He stated they are still very conservative believe it or not. He stated I think a lot of times with failed septic it is not so much a matter of the design requirements but the installation. He stated most of the failures I have witnessed or seen were poor installation, poor judgment when putting in the septic field. He stated one of the worst things of all is people adding enzymes to their septic tank and that plugs up the systems and we are fighting against commercial America because that product is out there and if I can discourage anybody out there from using enzymes in septic tanks please don’t. He stated call the people that empty out your septic tanks at least once every four years.

Mr. Breitzke recognized Mr. Blackwell to speak.

Mr. Blackwell stated I have three acres for my septic and my perimeter drain to cover it. He stated anything less than that you are in trouble.

Commissioner Harper stated I don’t think we can stop and just say we don’t accept septic systems. He stated so I don’t think we have that mandate. He stated but I think that we have the mandate to decide whether a septic system will work on a particular piece of land. He stated I think that is our business. He stated I don’t think it is our business to say, “Well, we are never going to allow any subdivisions in with septics.” He stated I don’t think we can do that. He stated I do think that we have the right to question whether this land is sufficient for this need. He stated I look at that Health Department report and I don’t quite understand that. He stated it sounds to me like they have talked about the eight (8) lots but I don’t have it in front of me right now. He stated then they said three (3) or four (4) of them are going to be mounds. He asked am I reading that right Bob. He asked is that what that means.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Commissioner Harper stated then it says flood. He asked what does that mean.

Mr. Thompson stated flood dose system, which means it is going to be like a pressurized type system. He stated normal laterals are four inches. He stated these flood dose might be two inch laterals because it is going to be actually a mechanical pump system that is going to push it in to those laterals.

Mr. Breitzke stated what happens is that they do time distributions every four hours, every eight hours or every twelve hours to evenly distribute the water. He stated at that point my recommendation to most people in the past is just go to a mound system. He stated it is easy to rebuild and there are much fewer problems. He stated I don’t know why they didn’t go to mounds for all of them.


Commissioner Harper stated it sounds to me like what we are doing is approving, if we approve this, putting septic into soil that really can’t take care of it that some of it is going to be coming off of it and runoff water that is going I don’t know where. He stated that sounds to what we are doing. He stated if you can explain to me how we can put septic sewer into wet soil and improper soil and somehow not have a danger of runoff on someone else or into a stream or drain or something like that. He stated I don’t quite understand it. He stated I will accept the fact that if you build a mound…

Mr. Breitzke stated what happens is that the laterals are built low to the ground and it is a ground water distribution plan. He stated one of the reasons they dewater or put perimeter drains around is to dewater the area around and inside the septic field area. He stated pumps might fail during storm conditions, whatever. He stated the State Board of Health will not do pumps when it comes to the storm water or the ground water collection. He stated they are a minimum of ten feet away from the septic field. He stated they are two feet lower. He stated it takes time for that water transmits before the affluent is basically the liquids, not the solids. He stated the solids are collected in the tank. He stated the liquids come out…the bath water, the urine and that kind of thing. He stated usually it is fairly rich water but we still want it to go through the ground water or the ground biology and that is what makes it work. He stated it is an age old proven technology or biology, I guess, and it typically does work. He stated the true wetlands in here, which he is right they have them and that is where the water is surficial. He stated it will come up and is largely set aside. He stated that is not included for the building site for the septic systems. He stated you can’t put stuff in there.

Commissioner Harper stated I don’t question whether septic systems can work in dry soil. He stated I don’t question that. He stated I question whether a septic system can work because most septic systems that I have been around that have failed and that smell when you are walking up to the soil you can almost see your footprint in the soil walking up to it. He stated that’s the ones I have seen that failed.

Mr. Detert stated we have always been told we can’t. He asked can we vote against something where we don’t think a septic system is going to make it because of the water table.

Attorney Tallian stated I can answer your question, but give me a couple of minutes to…I think that you can vote against this subdivision
if you find that there are designs or other criteria that are against the public health, safety and welfare. She stated I think that if you make that determination that is a basis to turn down a subdivision. She stated I don’t think the law makes the distinction between whether you find that the public health, safety and welfare is jeopardized because of a traffic problem or because of a septic system problem.

Mr. Detert stated that is the first time I have heard that. He stated in 1990 when I thought we were tightening the septic laws in


Indiana and actually they’ve gotten worse since then. He stated we have more failures and what do we do when we have failures. He stated we have a soil scientist say that they are okay and we have the Health Department saying they are okay but when they fail who ends up brunting the expense, the homeowner.

Mr. Breitzke asked where do they have more failures. He asked do we have statistics to…I know there’s a lot more inspection because the mortgage lenders now require inspections of the septic and well on every sale. He stated there is more turnover of property discovery of these bad septics. He stated it has been my experience that most of the properties that I have seen are older properties that there prior to the 1990 requirements. He stated often they are feeding directly…

Mr. Cole stated one case in point would be the convience store at the northwest corner of Calumet Avenue and U.S. 6. He stated they had to build another mound system because the first one failed. He stated in fact those neighbors are still complaining about the smell and the water coming off the first one, which is still being used evidently.

Mr. Whitten stated I found that the discussion about the septics intriguing, fascinating and I am very troubled by this.

Mr. Whitten moved to deny Case 05-P-14. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 05-P-15. Petition of John Arndt, LLC, 2710 33-Mile Road, Romeo, Michigan seeking primary plat approval for Rilan Acres Subdivision to be located at 988 N. 400 E. in Jackson Township. (To contain 12 lots on 20.38 acres. Property is zoned Rural Residential.)

Mike Duffy stated I am here again with Matt Keiser and we are from Duneland Group representing Mr. Arndt who is here tonight. He stated this is a single family RR residential development. He stated it is calling out for twelve (12) lots just under 20 acres. He stated there is an existing home site up on the northwest corner of the proposed road and CR 400. He stated it has a pond down on the southwest corner, which will have a release into Sand Creek, which is just off the edge of our property on the very southwest corner of our site. He stated there is a large stand of trees along the west side and a little bit a long the south side, which are being preserved in the open space. He stated the open space basically amounts to 20% and it is basically along the whole north south line of the west side of the subdivision so as to preserve along the Creek corridor. He stated we are releasing about half the amount of water that we are allowed to release as there is also no offsite water that drains through the site. He stated the site is kind of on a ridge and it is self contained for the most part. He stated I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have about the subdivision.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Byron Wilson, 987 N. 400 E., Chesterton. He stated my home is directly across CR 400 E. from this proposed subdivision. He stated I have kind of listed some items that are a concern to me. He stated safety and health are one of them. He stated a second is storm water flow. He stated a third is financial and a fourth is perhaps just a plain absence of lack of information from the owners as to what is really going to transpire there. He stated I really have basically nine questions to ask these gentlemen. He stated I have actually printed a sheet that I can give you or give to them.

Mr. Breitzke stated please give it to them because they need to answer your questions.

Mr. Wilson stated let me start out saying as far as storm water would any water from the development or its entrance roadway be redirected back towards the east direction or the roadway ditches on the road. He stated the second question is storm water now flows out from the current homestead driveway, this is an old farm home that has been there for many, many years. He stated it now flows out from the driveway onto CR 400 E. because the roadway ditch paralleling the road is mostly filled with soil debris and there is no open tube under the driveway. He stated it has been closed for many years and when it rains hard the road because a flood. He stated the question is will the roadway ditch be deepened to stop this condition. He stated my next question I am not sure if it is a legal thing that they don’t have to answer but I would like to know if there are any restrictive covenants that will apply to each of these lots. He stated fourth question is what caliber of homes will be constructed here. He asked are they modular homes, mobile home or are they homes that suit the area. He stated my safety and health issue is CR 400 E. is really a very heavily traveled road especially in the morning and the evening. He stated most of the vehicles that use this road don’t abide by the 30 or 35 mph speed limit. He stated I realize that I can’t rely on the County Police to be there every day so speeding will and does occur. He stated I have had a chance to look at this map or this drawing a head of time. He stated it doesn’t to me, and I am not an engineer by education or degree, appear that there are any acceleration or deceleration lanes that will somehow help the people that will be coming into and out of this proposed subdivision to gain or reduce speed. He stated my driveway will be directly across the road from the entrance to this subdivision. He stated I am concerned that there is going to be accidents out there not only for the people who potentially will live there but people who drive on this road. He stated my next question is will the entrance roadway shown on that drawing be public or private. He asked will the existing homes and buildings on this land be demolished. He asked will there be any changes to the east side of CR 400 E. in the immediate vicinity including electric, telephone structures, trenching, excavations, guy wires or what have you. He stated his drawing shows several electric utility poles to be relocated. He stated one of them appears to be the pole that holds the transformer to our home. He stated I worked in the electrical business for many years and I know that some things are done hot energize and some are not done energized. He asked are we going to be without power to our home for “x” number of hours and if so who is going to compensate us for that. He asked lastly, what is the anticipated


construction schedule for this subdivision. He asked if this is approved are they going to start in October, or five years from now. He asked how much dust is going to be generated.

Charlotte Robertson, 80 N. 400 E. She stated my property is directly adjacent to the south of this property. She stated if approved this subdivision will greatly increase the value of the petitioner’s property but greatly decrease the value of our property. She stated in affect they will be taking money out of our pocket and putting it into the pocket of the developer and that is not right. She stated we own a small horse farm, which we bought as a horse farm about 18 years ago. She stated during that period we have spent considerable amounts of money to upgrade the facility making it the type of facility that will support quality horses, show horses in the $50,000 and up range. She stated if this subdivision is approved we will not be able to use our property to its fullest extent. She stated one pasture will not be used at all and without that pasture our land will only support two horses. She stated we will no longer be able to sell our property as a horse farm supporting 5 horses even though we have stalls and facilities for five horses. She stated further more this property is part of several parcel including ours and Apple Acres Girl Scout Camp, which is a very unique and rare ecologically sensitive environment. She stated this environment is the original Sand Creek that has never been grazed or forested or bulldozed in any way. She stated it is geologically a very rare piece of land. She stated it is called Sand Creek because it is where the old Lake Chicago Dune came in and you can find the same kind of beach things that you find on Lake Michigan. She stated it is the last piece of this land. She stated Sand Creek, which you know has a big development on it but this is the only piece of Sand Creek that is in its original pristine state. She stated I say that hopefully taken provisions in our family to protect this property and I know the Girl Scout Camp is very protective of this property. She stated this is the very type of environment that the Green Space Ordinance is design to protect. She stated yet this developer is packing this property with as many lots as he can. She stated there have been several other developments in this section in the past two years. She stated all of these developments have been sensitive to this unique environment. She stated they have very large lots of three to five acres or more. She stated the few that are just one acre are placed so there is a lot of open space between them and they do not encroach in any way or drain into the creek. She stated I have several questions about the drainage and encroachment on our land by this development. She stated in the past we have had several problems as have our neighbors with trespassers and we have approached as many ways as we can to try to respect our private property. She stated our private property has not been respected. She stated from this property we have been encroached upon by having four-wheel drive vehicles go through our property and motorcycles and all kinds of trespassing. She stated we have had people shoot from that property here and other animals on our property. She stated the Girl Scouts have had a big problem with this too where they have had deer carcasses dragged across their property and the girls would see this and be very upset about it. She stated I also have a lot of questions about the drainage. She stated there have been problems with flooding on this land in the past


years. She stated not this year because we have had a draught. She stated it has been a very serious problem in the past. She stated at one time we dug a test for a pond about five to ten feet from that line. She stated the water table is only five to eight feet when we dug down there. She stated it is a very high water table. She stated if we find that we have flooding problems from this development where do we turn. She stated do we just absorb the lost. She stated do we just take on the losses that we will be having from this development while the developer profits. She stated I don’t think that is right and I don’t think people who have been here should have to loose daily of their land when somebody wants to increase the value of theirs.

Barbara Myers, 996 N. 400 E. She stated we are just north of the property. She stated from the years that we have been there the property floods and it becomes a swamp. She stated it floods us and it floods to the south. She stated we have tried to reroute the water, damn the water and we end up loosing. She stated the way that the road is and the amount of traffic that would be coming in and out of the subdivision. She stated if you can’t see now. She stated if you put that many homes with that much septic that many more cars in an area where a 35 mph speed limit means nothing. She stated they fly down that road and they think it is still Rt. 6 or 49. She stated we realize the progress is bound to happen but it needs to happen with the concern of the people around them and the property around them.

Albert Myers, 996 N. 400 E. He stated I’ve been trying to keep that property decent. He stated I have a large farm tractor and you go in there in the Spring I have been that deep in mud every Spring. He stated if you go down there and look at it you would swear it is a junk yard. He stated there is a spring there that runs constantly and it is running right now.

Mr. Duffy stated concerning storm water flow. He stated Mr. Wilson asked will any water from the development or its entrance roadway be directed back towards the east or the roadway ditches on the road. He stated no it all goes interior to the west. He stated the second question was storm water now flows out from the current homes driveway and fruit tree area onto the county road because the roadway ditch is mostly filled with soil or debris and there is an open tube under the current driveway will the roadway ditch be deepened to stop this. He stated one of the requests by TAC, which we agreed to, was to remove that driveway entirely and make the existing home site enter off of the Megan Rose Lane the new subdivision road. He stated so that driveway will be removed and the ditch restored in that location. He stated the third question, what if any restrictive covenants apply to each lot. He stated I have not seen them, however, I know the developer was planning on putting some restrictive covenants on what can and cannot be built. He stated the fourth question, what are the caliber of the homes that are expected to be built. He stated that I can’t answer other than market conditions will…

John Arndt, 2310 33-Mile Road, Romeo, Michigan. He stated they will be homes in the $200,000 to $250,000 range. He stated they will not be modulars or anything of that sort.


Mr. Duffy stated question five was CR 400 E. is heavily traveled in this area and speeding vehicles will be a safety concern for everyone and no acceleration and deceleration lanes are shown on the entrance roadway to the proposed development. He stated the question goes on to ask if this safety issue will be addressed. He stated it was presented to the Highway Engineer and he had us add the tapers in. He stated he is correct. He stated there are no acceleration or deceleration extension lanes. He stated it goes 75 feet on the north side and 75 feet on the south side for a taper, which will get people off the roadway. He stated it is not a true deceleration lane. He stated question six, will the entrance roadway be public or a private roadway. He stated it will be public. He stated question seven asks, will the existing buildings be demolished. He stated not they will not. He stated they will be sold as part of the lot. He stated question eight asks, will there be any changes to the east side of CR 400 E. and the immediate vicinity including electric or telephone structures such as trenching, excavation, guy wires etc. He stated I guess I can’t adequately answer that. He stated how REMC and Verizon choose to be the site I won’t know until they review it and say whether or not they are going to lower the lines underground or if they are going to move the poles. He stated typically in a situation like this seeing there are only two poles that need to be relocated they typically just move them over because it is far cheaper on themselves than to bury the lines. He stated the next question was what is the anticipated construction schedule. He stated I have not actually discussed this with my client other than possibly this year and if not this year then in the Spring.

Mr. Arndt stated with approval probably late this year or early Spring.

Mr. Duffy stated Mrs. Robertson I can’t really speak of the land value. He stated I am not an appraiser so I don’t know. He stated I wish I could answer that for you. He stated I do know that with the quality of homes in the $250,000 range that is not a cheap home site. He stated as far as the drainage into Sand Creek we are not touching anything around there. He stated the pond is going to discharge into the natural ravine that is currently on our property. He stated there is no intention of getting in there. He stated they can’t go in there and clear any of the trees. He stated that is part of the open space and that land has to be set aside. He stated we shouldn’t be impacting anything down in that area. He stated also the wetland inventory map shows that area as being wet so we need to stay out of that area.

Mr. Keiser stated we have no water from our site exiting to the north or to the south. He stated all of our water is being picked up by storm sewers and taken into the public storm sewer and into our detention pond and released at a lower rate. He stated as far as it being a junk yard and cleaned up and trespassers. He stated I believe that this is something that would be taken care of by the development of this property. He stated trespassers that would be hunting on this would no longer be able to hunt on this and anyone who did hunt on it would be trespassing against the owner’s current permission. He stated
after development that open space of hunting would be taken away with


residential housing. He stated the same thing with junk yard concern. He stated this would be cleaned up at that point.

Mr. Wilson stated I am not sure if I heard what you said about the ditch in the front there. He stated you said the existing driveway to the east home was going to be relocated and the ditch is going to be restored. He stated in other words when it rains heavily there is water in the ditch south of the existing driveway. He stated there is some water south of the existing driveway in the ditch when it rains heavily. He stated now it comes out on the road. He stated I understood you to say that the ditch along the road will be deepened in addition to the road the driveway being moved. He stated there is no ditch along the road there now in front of that home. He stated all the water comes into the road. He stated lastly just a comment. He stated the home that is on the property now is a relatively small home. He stated the people that live there now come and go and the place is a junk yard. He stated I would like to get some assurance from the owner here that this is going to be cleaned up when this property is developed or sooner.

Mrs. Robertson stated the existing house is on a hill. She stated our home is built on a manmade hill. She stated their house is on a rise. She stated there is a reason why these houses are built up high. She stated if our house was built on the level low land that is level with all of this it would flood. She stated even though it is built up on a rise there was a time that we had six inches of water in our basement. She stated now they are not going to drain the water into a drainage ditch in front. She stated they are going to drain it all back into Sand Creek into this very fragile, very special place. She stated there is going to be a lot of erosion from that. She stated I have seen erosion already from just natural drain on that land. She stated so now they are going to be taking all this water from all this drainage and from septic and it is all going to go into this one thing and back into Sand Creek. She stated I think it is very damaging.

Mrs. Myers stated there is no place for the water to go. She stated the reason why we are built higher is because he is saying that there is a wetland in the corner. She stated there are wetlands all the way across. She stated the septics will not accept it. She stated they were saying they weren’t going to take down the barn and the existing home. She stated they are also saying that they are going to be putting up $250,000 homes on one acre lots with well and septic with this garbage home and barn next to it. She stated I think we need an explanation.

Mr. Myers stated we have ten acres of property. He stated the property they are talking about goes back to that dip that they are talking about. He stated the water comes from the turnpike. He stated it starts at the turnpike and comes down across that land. He stated if you go in there with a truck you will get stuck. He stated I don’t know how they can build a house in here. He stated if they turn around where that farm house is and they even take it away the water is still going to come down that stream right in front of our property. He stated it gets this deep in front of our property. He stated it makes


a circle and goes down where the new houses are. He stated I don’t know how the ground can handle any more abuse. He stated our front yard gets this deep in water and it is four acres in front of our house. He asked would you want to put up with that. He stated it is a mess.

Mr. Duffy stated the existing driveway is getting removed and if there are any draining concerns up there they will be rectified on however they need to do it. He stated I think once the driveway is out it will be a little more apparent what if anything needs to be done there. He stated if it needs to be deepened I am sure that the excavator and the developer will do to alleviate any issues. He stated no one is intending to create any issue for anybody. He stated the drainage flow that is heading down to the detention basin is actually going to be about half release into that ditch than what is going to be released into now. He stated as far as the erosion issue as opposed to the water just running freely through it it will be controlled and there will be rip rap and it will likely not erode anything. He stated based on our topography and based on the calculations that we have made the site is actually on a ridge. He stated it is not taking the water from offsite. He stated we have looked at this on USGS and we have analyzed it and it is not absorbing the water from outside. He stated that is why we are containing the water on our side and getting it into the pond so as to not to make any body adjacent to this problems.

Mr. Keiser stated a lot of the water if it is sitting on this property is going to be picked up by storm sewer structures and routed to an area lower than is there right now. He stated I am not sure about the rest of the area and all of the surrounding area and what sort of problems there are. He stated however, on the site when we did the design of it we tried to pick up all of the water that we can with the topography of it as being on a high point on a ridge. He stated if the water doesn’t flow to it we can’t do anything about that. He stated however, the water that is on this site will be taken into the pond located on the west side of the property and released at a lower than allowable release rate. He stated actually less than a one year rate pre-developed according to the ordinances.

Mr. Duffy stated the natural topography on this site if you look at the road profile is that it is high on the east and gets lower on the west but you would expect being that it has Sand Creek on the western edge.

Mrs. Robertson stated you are going to put rip rap in all these beautiful wild flowers. She stated to me you are destroying the land. She asked where are you going to put the rip rap.

Mr. Keiser stated the rip rap will be placed at the outlet pipe of the standpipe in order to control the velocity that will be exiting the site. He stated we are not looking at rip rapping the entire Sand Creek basin. He stated we are not looking at doing anything that is going to adverse any of the environmental features of this site. He stated however, the velocity of that outlet pipe will warrant some sort



of erosion control measures at the end of it to keep erosion to occur. He stated rip rap is one of the most beneficial and the easiest to maintain.

Mr. Breitzke stated specifically for clarity the standpipe is the outlet for the detention pond and that should be armored some way at the end. He stated I don’t think that they are going to armor it…is that what you are saying.

Mr. Keiser stated it will be just enough to control the velocity coming out of it during a 100 year storm to keep it from eroding the banks.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Whitten stated I don’t have any questions. He stated I do have some general concerns. He stated I am hearing a lot of discussion from the adjacent property owners with regard to water on their property. He stated I guess I have to echo what Commissioner Harper has said earlier and that is time and time again it seems like we have these adjacent property owners coming back and contacting the elected officials and saying that their property has been damaged or has been adversely affected by this development and what are you going to do for me. He stated then it is too late. He stated when we hear a lot of discussion or a lot of concerns from the neighbors with some long standing history and with really no economic interest other than to protect their property and its current value. He stated sometimes we just have to come to the terms with the fact that maybe a piece of property isn’t suitable for the development that is before us.

Mr. Burns stated I have a couple of issues. He stated they are talking about Sand Creek. He stated I have been out there and I used to hunt out there. He stated it is an awful nice piece of property. He stated it would be ashamed to damage that. He stated it is pristine and natural. He stated I am concerned about the drainage. He stated it is a wet area. He stated I am concerned about the property owners. He stated you have two large parcels adjacent to this and then there would be a subdivision between these two large parcels. He stated I think it would negatively affect the neighbors.

Mr. Detert stated I have the same concerns on drainage. He stated it is a piece of wet ground. He stated in all due respect to the engineers that looked at this drainage I always feel that the people who live there have a better idea because they are there all the time. He stated again we are talking about at high water table. He stated I am concerned about the septic as we discussed with the last case.

Mr. Biddinger stated I was just looking at the soil maps on the septic. He stated we have actually considerably better soils on this particular site. He stated we have a lot of Riddles, which aren’t quite as limiting on septic if you are going to go by this soils map. He stated this is a general guideline and this is not the end all and by no means replaces field borings and things along that line, which I am sure you have done. He stated the biggest concern that I have is


when you start getting into some of the mixed uses. He stated here we have some environments like an agricultural use a horse farm. He stated we have a camp in the area and now we are going to come in with a…it is not the most dense subdivision. He stated in fact it is much less dense than a couple that have been promoted tonight. He stated it is still a one acre subdivision going in the middle of all this. He stated I don’t know if I really have any answers but I am not sure if I like…the plan and everything on this subdivision is well thought out I think. He stated I am not sure if this is the place for it.

Commissioner Harper stated I don’t have any further questions. He stated I just echo some of the concerns that some of the other members have stated.

Mrs. Marshall stated you stated that this was going to a road that was going to be dedicated for the county. She stated so it is 60-foot wide and so in that roadway you probably have a 30-foot road and you are going to have swales on the side…

Mr. Duffy stated we will have curb and gutter.

Mrs. Marshall stated then the road is going to act as the water can do it to the pond that is down in this corner over here.

Mr. Duffy stated yes, the storm sewers within the road.

Mrs. Marshall stated in this area that you have identified as the area for the so called pond do you have any detail as to how you are going to keep or do you have any acre feet as to how you are going to keep this drainage that is going to come to it so that it doesn’t just swoof into Sand Creek. She stated are you planning to detain the water there.

Mr. Duffy stated we are required to.

Mrs. Marshall asked are you going to have a standpipe in there with little holes in it and it is going to outlet at a certain rate. She asked is that what I am understanding.

Mr. Duffy stated yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated as far as the existing buildings are concerned…did you go to TAC.

Mr. Duffy stated I was at some of the meetings. He stated unfortunately I was on vacation for some of them.

Mrs. Marshall stated this is the one on July 29. She stated there is a discussion about the fact that the older buildings can’t meet the requirements of the ordinance as far as setbacks. She asked is that true.

Mr. Duffy stated with dedication of right-of-way and additional building line of 40-feet the existing home, I believe, falls 30-feet


away from the right-of-way, so 10-feet into the new proposed building line.

Mrs. Marshall stated but you are going to sell these older buildings as a lot and then the new owners can tear it down and then they can be in compliance. She asked is that what you are suggesting here.

Mr. Duffy stated I don’t know exactly what a new owner would do. He stated I suppose he could tear it down if he wanted to or he could live in it as is. He stated it has happened numerous times. He stated there are houses that are in developments where new building lines have been platted around them. He stated I believe there is a requirement of a certain level of damage done to them. He stated for instance if they were destroyed they can’t be rebuilt in the same position. He stated they will have to be built in compliance with the current setbacks as they are at that time.

Mrs. Marshall asked are the restrictive covenants going to disallow accessory buildings of a certain size. She stated this existing older property has a building on there and I was just wondering if you were going to allow…I would not like to see that argument that they have one up front and I want one on my property. She stated I think that the restrictive covenants ought to address that. She stated again I want to tell you that I think the RR zoning is an error. She stated I know that you are maximizing what can be put into this property. She stated you have to understand the history of the RR zoning. She stated it was years ago in 1950 and 1960 that we had a doctor on this Plan Commission who wanted to preserve Jackson Township as an area that had large building sites. She stated that is where the RR zoning came in because you will find that most of Jackson Township is zoned RR. She stated however, I firmly, I am telling you that I don’t support the density that you are asking for on this property. She stated it is too much, even though the zoning allows it. She stated it is too much. She stated I know that as a developer you have to get as many roofs in order to finance the rest of the subdivision as far as roads and that are concerned and the infrastructure that is required to put in this subdivision. She stated in my opinion this is too much and this property cannot support the density that you are asking for.

Mr. Read stated as has been accurately pointed out a relatively small percentage of Porter County is suitable for septic tanks and I have to admit where I live is really not suitable for it either. He stated being sand it has its limitations. He stated that fact is the very reason why our Master Plan provides for two alternatives for landowners. He stated one is that it encourages the higher density near where sewer and water is available, what we now call urban fringe. He stated this is definitely not urban fringe. He stated the other alternative is larger lots and our Master Plan recommends a minimum of two acres when you are using septic tank and well. He stated of course that is the rule of thumb. He stated it can undoubtedly be less than that in some cases and more than that in others. He stated now looking at your soils map you have…it is a little bit better than the previous


one that we talked about because you have RIB in there which is called moderate for septic tank and development. He stated that is still not good but the other ones are all severe. He stated now we have been talking about surface runoff. He stated I haven’t heard anything about storm water quality. He stated you heard the discussion that we had on Timberland in which they agreed to follow the best management practices. He stated this particular area I don’t even think the best management practice is good enough for this section of Sand Creek. He stated it is truly one of the least disturbed water courses that we have in Porter County. He stated you have a situation in which you are plucking down a use that is much more concentrated than what is around it on all sides, besides the wetness problem, besides the well and septic tank problem, besides the matter of pretreatment of some kind of the water quality of the runoff before it gets to Sand Creek. He stated you have a number of strikes against you.

Mr. Cole stated I have to voice some of the same concerns. He stated the density perhaps the soil problem in a few areas here. He stated I would prefer to error on the side of caution rather than the side of risk of 14 or 15% of Indiana is only suitable for septic that seems to be proven by the number of people that I hear complain about their septic fields. He stated so I don’t know if there is anything wrong in that figure or that that figure reinforces any concern that the soil maps might be wrong or that they may be misleading. He stated I think they are pretty accurate at least in my area. He stated I do have a concern about lot 2 and I haven’t heard a thing here. He stated I didn’t read the TAC report on this particular piece of property. He stated this access to lot 2 is off of CR 400 E. and not from the road in the subdivision. He asked is that right.

Mr. Duffy stated that is correct.

Mr. Cole asked what did they say at TAC about that.

Mr. Duffy stated it has an existing drive right now.

Mr. Breitzke stated I really didn’t care much for the configuration of the lot as well as lot 1. He stated I was really hoping for it to look more at a combination of lot 1, 2 and 3. He stated however they can offer up what they want. He stated I think that the panel here has to remember TAC gives guidance based on the ordinances we write and the Commissioners underwrite. He stated we try to work through the technical issues but the bottom line is when you set a standard, which is also a minimum. He stated that is all they really have to shoot for when they start giving more and that’s what we hope sometimes that we can get a little bit more out of something. He stated many times we do and I think that they have in this case.

Mr. Cole stated I wasn’t applying that it was against any ordinance or anything but I do know in the past that Mr. Schelling has said, “What, another outlet onto a highway when you can do it inside a subdivision and have only one access or one outlet or one cut onto a road.” He stated I noticed too that this driveway is configured here and it is almost directly across from that other county road whose


number I can’t remember. He stated it goes back to the old Link house. He stated on the other hand and I think that this is the position of the Plan Commission, we not only have to look for the protection of the developer or admonishment of the developer but I think we have to look at the community at large and how any development affects an entire community. He stated this development will become part of that community. He stated we are looking a density issue. He stated I won’t say really dense but a density issue in an area of natural features. He stated in an area where there is a Girl Scout Camp. He stated there is also a traffic issue. He stated if you had this property and you put a big “For Sale” sign on it, “For Sale Farm Use only,” “For Sale Horse Far,” “For Sale Single Resident Estate.” He stated I would imagine it would sit there for a long, long time before any body would buy it for those uses. He stated the only way you could probably get rid of property these days is to sell it for development in Porter County. He stated that is ashame and that is really too bad. He stated it is essentially reducing Porter County to a number of off ramps that I know in Illinois. He stated at the other hand development of this property does solve some problems of trespassing of hunting of other unforced land use issues that do plague the neighbors on all three side and probably four sides. He stated it may or may not protect some of the natural features by reducing the hunting incidents. He stated I have had the opportunity to go through Sand Creek. He stated not as a hunter because I don’t hunt myself. He stated not as a trespasser. He stated I was invited. He stated I would think that if I were to consider this development in a positive light it would probably be with fewer lots, larger lots. He stated I think that the soil conditions could stand that. He stated of course as Kevin pointed out and as TAC points out it is really not encourage to have a second cut onto a major county road especially with one with the traffic that this one has just below the crest of a small hill. He stated although visibility is good there is a slight hill there. He stated I think of bicycle riders, kids on their skate boards, horseback riding I am sure occurs there. He stated certainly you have to consider all of those things. He stated nothing much has been said about natural features on here which might increase the open space allowance. He asked how much open space do we have.

Mr. Duffy stated 20%.

Mr. Read asked does that include the detention pond.

Mr. Duffy stated yes it does.

Mr. Cole stated the natural features would be 20% without a detention pond. He asked is that what I am hearing.

Mr. Thompson stated we talked about that and I was starting to enforce the full 20% on them without the detention pond. He stated they pointed out to me in the ordinance it only says when the use of the intensity bonus is in place that the detention facility cannot be consider as part of the open space. He stated I did read that and that may very well be a flaw of ours in that situation. He stated they pointed out to me that they were not using the intensity bonus with


this particular development however they did design the pond according to what we have in there as far as a detention facility. He stated we were also trying to encourage them with the possibility of actually having that as a lake because we thought it would help maybe with water quality and also add and aesthetic value to the parcel.

Mr. Breitzke stated I just have a few comments. He stated as I have said before we are kind of suggesting the combination of lots 1, 2, 3 and possibly 4. He stated we are dealing with Sebewa, which is a very temperamental soil. He stated in fact there is a valley across the proposed lot 5 that heads toward the Myers property. He stated the engineer did propose a drain to help improve that situation to catch the overflow toward the north and that feeds back to Sand Creek to redirect the water. He stated likewise a lot of the water is being intercepted by the road. He stated however, with the Sebewa I just really thought of repositioning the lots. He stated lot 2 in fact we are dealing with the taper in it and we need to be 160 foot wide at the building line and when that tapers that is a limitation on who ever buys the lot that unfortunately creates problems for BZA at a future date of how do we deal with that variance. He stated likewise, we also have these issues on the rears of lots 7, 8, 9 and 10. He stated they are only so far back. He stated in those cases I don’t think it affects as much as lot 2. He stated I think what they can do is enhance or improve the drainage. He stated what we hear tonight is a testimony from all the neighbors that they have existing drainage problems. He stated they are not going to get solved unless somebody starts giving conduit for the overflow. He stated the developer is called upon to do that and in this case to help protect the neighbor and improve the drainage. He stated that is what we try to make an effort to do. He stated sometimes it doesn’t work out that well but it doesn’t worsen the situation typically. He stated the pond here again is an opportunity I prefer to see a retention pond in this case where you collect the water and also have a lot of the plantings and environmental features that make it an even more attractive place. He stated there is probably more protection with having this pond here that currently exists with the land the way it is believe it or not. He stated the whole theory here being to capture all that water before it enters into Sand Creek. He stated I think this is a great area the Girl Scout Camp particularly. He stated it is a wonderful place, however, unfortunately we didn’t have an agency or somebody picked this up. He stated nobody came to bat when the land came up for sale and just buy the darn thing. He stated I tried to get property acquisition from DNR involved in some of these things. He stated I talked with other Federal Agency’s and whoever we could get a hold of without overburdening our own Park Department because they are looking at so many pieces of ground right now. He stated anytime we have an opportunity for one of our city’s and here is something for this panel to bare in mind for some of these properties when they come up for sale. He stated a municipality can have a city park as much as five miles from its corporate limit. He stated that is why Valparaiso had Harold Roger Lakewood Park, Creekwood Golf Course. He stated they were all outside the boundaries of Valparaiso. He stated I tend to agree. He stated I would like to see it less dense in consideration of the


geometrics of the lots and some of the soil typing that you got here. He stated also we were very concerned about the buildings and structures on the existing lot.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 05-P-15. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Duffy asked on what grounds are you denying this.

Mr. Breitzke stated at the next meeting there will be a “Findings of Fact.”

Discussion of the Rules & Procedures

At this time, the Plan Commission members went through the Rules & Procedures.

Mr. Breitzke stated one of the things that I suggest that we go ahead and discuss getting into the document a little bit is on 7.2 the Notice Requirements part B Publication. He stated in the petition the legal description include the acreage and number of lots in the development. He stated we will put it into 7.2 B under Publication. He stated you could probably add it to Item a.

At this time, the Commission had a discussion concerning this addition.

Ms. Tallian stated I will add this “for primary plat petitions.”

Mr. Read stated there is a typo on Paragraph 1.3 “Commission Jurisdiction.” He stated next to the last line it should “any” instead of “ant.”

Mr. Burns stated Section 7.2 about the signs. He asked why should the staff be responsible for the signs and why not the petitioner.

Mr. Thompson stated I have spoken with some counties and municipalities on that. He stated it varies. He stated some require the petitioner to set it up and others have the staff put it up.

Mr. Burns asked how many days prior to the meeting.

Mr. Thompson stated if you notice there is a change in this too. He stated the filing has changed. He stated instead of 20 days prior it has to be in 30 days prior for any public hearing. He stated notification for the papers has to be in 20 days prior. He stated I think the signage has to be up at least 10 days prior.

Attorney Tallian stated this doesn’t say.

Mr. Thompson stated we should probably have it 10 days prior because the staff report has to be done 5 days prior to the hearing.

Attorney Tallian stated if we put down 10 days you can put the sign up 20 days. She stated we can put down at least 10 days.

Mr. Burns asked does staff have the manpower to do this.

Mr. Thompson stated I go out to the site for every public hearing. He stated the only one I see where it could be difficult is Fred getting out the BZA. He stated this past agenda has nine cases. He stated with public hearing have a 30 filing prior it might be able to give us that time.

Attorney Tallian stated this also limits the number of public hearings at the BZA. She stated you guys will be happy to hear that.

Mr. Detert stated I think we should have the petitioner cover the cost of the sign. He stated he is the one asking for something.

Mr. Detert stated one other thing. He stated legal notices historically have been real, real small in the newspapers. He asked is there any way that they can be increased in size so people would be more aware of what is being done.

Attorney Tallian stated I suppose you could make rules about the size that it has to be published. She stated I really don’t know the answer to that because I suppose that you can probably require more than is required by the “Open Door” laws.

Mr. Detert stated people don’t read them.

Attorney Tallian stated that is true and I am not sure if they would read them if they were bigger.

Mrs. Marshall asked at this time what papers are these legals published in.

Mr. Thompson stated the Vidette Times and the Chesterton Tribune.

Attorney Tallian stated these people are also notified by certified mail. She stated the problem with that though is the back log of records in the Auditors Office who are way behind and if these people didn’t get notice chances are that is why.

Commissioner Harper stated I like Bob’s idea of having the legal notice in the paper a little bit bigger because you can’t read the darn thing.

Commissioner Harper moved to approve the Rules & Procedures for the Planning Commission as presented to us with the numbering correction and the suggestions that Mr. Detert has made and others have made on the notice. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.



Attorney Tallian stated I will make the corrects and then get you a copy.

Mr. Breitzke asked when do we start putting up the signs.

Attorney Tallian stated there is a requirement of about 30 days ahead of time.

Mr. Breitzke stated this becomes effective 30 days from now.

Attorney Tallian stated we should have a time when this goes into affect.

Mr. Detert moved that the Rules & Procedures go into affect 30 days from now. Mr. Whitten seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

s/Kevin Breitzke, President

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