PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
July 12, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Jim Burge, Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke, President. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the May 24, 2006 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the June 14, 2006 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the June 28, 2006 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated Stones Throw Subdivision has asked for a continuance.

Mr. Thompson stated I have a point on that one too. He stated at the July 26 meeting Karen Tallian and I are going to be presenting a report that night on the public input sessions and other input sessions that we have had on the Unified Development Ordinance that night, which could take some time going through it with the Plan Commission. He stated I was wondering if the Plan Commission wanted to continue hearing Stones Throw that night or move it to the August 9 meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated let’s move it to the first meeting in August.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 06-P-14 to the August 9, 2006 meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson stated I will notify all of the adjoiners on that and will repost the sign changing the date of the hearing.


Old Business:

Case 06-FP-9. Petition of Prairie Landings of Porter LLC, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Prairie Landing Subdivision, Phase 2 to be located southwest of the intersection of CR 100 S. and CR 500 W., Valparaiso, Indiana. (To contain 136 lots on 96.415 acres. Property is zoned R-1. con’t from 6-28-06 mtg.)

Mr. Detert stated these were not mailed out on time.

Mr. Breitzke stated these were mailed out prior to the continuance.

Mr. Detert stated I received mine on July 5.

Mr. Breitzke asked did you receive another copy of it.

Mr. Ferngren stated I don’t know what day Mr. Detert received the plans. He stated they were not mailed out 10 days in advanced. He stated our desire is to continue this because of that issue. He stated I would like to point out a couple of items though. He stated the holiday weekend caused some confusion with respect to mailing. He stated when we finally received the plans from the engineer we mailed them out the same day. He stated one issue that has come up on this particular project is the erosion control. He stated in particular there is a pond that had some significant erosion occurring in that. He stated Mr. Clem from Bob Thompson’s office has been out to the site numerous times to take a look at what has happened. He stated I think Mr. Cole has even been out there since then. He stated I have been out there at the last meeting as well and I would like to share with the Plan Commission members a series of photograph’s that were taken today to show the work that has been done since that time. He stated I think a lot of this work has been done since you were out there Mr. Cole. He stated these are just a series of photographs that were taken again this morning at 11:00 a.m. He stated they were after the deluge that we received all day yesterday and I think they will depict for you a very clean environment. He stated there is still some work to be done on the pond. He stated we recognize that. He stated Mr. Kloska has indicated to me that weather permitting he is going to get in there as soon as he possibly can and he contends to put the erosion control matting with seed in the banks of the pond to stabilize the soil conditions. He stated with that we expect all of that to be done before the next meeting.




Mr. Breitzke stated I have been out there several times as well and Jack Clem and I have had many conversations. He stated there are still some things that Jack wants to see and so I wish you would get a hold of him. He stated you appear to be cutting a new road just recently.

Mr. Ferngren stated we will get in contact with Mr. Clem and we are unclear on what he is asking us to do.

Mr. Cole moved to continue Case 06-FP-9 to the July 26, 2006 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

Burge - No Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes
Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes


Mr. Thompson stated I have no choice but to put them under “Old Business” because of the fact that their primary plat is going to expire in August. He stated I feel that I have no choice but to put them on the July 26, 2006 meeting.

Case 06-FP-11. Petition of Aberdeen Limited Partnership, c/o Benchmark, LTD, 57 S. Franklin, Suite 207, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Aberdeen, Phase I, to be located South of CR 100 N., between the Aberdeen Links and Aberdeen Prairie in Center and Union Township. (To contain 27 lots on 13.012 acres. Property is zoned R-1/PUD.)

Laura Frost stated I am an attorney with Hodges and Davis, 8700 Broadway, Merrillville, Indiana. She stated I am here on behalf of the applicant, which is Aberdeen Limited Partnership and their general partner, Benchmark Limited for final plat approval of Aberdeen, Phase I to be known as “The Heathers.” She stated this is part of the Aberdeen development. She stated as mentioned it is approximately 13.012 acre parcel. She stated about 5.5 acres in Center Township and about 7.3 acres in Union Township. She stated we have received primary plat approval for the subdivision at the September 28, 2005 Plan Commission meeting. She stated this was subject to receive certain variances from the BZA relative to the development of the street, Larwick Circle, as a private road. She stated this was primarily due to the fact that it is connecting to existing portions of the subdivision on either end, which are private roads. She stated those variances were granted by the BZA on October 19, 2005. She stated the subdivision otherwise meet all the R-1 zoning requirements, which is applicable to this development. She stated our application for final subdivision approval was filed


on November 8, 2005 and we went before TAC, which is what it was known at that time, on November 18, 2005. She stated our construction drawings were approved at that meeting and the construction of infrastructure commenced since then. She stated we went back again before DAC on June 2, 2006 and received a favorable recommendation at that meeting subject to the ability to change the amount of the performance bond, which would be required to be filed to the extent that additional infrastructure was completed between that time and the time we would file to record our final plat. She stated I do have in the information packet that was sent to you bonding information including the letter from the Porter County Highway Department and also our initial calculation sheet for the bond, which showed what work had been completed as of that June 2, 2006 DAC meeting. She stated we hoped that all the work would be done by tonight’s meeting but it is not. She stated I do have updated figures. She stated I did just get these today so I haven’t had a chance to submit them to Mr. Schelling. She stated our intent is to complete all the infrastructure before we would record the final plat or substantially all of it to reduce the amount of the performance bond as much as possible. She stated it is our understanding from Mr. Schelling that it can be reduced proportionately prior to recording the plat to accommodate what has been completed at that time. She stated as of today there is about $181,400 of work to be completed out of an original estimate of $462,000. She stated the supplemental covenants for this subdivision were recorded on June 23, 2006. She stated they are subject to all the existing covenants of the Aberdeen Subdivision. She stated at this time we are asking for final plat approval of the secondary plat. She stated this is an important part of the Aberdeen development because it connects the Links to the rest of the Aberdeen subdivision. She stated it provides additional needs of access particularly for emergency responders and also for the folks living there so they don’t have to go out onto CR 100 N. and then come down to Tower Road to get to the rest of Aberdeen. She stated again, it provides another way in and out of the Links subdivision.

Commissioner Harper stated I have none.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have none.

Mr. Read stated at the DAC meeting of June 2 and referring to your project Aberdeen Limited Partnership there were some issues that were raised and I don’t know if they have been settled. He stated there was a discussion on the responsibility for the silt fences and the fact that some of the builders were not meeting their responsibility for the silt fences. He stated could you comment on that.


Mrs. Frost stated there is no building of homes or anything that is going on in this area now. She stated we haven’t recorded the plat. She stated the discussion was we do require the builders to install the silt fencing that is required.

Mr. Read stated doesn’t the site supposed to have silt fences.

Mr. Breitzke stated it does. He stated the issue at hand was when construction starts because of some previous issues in Aberdeen itself.

Mr. Read stated Mr. Clem and Mr. Breitzke both raised that question. He asked Mr. Breitzke are you satisfied as far as the silt fences are concerned.

Mr. Breitzke stated so far, yes.

Mr. Read stated there was another issue recording the utilities being in. He stated Mr. Schelling stated that the sanitary sewers were not quite in yet. He stated you still have the sanitary to go.

Mrs. Frost stated that is part of the infrastructure installations, yes.

Mr. Read asked where does the effluent go in this case.

Mrs. Frost stated we are part of the Nature Works Conservancy District and we will be doing the sanitary.

Mr. Read stated so you are not selling lots without sanitary.

Mrs. Frost stated no.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Hutson stated I have none.

Mr. Detert asked what is the bond amount.

Mr. Breitzke stated is the sanitary in at this point.

Mrs. Frost stated from the information I got today it looks like most of it is completed. She stated I don’t believe there has been any inspections because again I just got this information today.



Mr. Breitzke stated I would suggest that we approve it for the original amount and let them present it to the Commissioners.

Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-FP-11 with the original bond of $329,000. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-12. Petition of Tim Brust and Karen Rendina Brust, c/o William Ferngren, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Bella Vista Subdivision to be located on CR 500 W. between Division Road and CR 100 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 11 lots and 1 open space lot on 28.81 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans. He stated with me tonight is Tim Brust the property owner and Gary Radtke the engineer. He stated this is the secondary plat of Bella Vista Subdivision. He stated the primary plat was approved on April 26 of this year. He stated there are 11 lots and one open space lot on approximately 28 acres. He stated this is the same plan that you approved back in April. He stated we went to the Development Advisory Committee in the past couple of weeks and there are two items that I want to point out to your attention. He stated one is Mr. Schelling and Mr. Breitzke asked that we make the aggregate for the road base, the Indiana #53, that is shown on the drawing. He stated we have discovered a typographical error on the base coat. He stated it should actually be two inches according to your county standard and not two and a half inches. He stated all of the off-site easements have been recorded.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

Mrs. Marshall stated none.

Mr. Read stated none.

Mr. Cole stated none.

Mr. Hutson stated no.

Mr. Detert stated I have a question on the general provisions of the covenants. He stated you covered that pretty well except that the last four or five sentences in there says,


“In addition any judgment for monetary damages arising from any such enforcement action if not paid within 30 days from the due date shall cost it to the lean of such owners lot in favor of the Association.” He stated what if they won a judgment against the Association.

Mr. Ferngren stated there is no lean for it to attach. He stated the purpose of the lean is to effectuate payment.

Mr. Detert stated I know but “any enforcement actions taken.”

Mr. Ferngren stated that is simply if there is an action and the court declares the owner was in violation of the covenants and there is sum certain due the Association has the right then to place a lean against that lot to recover those sums.

Mr. Detert stated what if the judgment is against the Association.

Mr. Ferngren stated they have a judgment against the Association.

Mr. Deter stated it doesn’t say that.

Mr. Ferngren stated by law if a court enters an order and declares that a judgment exists then that judgment exists by operation of law for ten years and will not expire for that period of time. He stated that judgment will be of record in the courts docket.

Mr. Detert stated let’s ask our attorney if that is adequate for our purposes.

Mr. McClure stated yes it is adequate.

Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-FP-12. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-10. Petition of LaRue Gilbert, 1082 N. 475 E., Chesterton, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Gilbert subdivision to be located at 1082 N. 475 E. in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 8.46 acres. Property is zoned RR.)


Mr. Breitzke stated we have not had the public hearing on this so I am asking for a motion to continue this until immediately after the public hearing.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-FP-10 until after the public hearing. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

New Business:

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

Case 06-P-12. Petition of LaRue Gilbert, 1082 N. 475 E., Chesterton, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Gilbert Subdivision to be located at 1082 N. 475 E. in Jackson Township., Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 8.46 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Mr. Cole stated before we start I would like the Board to know that LaRue Gilbert is my cousin and I do have a relational decision here. He stated I can excuse myself but the Board, the attorneys and the developers need to know this as well.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically, if you have a financial interest in the land or are going to get some kind of compensation, yes excuse yourself but it is not necessary from my viewpoint. He asked what does the attorney advise.

Mr. McClure stated if there is a financial interest then obviously it is a must. He stated if there is not a direct financial interest it is up to you.

Todd Etzler stated I am with Burke, Costanza and Cuppy and I am representing this evening LaRue Gilbert. He stated her daughter, Cindy Gilbert, is with her. He stated I also have from Duneland Group Aaron Taylor the engineer who has been working with the Gilbert’s on this 2 lot subdivision. He stated this is a 8.45 acre parcel in Jackson Township and is zoned RR. He stated it is near three roads. He stated the property accesses off of CR 475 E. but it is very near CR 1050 N. and Greening Road. He stated Mrs. Gilbert now lives in the house at 1082 N. 475 E. He stated she owns all of this land and she is now because of certain circumstances having to move out of her house and build a new house. He stated that is her intent. He stated she currently lives in a bi-level home here at the corner of the property. He stated you have in your packets several letters from her doctors. He stated she has, what laymen would call, bad knees and they are getting worse. He stated living in a bi-level


causes problems because you must go up and down stairs. He stated she has decided to construct a house immediately next to this. He stated she likes this land and she has been here and she wants to stay here. He stated she is going to construct a house here and then sell off this lot here and live in the new house here. He stated the new house will not have the stairs and will not cause the problems with her knees. He stated the house that she will be moving out of will remain 1.11 acres. He stated the new lot will be 7.01 acres. He stated we took this thru your Development Advisory Committee and there were several issues that were brought up over the two meetings. He stated they were rectified with several items. He stated one thing was sight lines. He stated there is some railroads around this area and there is a bump up on CR 1050 N. He stated the committee asked that sight lines are not affected by that. He stated we have supplied sight line information to the engineers for the county and we believe that they are acceptable. He stated we have additional copies of that if you would like to take a look at that. He stated the sight lines are not an issue for this property. He stated the second item comes from the result of the new drainage ordinance. He stated this property has an area that although there is not a swale it is a lower area. He stated it is near CR 475, right near the back of the house. He stated what we have done is for proper water coming off of adjacent property that may come into this area of the property now and sheet over the property in one way or another we have provided a 20-foot permanent easement across here. He stated so if anything ever occurs they do have the right to continue to have that water flow across our property. He stated although not strictly mandated under the drainage ordinance it was suggested by the engineers and was accommodated in this plat. He stated this is an aerial of the property and it gives you a better idea of why Mrs. Gilbert wants to stay in the area. He stated you will see the outline of the subdivision is placed on this property. He stated in the very back of the property on the west end there are a lot of trees and there are trees that run up and down both sides of the property and there are lots of open green space. He stated under your green space ordinance when you do a subdivision you are required to retain a certain percentage. He stated that is what you see here a dotted line across the back of the property on that aerial. He stated everything west of there is going to be subject to permanent open space easement meaning that she has confirmed and will restrict by this plat that property will not be developed and will remain open space. He stated if you look just to the north of the property line it is a little easier to see there is some green space that is surrounded by some trees. He stated there is a wetland that is shared between this property and the property to the north. He stated that wetland is also contained within that open space area. He stated that


open space area is a part of lot 2 the part that she is going to be keeping and she does spend time in the back gardening and doing the things that you do with beautiful land like that. He stated so this evening we do have two matters. He stated one is the primary plat and the other is the secondary plat. He stated we are looking for approval of the primary and then if that does get approved also approval of the secondary because of the nature of only being a two lot subdivision.

Mr. Etzler stated we do have several letters that were supplied in favor of petition.

No one was in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns stated I have no issues.

Mr. Detert stated I have no issues.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

Commissioner Harper stated I don’t have any questions.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated no, I have no questions.

Mr. Read stated I should say that I spent an hour yesterday with Mrs. Gilbert. He stated I am sympathetic to her condition because I have a similar condition. He stated I just got a new knee and even with a new knee I can’t do the stairs. He stated however, I have a problem with the open space not meeting some of the provisions of the open space ordinance. He stated I have discussed this with her. He stated there are two aspects to the open space ordinance that I am concerned about. He stated they can be solved but it requires the agreement of Mrs. Gilbert to do that. He stated so far this has not been accomplished. He stated the ordinance requires that when a tract of land is subdivided that everybody who owns property within that subdivision have access to the open space. He stated in this case we are only talking two houses. He stated Mrs. Gilbert is going to sell the house on lot 1. He stated so there will be two families. He stated the way the open space boundaries are drawn the house on lot 1 does not have access to the open space, which in my opinion, and I am not a lawyer but I have discussed this with our legal counsel, is in violation of this particular


portion of our open space ordinance. He stated it in fact defeats the purpose of the open space ordinance, which is to make open space available to the people that live within the subdivision. He stated this can be remedied by providing a 50-foot easement along her northern boundary. He stated it doesn’t even have to be a road. He stated all it has to be is just an easement somewhere from lot 1 to the open space. He stated the second point is that the ownership of the open space our ordinance gives four examples of ownership and I won’t go into these four. He stated it says “also but not limited to” so there could be a fifth or a sixth way to do it. He stated as I understand it Mrs. Gilbert wants to retain ownership herself of that property. He stated that says to me that this is a potential legal problem. He stated none of us are going to live forever. He stated what happens later on when Mrs. Gilbert either has to sell the property and I am sure she is going to leave it just the way it is. He stated I would if I owned that patch of woods. He stated we have to look ahead here of what happens down the road when there are different owners for lot 1 and lot 2. He stated I brought the matter up with Mr. Elwood who isn’t here today but his associate is here. He stated I would like him to say a word about this.

Mr. McClure stated in briefly my conversations with Mr. Elwood and also in interpreting the open space I would be in agreement that a technical reading of the requirements would require that the 50-foot easement or that the lots, in this case lot 1, would have some sort of access to the open space. He stated an easy way of doing that in this particular matter would be the 50-foot easement that would allow the attachment. He stated that is a correct reading of the ordinance and obviously is up to the Board. He stated the Board could find hardship in this matter and waive that requirement. He stated that is obviously totally within the Boards discretion. He stated I would concur in what is the thought process as far as can the ownership of the property of the open space moving forward with this plan. He stated I am not really sure exactly what the plan is there so I will hold off comment on that until we get a little bit more information.

Mr. Read stated I have a further question for you. He stated if we declare an exception in this case how much precedent would that have for future ones. He stated we have had two lot subdivisions before us before and we have required in these two lot subdivisions for the open space to be available to both houses and the ownership to be in a cooperative agreement between the two owners or a POA of some kind. He stated if these two requirements are waived what does that do in a way of setting precedence.


Mr. McClure stated I don’t believe we would be setting precedence. He stated every case stands on its own merits and they come before the Board in that manner. He stated whether or not I can tell you as a matter of law it is not going to go very far saying that someone else received a similar ruling unless we have some very exacting similarities. He stated it has to be beyond the two lots. He stated it would have to be more similar than just a two lot subdivision. He stated in this particular matter if the Board finds that they want to grant hardship they are going to need to point out the specifics that would take this property and make it into a special category.

Mr. Read stated I wanted to remind you that we are now being sued by a subdivider and one of his arguments is that this Board approved on a previous situation. He stated he was using precedent.

Mr. McClure stated he was attempting to use it.

Mr. Read stated attempting to use. He stated I trust that you will find the proper answer to that. He stated if I understand what you are saying is that if we stated the specifics reason that it does not establish a precedence.

Mr. McClure stated that is my interpretation, yes.

Mr. Read stated what about the ownership. He stated I understand that you want to keep owning it.

Mr. Etzler stated that is correct.

Mr. McClure asked as a separate lot or as part of lot 2.

Mr. Etzler do you want me to address the ownership and how it deals with your issue about future owners not going along with the same attempt as Mrs. Gilbert. He stated the open space preservation easement that is granted is on the plat and it says that it is permanent open space. He stated the “Open space is hereby subject to the restrictions on improvements set forth in the code. No structures, buildings, parking lots, roads, paving or concrete shall be built in this open space. In addition no land disturbing activities may take place other than the cutting of natural trails or picnic areas or for general maintenance.” He stated Mr. Read you may be familiar with the Federal Conservation Easements that are put together on the North part of the County for the Dunes in those areas. He stated this is very much the same situation here where we have a conservation easement. He stated we say you set aside land because it looks good and you don’t want people to use it. He stated you don’t


want people to build on it. He stated in order to do that you actually get sometimes charitable deductions because you agree to do that kind of thing. He stated I see that as being a non-profit or a charitable action. He stated in this situation we are putting a permanent easement on this two acres of land that says no matter who owns this lot or who owns this lot no matter if this becomes part of a larger subdivision at some point in time this two acres of land must remain open space. He stated regardless of what this person says or does. He stated that is enforceable by this Body just as if anyone else was a party to that contract. He stated this open space is protected in perpetuity for those purposes. He askedcan she garden. He stated yes she can go garden and do all the things that she is doing right now on this property. He stated she is just not permitted to go up there and develop it. He stated another aspect of the conservation easements you talk about being to access this property. He stated there are conservation easements that are so restricted that only certain people are permitted to access them or there are also visual conservation easements that provide a vista and your ordinance indicates that it is to preserve natural vistas of certain areas. He stated well, in this situation we are doing that. He stated the open space itself by its very existence, whether people in lot 1 have access to it or not provide a benefit not only to lot 1 but to the rest of the county because this Body and our Commissioners have said that they think that open space is a good thing for the county. He stated not just for the people inside that subdivision but for the county. He stated so in this situation having this open space even though it is owned by one person and accessible by only one person it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t provide any benefit to anyone else. He stated you asked about the hardship of this property. He stated I looked at the open space ordinance and I think that the provisions that you are talking about are a victim of the removal of the minor subdivision ordinance without taking a look at how it affects other portions of the ordinance. He stated technically your open space ordinance says that the open space ordinance doesn’t apply to a one to four lot subdivision. He stated this Board has taken a position that since minor subdivisions were deleted it does have to comply with this. He stated you might have taken away the ordinance but the purpose and the intent behind it when you had the open space ordinance you said in minor subdivisions it is not necessary to preserve all of that open space. He stated well in this case Mrs. Gilbert is preserving the open space. He stated she is just not providing the access to lot 1, the direct on foot by vehicle or ATV or whatever out on that property. He stated as another example of that in your ordinance one of the items that you cited was that you have to have a 50-road. He stated your ordinance says that you have to have a 50-foot road and that the green


space has to be accessible by an internal road. He stated in this situation you have a hardship here. He stated both properties are accessing off of CR 475. He stated there is no internal road in here where lot 1 sits back here on a separate subdivision road that is going to permit access by. He stated in order to provide that you now have to go through your ordinance and make some sort of tweak to it to get from an internal to an easement. He stated I really don’t think that that provision is intended to apply to a one to four lot subdivision. He stated in this case putting in an internal road is definitely a hardship.

Mr. Read stated do I have a pledge from you that the next time you represent a big subdivider you are not going to use this as a precedent.

Mr. Etzler stated I do what my clients ask me.

Mr. Detert stated I think that I agree with the attorney. He stated I think that these little two lot subdivisions got caught up in the shuffle when we got rid of the minor subdivision. He stated I don’t think that we really intended to put as much hardship on those two lots. He stated I agree that there may be a hardship here.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-P-12 for primary plat waiving the open space requirement of any easement access. Mr. Burge seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Cole asked is this open space still recorded as a separate parcel within the subdivision.

Mr. Etzler stated it is not a separate parcel. He stated it is part of…however it is shown on the plat as a separate parcel. He stated there is a line. He stated this is the final plat that will be recorded. He stated it says over this area right here “open space preservation easement.”

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Burge - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes
Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 06-FP-10. Petition of LaRue Gilbert, 1082 N. 475 E., Chesterton, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Gilbert Subdivision to be located at 1082 N. 475 E. in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 8.46 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Mr. Burge moved to approve Case 06-FP-10 for secondary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated I do have another thing prior to going to the next public hearing. He stated we do need to get approval for a bond for Case 06-FP-12. He stated that was for Bella Vista. He stated the recommendation was for $194,000.

Mr. Detert moved to approve the bond for Case 06-FP-12 in the amount of $194,000. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 06-DP-1. Petition of DBL Development, LLC, c/o Larry A. Bucher, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking development review for a 19,704 square foot building for the production of stone and brick for commercial and public use to be located North of CR 300 N. and East of CR 325 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned I-2.)

Clark Holesinger stated I am the attorney for North Star Stone. He stated I have with me today from the Duneland Group Scott Civanich and Matt Keiser. He stated also with me is John McQuestion from Soil Solutions to answer any potential questions that may come up that they can respond to. He stated also Chris Andrews who is the principal of North Star Stone. He stated just by way of history so we are clear on this when this application was made the owner of the property was DBL. He stated the sale was pending with North Star Stone who was the applicant here. He stated North Star Stone has now closed on the six acre parcel that was part of the 45 acre parcel that is zoned I-2 there. He stated it is also my understanding that this site review plan for an industrial building is something new that was previously approved with DAC. He stated if there was something that we did in the process that didn’t comply with this new requirement and the way this was working we would like you to let us know so that we can correct that problem. He stated moving on here to what North Star Stone is because I think it is important to know what they manufacture. He stated they provide custom stone face material for builders in Lake County, Porter County and LaPorte County. He stated when you go to a building development in this area and you see this stone veneer being placed on that is likely to have been North Star Stone product. He stated this is not brick brick. He stated what we are talking about is stuff that is manufactured from a combination of mortar, water and coloring that is put in a mold. He stated the mold is then allowed to set up and once it is set up it is put in to a heating room, which is raised a level of 90º. He stated there are no special furnaces or special cutting or other chemicals involved. He stated it


sits in this room of 90º for 20 hours. He stated it is then ready to be shipped. He stated North Star Stone has on site at its current location typically eight to twelve employees that are actually on site. He stated they have others that are installers that go to the different construction sites and install the stone veneer. He stated their present location is directly across the street from this new property that they have purchased but the plant here is an 8,000 square feet with a small office up front. He stated what our new proposal is that we will be putting on this site on the front end of that site as you see a 20,000 square foot building that will contain in this front area a 3,000 square foot show area. He stated this portion of this building will have the stone veneer on it to make it look like more of a home type setting to display the brick that will be going on there. He stated what will be developed with this 20,000 square feet is less than 50% of the whole property, the six acres. He stated presently at our present location we do have some outside storage and I-2 does allow for that. He stated there probably will be some at this location but our goal is not to do that. He stated we want to keep it within the building so that our clients as they come to look at it will not be distracted by the manufacturing portion of this building behind the 3,000 square foot show area. He stated in our small location we are presently in a septic. He stated we use a septic in our present building right across the street. He stated we propose to use that here as well. He stated we do not have a large amount of water waste from our manufacturing. He stated we don’t use blades and water to cool down. He stated what comes out of the mold that is it for us. He stated so we have eight to twelve employees at the site now and we plan to have eight to twelve employees here. He stated basically we need toilet waste for septic for about ten people, which is not much more than a residential type of toilet facility. He stated the next thing that we have we are proposing for the drainage system to use a retention pond to detain the water that presently flows off this property to the south. He stated again I emphasis at that point that we are developing less than 50% of this property. He stated at this point I would like to ask Scott Civanich from Duneland to talk a little bit about the retention pond that we are proposing in the back here.

Scott Civanich stated currently right now the topography of the ground travels from north to south. He stated what we are proposing to do with the water to the north and the water that is going to be coming from this site is to direct it in side swales to the back. He stated in the back here we are going to create a large bowl that consists of the lower topography of the area. He stated this will catch all of the water that is running off from the north along with the water that we are directing from the west into our site. He stated this will be a retention pond. He


stated it is sized to handle more than a 100 year storm with no out flow. He stated during a 100 year storm, which is 7.8 inches of rain in a 24 hour period, there will be no runoff from this retention pond onto the site below. He stated at the DAC meeting it was recommended to have an overflow should an emergency event happen should two 100 year storms happen within a day, which has not happened since recording history of rainfall. He stated however, that is something that was requested and it is something that we have committed to receiving an easement from the Powder Tech who currently has a large retention pond facility set down here. He stated from conversations with them they did not see an impact to them. He stated this will actually pick up all of the water that is coming from this site and draining to them now and retaining it on our site. He stated currently this is a cornfield with row crops that generates a high yield of flow. He stated after this gets done the developer will more than likely leave this intact and still allow this to be farmed. He stated the rest of this is going to be gravel aggregate and paved areas with side swales. He stated the side swales will treat some of the water with the BMP’s. He stated taking it into the retention pond is the way to clean the water that is 100% infiltration into the ground. He stated the soil is a large sand deposit, which has an infiltration rate of between two and six inches of rain in an hour. He stated actually, we anticipate no water will sit in here during a hundred year event. He stated the 7.8 inches of rain in a 24 hour period with the infiltration rate of a large square footage basin we anticipate will be able to infiltrate as fast as it is coming in. He stated however, it is sized as though it were completely impervious that all the water can fit in here and not over top onto any of the adjacent properties.

Mr. Holesinger stated if I could what I want to show you is what that front would look like. He stated this is the stone that we will be proposing to use on the front of this building to make it look more like a home with this type of roofing to be darkened that type of archway into the entryway and this type of door into that location. He stated we really want to emphasis that we are in the neighborhood already. He stated what we are trying to do is actually be less noticeable by getting more of our stuff inside and to make it more presentable the way we are designing this.

Rick Skaggs, 341 Longbow Cr. He stated I have been a resident since 1979 in Washington Township. He stated originally I lived on CR 325 E. when Norm and Bob Jacobs developed our subdivision back there. He stated the original 45 acres was sold to a Mark Good. He stated the land across the street which you guys would like to develop was owned by Mr. Anders, if I remember correctly. He stated I don’t know when this got sold to you guys


or when this all went about and this got zoned. He stated we never had any information or hearings. He stated Mr. Anders has passed away. He stated none of us land owners were informed about any of the zone changes over here. He stated maybe it has been that way forever. He stated I don’t know. He stated a lot of us out there work shift work and we already get the noise and stuff from the factoring down the road. He stated you guys are already out there and you have had stuff parked in front of your facility. He stated there are pallets stacked up all over the place. He stated I just don’t want to have any more noises. He stated this is a nice quiet neighborhood. He stated we would like to keep some of the dust down. He stated we already get a lot of chemical smell from the other factories there. He stated I know you say you are not going to have any furnaces or anything. He stated just a 90º furnace. He asked are you going to be using any silica sand or any of this limestone. He stated you are talking mix. He stated well that can involve a lot of other stuff such as additives to that.

Robert Frederick, 296 Deerfield Rd. He stated they are bringing in trucks and unloading them on the street now. He stated these are 80,000 pound trucks on a 12 ton load limit frost road. He stated the trucks can’t even get in and out to load and unload. He stated the proposed driveways are going to tear up our roads. He stated how do you get an 80,000 pound truck in on a 12 ton road. He stated I have a question regarding air pollution. He asked is there any air pollution involved in this. He stated what about noise pollution. He stated we have a grammar school right there. He stated is this going to affect my grandsons that go to Washington Township. He stated they propose two entrances into this. He stated one in and one out. He stated what happens with the trucks coming in and out. He stated how do you get an 80,000 pound truck in a 24,000 pound road. He stated something isn’t right. He stated what are his hours of operation going to be. He stated will this be on weekends too. He stated I am more worried about the school. He stated is this going to distract the kids.

Bill Augle,347 Deerfield Rd. He stated I believe all of my questions have been asked.

Tabby Evans, 345 Longbow Ct. She stated I have a list of questions so bear with me as I go through them. She stated I understand that part of this is going to be gravel. She asked is the gravel going to be flying and are we going to have dust. She stated regarding adequate parking. She stated is that enough area. She stated right now at the current site they will have cars not only in the grass area in front of the building but also across the street when there is too many vehicles. She asked


what materials will be sitting out in the open. She asked will there be any mortar. She stated you said you need mortar, water and coloring. She asked will that be outside or will everything be inside the building. She asked will we see any of it. She stated if it is outside what kind of a dust problem are we going to have. She asked what will the lights be like. She stated it is my understanding that the Lamp Shade is across from that. She stated people don’t think you can see the Lamp Shade lights so much because it is next door to them. She stated this is going to be across the street from them. She stated anybody across the street from this place will see any lights on the property at the time. She stated it will directly towards their houses. She asked what types of lights are going to be used and in what direction are they going to be pointed. She asked how will the finished and unfinished materials be hauled. She asked what type of trucks and what size and the weight limit on the road. She asked how much weight can be on the road. She stated I know that we have a problem with the roads getting icy in the winter. She stated I know that semi’s can’t turn around. She stated one was backing up one time and slid off the side of the road because on that road it is not flat outside the ditch and it does go down. She stated he got stuck off the road for over an hour and a half. She stated are we going to have this especially when our children are coming home from school. She asked what will the hours of business going to be. She asked how much activity will be done after hours or before the hours. She stated not only the hours of business for the customers to come in but how much work are you going to be doing afterwards and before hand. She asked will someone be with him there. She stated Sunday night I am coming home from work at 1:30 in the morning. She stated at this current establishment the front door was opened and there was lights on inside and there were three vehicles there and one was parked in the grass way in front of the building. She asked what type of noise will be created. She asked what times will it take affect with the noise. She stated if the moldings are done all night and it burns so many hours and that is 20 hours that means that they have to go on through the night. She asked how much of a noise will that be. She asked what type of landscaping will be done on the building. She stated you talk about the front of the building being with all the different rocks. She stated hopefully the rocks are going to be on the building and not out laying in front like they currently are now. She stated if you go by the building you will see several samples out in the front. She stated even on the sides there are samples there. She stated I must say that the Lamp Shade place has done a nice job. She stated ISK has done a nice job of having bushes covering their place. She stated I do know that the Brooks Development that this Board approved a couple of years ago was supposed to have trees planted. She stated I don’t think that has been up to


code. She stated I know that doesn’t deal with you but I am talking to the Board about this. She asked how much water from the ground is used to make the product. She stated if you are doubling your space size you are going to be doubling your production. She asked how much water is going to be pulled out of the ground. She stated you said for eight to twelve employees. She stated a normal household does not have eight to ten people. She stated so that means how often is your septic going to be checked and be cleaned. She asked how much more increased traffic will there be. She stated we have a concerned time whether it is in the morning for school buses and parents taking their kids to school. She stated you have to go from CR 325 E. in order to get out to SR 2. She stated you either have to take Evans Avenue to SR 2, which has a traffic problem now, or go around the other way. She stated if a truck does that he is going to have to have time to make the corners going on CR 400 N. She asked does he get a tax abatement on this. She asked for how much and for how long. She asked will the school get more money out of this. She stated this is direct to Bucher. She stated I know that this is potentially for Chris Andrews buying this but this is Bucher’s development putting on there. She stated he said they were doing six acres. She stated this is a 45 acre lot that is zoned I-2. She asked what else is going to go there. She asked why would they put a residential area next to industrial area. She stated well, this is what you guys approved on. She stated you approved Augustine to be put in next to an industrial area. She stated this is the first step of that industrial area. She asked what is the next step going to be. She asked how big and how loud. She asked how much drainage is going to come from the residential area. She asked will that run into the retention pond at all or will it run in the other direction. She stated I was not here for the Augustine Subdivision so I don’t know. She asked what type of a buffer zone is going to be put up. She stated I don’t know how far back this goes or what it is connected to and how far it is from SR 2. She stated when you see this in the back I know you said this is going to be cornfields but what is going to happen if the next business develops is this still going to be cornfields or open green area. She asked what happens if the Board passes everything with the requirements but the work isn’t done. She asked what percussions will happen and what do the residents do. She asked what if he decides he wants to make his building bigger.

Carol Skaggs, 341 Longbow Court. She stated I just want to say that I object to this.

Kim Brys, 333 Longbow Court. She stated first of all I am very concerned about the school. She stated I would like to know if there is going to be a fence around this so that kids can’t


get into it. She stated I am also very concerned about transportation with kids going to and from school and playing around in the subdivision.

Joann Downing, 343 Longbow Court. She stated they all just about said what I what have said. She stated I object to this.

Randall Wilgus, 346 Longbow Court. He stated I just moved here 30 days ago. He stated the reason why I moved in is because the subdivision seemed to be very tranquil and quiet. He stated I didn’t realize there was business’ along the street. He stated I also didn’t realize that there was going to be dogs barking from a kennel, which is about an acre or so away from my home. He stated my concern is if we allow a dog kennel to come in next to a neighborhood that keep people up at night and how that was approved is beyond me. He stated I just wish that we would take severe consideration on what we are doing here and there are residents living close to a factory.

Keith Wilgus, 298 Deerfield Road. He stated I object to the request for development because of all the reasons mentioned.

John Downing, 343 Longbow Court. He stated I object to this.

Lorraine Heavilin, 331 Deerfield Rd. She stated I object and I agree with all reasons that these other ones have named.

Dara Elliott, 332 Longbow Court. She stated I object to all of the above. She stated they can’t do anything to stop the dog kennel noise. She stated we have filed complaints and nothing has been done. She stated so there is no way you are going to be able to stop the noise on this one.

Todd Elliott, 332 Longbow Court. He stated I have to object for all the reasons mentioned. He stated mainly noise and traffic.

Karen Prescott, 334 Longbow Court. She stated I just want to say I object to this.

Ralph Heavilin, 331 Deerfield Road. He stated I have a question. He stated I thought that when something like this was going on everybody is supposed to get a certified letter. He asked am I correct.

Mr. Thompson stated this is the very first case under a brand new ordinance that sends these situations a development review in front of this Board for a public hearing. He stated in


the past and I will explain the dog kennel and why it went in. He stated a dog kennel is allowed in an industrial use, an I-1 use, and what use to happen in those situations it simply went in front of the Technical Advisory Committee to make sure it met the code intentions, period. He stated we did not have any ability under the law for public hearings or what not. He stated we just simply reviewed for an Improvement Location Permit. He stated we just started this ordinance new and it is for anything that is industrial, commercial, a non-residential use in a residential area or multi-family to bring it forward as a public hearing in front of this Board if it is not within a lot of a subdivision that has been previously heard in a public hearing.

Mr. Heavilin stated not everybody got a letter notifying them that this was going on. He stated the sign that was put on the property was put down in the ditch in weeds and if you stopped you would get run over by a truck.

Mr. Thompson stated it is very difficult at times to put out these signs. He stated this is something brand new that we are trying out this year. He stated if people are seeing it is catching people’s attention. He stated our rules and procedures have changed. He stated it use to be anybody that was within 300 feet of the parcel must be notified. He stated however, we have changed that to state 500 feet or two parcel owners which ever is less.

Mr. Heavilin stated I object to the traffic. He stated we have enough truck traffic down there now. He stated you try to come down that road there is a semi sitting there blocking the road. He stated if they have twelve employees working there now why do they need more room or a bigger building.

Robert Pearl, 341 Deerfield Road. He stated I object to the noise and the trucks.

Cindy Frederick, 296 Deerfield Road. She stated I object to this.

Bonnie Flint, 326 N. 325 E. She stated I don’t know if everybody knows where that is. She stated I am directly across the street from where this is proposed. She stated the lights and all the traffic is right in my front yard. She stated one of my main concerns is that I know that they use cement mix which contains several different types of stone including quartz. She stated this includes silicon. She stated this is a cancer causing agent. She stated this stuff is going to be getting in contact with the school, the air and in the houses.



Lynda Haniacek, 324 N. 325 E. She stated we are concerned with the unloading on the street blocking traffic. She stated I am representing the EDL Development with Lamp Shades by Delores. She stated Lamp Shades by Delores has a 53-foot truck going in and out about once a week. She stated we have a perfectly large driveway dock that permits them to go in and turn around there. She stated they don’t have to turn around in the street or anywhere else. She stated I have seen the trucks for the stone company block the street because they can’t get in there because there is not enough room. She stated our concern is whether there is enough room for them to turn around and not coming in our driveway. She stated we have had so many trucks and so many cars turn around. She stated they see this wonderful driveway in this parking lot and they see this dock and they think that they can turn around. She stated buses have come in to turn around there. She stated we have also had many residents come in a compliment the building and the grounds how well it is kept and how beautiful it looks and how great it looks during the seasons. She asked is it going to be an eyesore across the street from us.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to say “thank you” for your efforts and cooperation with both the screening issues and the lighting issues. He stated we had a rough start but I think we resolved a lot of the problems.

Douglas Scott, 343 Deerfield Road. He stated the petitioner didn’t say what the volume of traffic going in and out of that place was going to be. He stated no one has said whether there was going to be crushers going on in that place or not. He asked is there going to be mixers that will be mixing this material. He stated in any casting process you are going to have and I think I did hear part of this there will be slurry or water runoff. He asked what provisions are made for this. He stated there are people here that are protesting about the dogs and things that happened to them after they thought that they had a gentlemen’s agreement on what the place was going to be. He stated once this petition is granted then what happens next. He asked how many trucks are going to be going in and out. He asked how much dust is going to be coming from crushers. He asked what happens to the slurry. He asked what happens to the manufactures product after they set it outside to cure. He stated I believe I heard him say there is a 90º curing room. He stated after it is cured it is going to be set out there behind this pretty building that they are building for their customers. He asked what about the people in the neighborhood. He stated if there is going to be piles of raw material scattered around the property.

Fred Evans, 338 Longbow Court. He stated I went up and read the minutes from the last meeting and I know you guys had a


concern about a fence and the developer does not want to put up a fence. He stated I think that they need a fence because the kids are all in that area. He stated we have over 50 kids in our neighborhood. He stated what repercussions are we going to have if they don’t follow the rules. He stated the last development that went in has not fulfilled their obligation and what can we do.

Mr. Holesinger stated I am going to try to answer all the questions. He stated we are in an I-2 and I-2 allows us to store outside. He stated we don’t really want to have a large amount of material outside. He stated we are presently in an 8,000 square facility in which part of the reason our truck that comes in typically once maybe twice a week is and it is so obvious we can’t get it in there. He stated we will be able to get it into the new facility. He stated it will not raise dust because we are asphalting that parking lot. He stated we have not violated the weight limits or the frost laws on that road and have not been ticketed for doing so. He stated we want to try to get these trucks off the road, which is why we are coming into a bigger facility so we can bring them in and deal with them there. He stated our hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He stated occasionally we run over but we do not work into the evening. He stated we are typically closed on the weekends. He stated as to crushers. He stated we do not have crushers. He stated we do not break down stone. He stated we bring in portland cement and we mix that in these molds that are the size of the brick. He stated we do not have large furnaces. He stated we have regular furnaces and just raise the level of temperature in that room to 90º. He stated our goal with this larger facility is to move stuff inside to keep these things inside. He stated we have even agreed under our restrictive covenants to have our stock be moved and cannot be out longer than 30 days under our restrictive covenants. He stated it has to be moved. He stated there was a question on tax abatement and we have nothing to do with tax abatement. He stated we will keep the materials inside for this product because that is why we are trying to get a larger facility so that we can keep this inside and we are not looking into a situation where we are massively increasing our production. He stated we are cramped in that location. He stated we operate right now on our present with a one easement for those two buildings down the middle. He stated that is why you have this parking issue. He stated the drainage on this property and this can be answered even in more detail by John but the drainage on this property is to the south towards Powder Tech. He stated not the other way. He stated the drainage naturally on this land is to the south. He stated our flow of water is to the south towards Powder Tech where this retention pond will be. He stated we plan to leave this and seed this in natural grass. He stated


there are no plans to expand that facility. He stated we do not have slurry like typical concrete business’ do. He stated the water that we have is mixed into these molds and it stays there. He stated we do not flush it off like you do with concrete trucks when you get that sludge.

Mr. McQuestion stated I have written some soil profiles for the septic field and I assisted Duneland Group and the infiltration study for the retention pond. He stated two things I can address is number one Chris came to me and said that they wanted to size this for essentially about ten employees. He stated the State Board of Health devises the requirements per employee or per bedroom for a household. He stated a typical three bedroom home site would require about 450 gallon of waste water daily design flow. He stated a commercial facility like this would have a flow estimate would be about 20 gallons per day per employee. He stated we essentially took Chris’ numbers and doubled them. He stated this daily design flow is essentially about 400 gallons a day where a three bedroom house would be about 450 gallons a day. He stated we are about equal to what a three bedroom house would be. He stated I was here for Augustine. He stated as the Board knows subdivisions can take storm water and let it go off the property and Augustine’s water goes to the north and back into the detention ponds.

Mr. Holesinger stated this location is actually south of the Lamp Shade location and our lighting is not going to be extensive any more than any parking lot, which would be towards the south side of the building. He stated it will be away from the residential. He stated we need to emphasize that we bring in our supplies once or twice a week. He stated we can’t get this location over here. He stated some of the problems about trucks will maintain because that is where we are at. He stated we want to eliminate that problem. He stated we want to make this a show case to show our clients. He stated we want to eliminate the traffic issues by bringing that here.

Mr. Breitzke stated let me help you. He asked do you have anyone living in your facility now or were they just working late.

Mr. Andrews stated there is a temporary situation right now.

Mr. Breitzke stated they shouldn’t be living there. He stated there is an issue of the silica sand. He asked is silica part of your process.

Mr. Andrews stated it is portland cement. He stated we don’t deal with any sand.

Mr. Breitzke stated silica is usually used for sand blasting operations and sometimes for filter. He stated you don’t use silica and that is dangerous for lawns and you have to be careful for around it. He stated so I can understand some people’s concern. He stated you use mortar sand.

Mr. Andrews stated it is portland and aggregate which is a clay shale and we don’t use sand as an ingredient.

Mr. Breitkze stated we had questions about landscaping.

Mr. Andrews stated with the landscaping we would like to with the drainage area in the back it has been recommended to keep it as natural as possible with grasses.

Mr. Breitzke stated there were some concerns about noise. He asked do you have presses or machines in operation, stamping, pressing etc.

Mr. Andrews stated everything is inside and the noise is contained inside. He stated if there were an open door the doors are facing south towards Powder Tech and ISK. He stated everything is an inside process. He stated there are no outside noises.

Mr. Frederick stated nobody cares if these 80,000 pound trucks go in and out. He stated he said it is legal. He stated you have a 12 ton limit on a frost road because the cops don’t give them a ticket they think it is fine. He stated they can just go in and out and tear up the roads.

Mrs. Brys stated I am still concerned about the schools. She asked is there going to be some kind of fencing around it so the kids can’t get in.

Mr. Augle asked do they plan on keeping the current location as well. He asked are they going to be selling that or leasing it.

Mr. Pearl asked what about the entrance way. He asked where is the road going into the place.

Mrs. Evans stated Mr. Holesinger made a comment earlier about the trucks coming in and they will be able to turn around and that it will not be a dust factor. She stated I thought the back of the building was going to be gravel. She asked how can that not be a dust factor if there is gravel in back. She stated they said that there are one to two trucks coming in during the week. She asked is that going to be phased out. She stated he


said that what they use to make their mortar is not manufactured there it is brought in. She asked so does that mean that there is actually four trucks coming in. She asked do you only haul the items out one day a week or is this on a small truck. She asked how much water is used. She stated we don’t know how much water is used currently. She stated you said there is going to be lights on the south. She asked is there going to be any lights on the west side, which is the front of this store. She stated if there are lights on the front of this place that will break down into the houses that are on the west side of the road. She stated even if you have a utility pole they will be able to see that. She stated he just made a comment about noise and there was not going to be any noise outside because everything is going to be inside. She stated if materials are going to be on the outside of the building it can be there up to 30 days something has to move that material. She stated so we will have forklifts moving the material, which I see now the forklifts going in and out. She stated so some noise will be there. She stated you said the materials can be there for up to 30 days. She stated okay so now your going to have a load and leave it out there for 29 days and you get a new load inside and you take the old stuff and put it on the inside and the new stuff on the outside. She stated there is always going to be material on the outside. She stated you will always have it there. She asked is there going to be a fence totally blocking it in so we can’t see it. She stated even though the kids probably won’t be there playing there is mischievous teenagers and some kids do walk from that school walking home and they do kind of cross that area. She stated there will be a potential problem there with something happening. She stated I do think it needs to be fenced in.

Mr. Evans stated what about the rest of the property because it is 45 acres and they are only going to develop 20,000 square feet or the building is going to be 20,000 square feet.

Mrs. Flint stated I just wanted to point out my point about the silica dust. She stated that is actually in the concrete mix. She stated it is in portland cement. She stated this is in what you use to make your concrete.

Mr. Edwards stated I had a comment to the gentleman making the presentation. He asked would you like to have this built next door to your house. He stated I think not.

Mrs. Elliott asked what kind landscaping and if this is approved how much do that have to do and who is going to enforce it. She asked what about our property values. She stated this is right across the street where we come in and out of our neighborhood.


Mr. Holesinger stated first of all we need to be clear of the fact that the 45 acres is not our property. He stated the six acre portion next to Powder Tech. He stated what DBL is going to do with the other 39 acres we don’t know and we are not part of them. He stated our water usage daily is 120 to 150 gallons. He stated that is it. He stated on the front of our building will have residential lighting type. He stated we do want that to look like a house presentation with our stone veneer. He stated the entrance to our facility is right on the roadway with an entry in on two locations, which is not directly across from the residential area but further south of that residential area. He stated the larger trucks do come in typically twice a week. He stated the stone is typically taken out on smaller trucks on smaller lots. He stated all the driving areas for the trucks entering is going to be asphalt. He stated we do not violate the frost laws and our trucks are in compliance as to the weight. He stated we don’t have 80,000 pound trucks. He stated this has been an I-2 industrial area since 1983. He stated we are just trying to stay within our half of the neighborhood and trying to make our participation in the neighborhood. At this time, Mr. Holesinger presented to the Commission members aerials of the location. He stated we have an aerial of the location. He stated the yellow here this long stretch behind Powder Tech is the property location. He stated the entrance to the residential area is over here and not directly across from our entry and exit. He stated the school is over here on the top portion. He stated we are quite some distance from the school and we are trying to maintain within that property and the building all of our production for North Star Stone.

Mr. Breitzke asked are you going to make a commitment to put up a fence or any kind of security for your own purpose.

Mr. Andrews stated with the DBL folks what we are wanting to do is keep a theme to whatever they’ve got developed going on in the residential subdivision. He stated we don’t touch them but we told DBL whatever they decide is the theme for barriers and such what we hope to see are things like arborvitae. He stated we have a nice landscaping plan for the front to make it along the lines of a residential type setting like the front of the building itself. He stated there are covenants that do exist for that and we plan to abide by them. He stated actually we are going to be ahead of them. He stated I can’t speak for any other development out there but we do plan to have barriers especially to the north.

Mr. Breitzke stated there were questions about your storage especially outdoor storage.


Mr. Andrews stated the idea of the building is to allow us inside storage. He stated there will be product that will be outside getting ready for delivery and that kind of thing. He stated that is why we went for this land because it is I-2 and we wanted to make sure that everything is in compliance. He stated it is not trying to create a big eyesore. He stated anything stored is also to the east of the building and away from CR 325. He stated again with the arborvitaes barriers in place should not be visible from the road. He stated there are forklifts that go. He stated they are propane quiet forklifts. He stated they are no different than a car.

Mrs. Brys asked does the property back up to the school property.

Mr. Pearl stated he talked about lift trucks. He stated those trucks make noise too.

Mr. Evans stated the fencing has been brought up twice and they haven’t answered it. He stated the weight limit on the road has not been answered. He stated it is 24,000 pounds. He stated you can’t tell me that those trucks weigh 24,000 pounds. He stated it is a two lane road.

Mr. Wilgus stated my real concern is we have a business situation as far as zoning. He stated I would think that as a business man he would know nobody should live up above this residence. He asked if he allows that what else is he going to allow his business to do.

Mr. Frederick stated they are going to use 120 to 150 gallons of water per day. He stated an average house uses that. He stated he has eight to ten employees plus the water that he is using for his brick. He stated I was a driver for 30 years and these trucks that they are pulling on this road are 80,000 pounds and they are not 24,000 pounds, which is 12 tons.

Mrs. Evans asked is silica going to be used in any of the products, yes or no. She stated to the Board has anyone been out there to see the current use of what is going on now at his property. She asked are they going to keep the same existing building that they have too. She asked are they going to be going back and forth across the street.

Mrs. Flint stated someone has been living above this building and I was even told today that someone lives up there. She asked where exactly is this entrance going to be. She stated they said that this was going to interfere with the subdivision entrance but I am even closer to what this site is. She stated I am not going to be able to get in and out of my own driveway.

Tera Graff, 295 Long Prairie. She stated I am speaking for myself because I am kind of tucked away back in the subdivision. She stated I think for me my main concern is in a couple of years our subdivision has plenty of kids to go around. She stated we are going to have teenage drivers. She stated the traffic is going to increase. She stated I don’t have any issue with the business but me as a parent living in that neighborhood it just makes me nervous with our kids, our teenagers and us driving and our personal safety. She stated that business might grow in that location. She stated the trucks might be more frequent the loads might be frequent. She stated that is my main concern.

Mr. Holesinger stated we do not intend to keep the present location once we move across the street. He stated we were asked about the manufacturing and the water. He stated we will use 120 to 150 gallons of water. He stated the entrance to this facility is south of the residential entryway. He stated our truck that North Star Stone owns is a box truck with a 16000 pound limit. He stated that is our truck. He stated one of the reasons we want to be in this location is to eliminate as much of the exterior material and stuff as we can. He stated the front lighting will be a residential type of lighting. He stated where the school is presently located we are about one-half mile away. He stated however, that portion of the property that abuts right here is owned by the school but is currently farmland.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burge stated I have a quick question for either Mr. Breitzke or Mr. Thompson. He asked when was the Augustine Subdivision approved. He stated this was zoned industrial in 1983. He asked was Augustine there before or after that was zoned.

Mr. Thompson stated the area of Augustine was zoned Rural Residential and that there again you can go back to the 1983 Zoning Amendments and map amendments at that time for the total Master Plan revisions. He stated so both of those zonings were in place in 1983. He stated Augustine was just recently approved this year. He stated it is in that rural residential section that is probably the last residential section north of this I-2 zoning. He stated if you look at the aerial here there is a number of 10 acre parcels here. He stated Augustine Subdivision I would estimate that their road entrance is fairly close to this large parking area that you are seeing which is the church. He stated then continue on a couple hundred feet on down is the area of Augustine or residential zoning.

Mr. Burge asked what about the homes.


Mr. Thompson stated the homes that you are seeing here that are in front of…I don’t know what street that is with the cul-de-sac…but the homes that are fronting right across the street is I-2.

Mr. Burge asked when were these homes established.

Mr. Thompson stated I am not sure. He stated I would have to defer to the audience on some of those.

Mr. Burge stated I was wondering if it was industrial before those homes were built or after.

Mr. Breitzke stated we don’t know how long before. He stated we know certainly by 1983. He stated I believe Bill Tanke started this subdivision in 1979 and that is when it was first platted then the economy west south. He stated until Mark Good picked it up maybe about eight years ago it kind of stunted its growth and then it grew very explosively.

Mr. Thompson stated I had intended originally to go back to the other Master Plans that were in 1974 and there were a couple of other previous to that to try to do a history on it. He stated I apologize. He stated I did not get a chance to do that.

Mr. Burge stated I appreciate all the opinions that were expressed here this evening. He stated I would have been asking the same questions myself if I lived there. He stated I see the Board is weighing those concerns with what the business can or cannot do legally by the way it is zoned. He stated some of the questions I thought that were most poignant were the street blockage and I think that they adequately addressed that as far as the pathway that the trucks will come in. He stated it sounds like they have greatly approved what they had in the past. He stated the production noise has been addressed. He stated the school appears to be more than a half a mile away. He stated there is a lot of land in between. He stated the fact that it has been industrial since 1983 you would have to assume that everybody had those fears that at some point it was going to be developed as an industrial setting. He stated given that it is directly adjoining Powder Tech and the other industrial areas and if it was just popping up in the middle of nowhere I would be more atone to agree. He stated but given that you are going to have a lot of industry around there in part of an I-2 development myself I think that the rules have been established by this Board over a number of years so I would be in favor of this at this point.




Mr. Burns stated in regards to the type of materials was that approved prior to by our Environmental Agency. He asked have they checked the materials.

Mr. Andrews stated we at the Advisory Committee requested the petitioners to please go to the Environmental Department or HazMat Department so that way they are aware of the situation that was going on. He stated I guess it would probably be best if I asked the petitioner to relay to the Board that discussion.

Mr. Andrews stated the general consensus was that we went into materials that were being handle, fire hazards and in our discussions we were thinking do we need lock boxes and that sort of thing which we are very agreeable to whatever that fire department or the Environmental needed. He stated the decision was that there were no fire hazards and no lock boxes required. He stated they were very comfortable with the materials and usage on site.

Mr. Burns stated I am more concerned about the particles in the air. He stated the neighbors do bring up a good point. He stated if there is some silicon sand and if it is emitted in the air that is a concern. He stated I would like to see a report or suggest that this Board should get a report from the Environmental Agency whether it is ours or whoever and see exactly what is out there. He asked are the materials coming in by dump truck.

Mr. Andrews stated no. He stated it is by pallet or palletized.

Mr. Burns asked do you have presses or mixers inside.

Mr. Andrews stated there is what is called a batch plant. He stated there are no presses or mixers.

Mr. Burns asked will there be dust catchers.

Mr. Andrews stated in our filtration that is one of our ideas to include that in. He stated there are filters used in the process now.

Mr. Burns stated you have dust catchers now.

Mr. Andrews stated yes.

Mr. Burns stated in this new facility there will be dust catchers also.

Mr. Andrews stated absolutely.

Mr. Burns stated that concerns me because I think that there is an issue there if you have dust catchers. He stated what are you catching and why. He stated it may be within State limits but I still think we should know what is out there. He stated if this is approved there is fencing right south of this property. He stated that should be replacing in kind. He stated on the property south of this property there is greening fencing. He stated that is my opinion. He stated that hides this from the neighbors.

Mr. Andrews stated that is in conjunction with our future plans in working with whatever is on our plans.

Mr. Burns stated that should be replaced with the same size and the same amount. He stated in regards to the slurry. He asked where does the slurry go.

Mr. Andrews stated into the molds. He stated there is no waste.

Mr. Detert stated in the slurry process there has to be some waste. He stated your molds don’t contain every drop of that slurry going in.

Mr. Andrews stated if there was any extra it dries and is disposed of.

Mr. Detert asked how do you dispose it.

Mr. Andrews stated in a concrete dumpster. He stated it is recycled concrete dumpster.

Mr. Detert stated the question of dust was brought up and any air pollution concerns me. He stated I am uncomfortable with the kind of materials you are having that you don’t create a dusty environment. He stated I don’t know if that is emitted from the building. He stated it is not real clear in my mind whether you are emitting it from the building, your current building.

Mr. Andrews stated there is no pollution from it. He stated it is not a by-product of the process.

Mr. Detert stated have you looked at trying to make an entrance to SR 2.

Mr. Andrews stated our land does not go that far back.

Mr. Detert stated I understand but did you look at the possibility.

Mr. Andrews stated we did and the school was not interested in anything and then it opened up another can of worms with the State as far as roadways and that sort of thing.

Mr. Detert stated we are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place because that land has already been zoned. He stated to down zone it would be very, very difficult if not very, very expensive. He stated something is going to go in there and I guess our job is to try to pick the best fit.

Mr. Hutson stated you mentioned that you are going to have two trucks a week. He asked is that box trucks.

Mr. Andrews stated they are delivery of raw material.

Mr. Hutson asked what do you consider a large truck.

Mr. Andrews stated anywhere from a box truck to a flatbed.

Mr. Hutson stated and then you are going to have small trucks in there also delivering and that is box trucks.

Mr. Andrews stated we have pickup trucks ourselves that do runs too.

Mr. Hutson stated you are not going to store a large amount of materials outside. He asked what is considered not a large amount of material outside.

Mr. Andrews stated we are not creating product to hold. He stated it is a rotation of orders getting ready to be sent out.

Mr. Hutson stated you said the school wasn’t interested in your proposal to go out to SR 2. He asked did they give you a reason.

Mr. Andrews stated they are not interested in selling their land.

Mr. Hutson stated the land that the school owns that is adjacent to them what is it zoned.

Mr. Thompson stated I believe it is I-2 also.

Mr. Detert stated all that land that is immediately south from your parcel that school owns.

Mr. Andrews stated south would be the…

Mr. Detert stated no not south. He stated I’m sorry, east.

Mr. Andrews stated directly east of our piece maybe 200 feet to SR 2. He stated it is just a small triangle in there.

Mr. Hutson stated so it is not possible for them to expand the school into that particular location at some point in time if they wanted to.

Mr. Thompson stated it is possible that they could expand.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think the issue is the school is unwilling to sell the land. He stated I don’t think we are going to condemn it if this is the school’s wishes.

Mr. Hutson asked do you have any idea of the tonnage that you are going to be producing then as far as…

Mr. Andrews stated it is not measured in tonnage but in square feet or in pallets we roughly produced about ten pallets of material a day right now.

Mr. Hutson asked are you currently on your current location unloading and loading in the street.

Mr. Andrews stated there is a neighbor who is having issues with easements and just to keep the peace we don’t want to stir things up. He stated that is what we do.

Mr. Hutson asked your truck traffic doesn’t sound too alarming. He stated do you think that the conflict with the bus traffic at all when they are arriving or leaving…

Mr. Andrews stated we contended to reschedule the arrivals actually right now for 7:00 a.m. He stated there are some busses that go in the afternoon but I don’t remember the morning bus schedule. He stated we do try to be good neighbors and aware of what is going on there.

Mr. Hutson stated your business hours are at 7:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m.

Mr. Andrews stated it is open at 7:00 a.m. He stated it is open for builders. He stated in the new facility there is plenty of room to park.

Mr. Hutson asked there is only 120 to 150 gallons per day.

Mr. Andrews stated yes it is pretty dry.




Mr. Hutson stated concerning the retention pond is there a chance that this will fill up. He asked do you guys plan on maintaining that retention pond.

Mr. Andrews stated that is what was recommended at the last DAC meeting. He stated we like the idea of grasses and more natural prairie types.

Mr. Hutson stated if the school would choose to rezone that pond would be pretty close to that property of the school if they would choose to take that property and expand their school.

Mr. Andrews stated it is not meant to hold water. He stated it is only for emergency.

Mr. Cole stated like Bob Detert said, this is between a rock and a hard place on this one. He stated I have to look at it in two different ways. He stated you are addressing current problems that annoy the neighbors and with proper reason. He stated if I lived here I would be annoyed with trucks unloading on the road, blocking the road any noise that may issue outside storage but it is an I-2. He stated it is an industrial zone. He stated it is just poorly developed. He stated there are industrial parks that are beautiful places. He stated right now this area just doesn’t fit that. He stated East Porte is a nicely developing industrial park. He stated but you are addressing the problems and you are remedying them and increasing the size of your building. He stated you are taking traffic off the road and moving product inside except when being shipped. He stated by that same reason you are reducing noise and dust. He stated that brings to mind the forklift. He stated recent development and more development and more development in my neighborhood has to the beep, beep, beep all day long every day except Sunday. He stated for several years it has become very annoying. He stated at least they did agree to silent the horn and once they did that a lot of the annoyance went away. He stated you say it is residential lighting. He stated my neighbor several years ago had NIPSCO come in and put in some kind of yellowish/greenish kind of light that NIPSCO likes to pass out in neighborhoods. He stated I found that if I turn off all my lights I can read my newspaper on her money. He stated bear in mind that if you can contain your light within your area so that it doesn’t leave your area and bear in mind that this is economical use of light. He stated you can actually use less light to gain maybe the same amount of illumination on what you want to illuminate rather than light up your neighbors or light up the sky you only really need to light up that which you need to see. He stated by that same token you do save money. He stated you are willing to do all these things and I have to say


that is a plus. He stated if we try to stop you you go back to the old place and the old problems continue. He stated at the same time this industrial area is going to grow. He stated with the recent approval of Augustine and with your present developments in that area of residential use, a horse farm is right north of here and then right from Rural Residential right into industrial with some of the things that we see down here in the two industries bordering on the south. He stated I won’t say it is ugly but it is not attractive. He stated it is not what I would like people coming into Porter County to see. He stated it is not what I would want to advertise to Porter County. He stated you are the island in that whole area that is going to look half way decent. He stated I don’t know how to consider this. He stated the residents back there have concerns and realistic ones. He stated it is already zoned and you can’t do anything about that. He stated I don’t know what happened in 1983, I wasn’t here. He stated somebody evidently want that industrial. He stated I have to look at it that you are a more favorable use in this industrial park than what is there now and hopefully not we will anticipate. He stated perhaps the developer of the rest of that industrial area will consider the concerns of the neighbors the outlook of the people entering Porter County on SR 2, what they want Porter County to look like and what the City of Valparaiso should look like, what the people of Porter County are like. He stated hopefully he will take that into consideration and hopefully this Board will too at that time.

Mr. Read stated what we have here is we are living with actions of the past, which have not been wise in many cases. He stated the Plan Commission has discussed frequently the problems associated with having industrial zone land up against residential. He stated in the past there have been requirements for greenbelts between industrial and residential and I hope we can do that in the future. He stated then I don’t know what we can do with what is already zoned. He stated the question was asked by one of the gentlemen back there about the area the acreage to the north and of course the petitioner pointed out quite correctly that he doesn’t own that and he doesn’t have to answer to that. He stated he is legally correct but in the interest of full disclosure and Tim Cole has just alluded to it, is that…now I am reading from the summary of the staff report. He stated quote, “North Star Stone is purchasing the proposed parcel from the developers of Augustine Subdivision. Larry Bucher has discussed with staff during the design of Augustine the proposal of an industrial park south of the residentially zoned land that was recently approved for primary plat with Augustine Subdivision.” He stated so that is what your future is. He stated there will be an industrial park there. He stated that should not enter with what we are discussing here but on the


other hand the Plan Commission is suppose to plan ahead and think ahead. He stated what should be the future. He stated so I don’t mind straying off the reservation of your reservation and discussing what could happen to the north of you. He stated there is no doubt in my mind that there is going to be disturbance even if you follow the letter of the law and the pollution controls that are associated with I-2, which aren’t too good. He stated even if you do the best you can do there is going to be a spillover of disturbance to the neighbors to the north. He stated so I guess I have to look at it what would I do if I were a neighbor to the north and what would I do if I was a businessman with an I-2 zoning. He stated I will spare you all and you will how I vote when he takes the vote.

Mrs. Marshall stated first of all I was here in 1983 when it was supposedly rezoned. She stated that is kind of a mystery. She stated I think that Mr. Andrews wants to increase his business which a logical thing for a businessman to want to do. She stated I am glad that the entrance is not on SR 2 because there has been many fatality accidents on that stretch of road that goes around by the school. She stated there has been some motorcycle fatalities and so forth. She stated it is right next to an industrial zone property now. She stated I think that Mr. Andrews proposal is in line with what is I-2. She stated I-2 allows the noise and the smell, if there are any, to go to the property lines. She stated I didn’t hear anybody complain about a noise problem with this property that he is currently in. She stated I did visit the site today. She stated I went there and I had no problem getting in between these two buildings. She stated I don’t have any objection. She stated I think that when you start saying on forklifts and on trucks to cut the horns off I think that you are violating the State law. She stated I think State law says that if those commercial or industrial vehicles are going to back up they have to have horns on them. She stated I don’t see how you can eliminate telling a person in this business not to have a forklift. She stated I just can’t see how that is done. She stated I think that he is in a tight situation where he is now. She stated by increasing the building the size that he is going to it just tells me that he is trying to improve a situation that he knows is not good where he is at. She stated because the zoning is as it is I would tell you that I would have to support this proposal. She stated the entrance will be right across the street from what is the Lamp Shade Company. She stated churches and schools are allowed in any zoning. She stated there is no zoning that does not allow that. She stated so the school is down there with I-2 property. She asked Mr. Holesinger who owns this parcel of property right here.

Mr. Holesinger stated it is Powder Tech.


Mrs. Marshall stated because it already has the zoning I don’t see how, in my opinion, the Board can deny this proposal.

Commissioner Harper stated this rectangle is all zoned I-2, correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated right.

Mr. Thompson stated the very northern part of it is Augustine Subdivision.

Commissioner Harper asked where is Augustine Subdivision in this whole scheme.

Mr. Holesinger stated Augustine starts here and the industrial is here.

Mr. Thompson stated see the north line of the property’s within that cul-de-sac area.

Commissioner Harper asked why don’t you come here and show me.

At this time, Mr. Thompson showed Commissioner Harper where the property is located.

Mr. Breitzke stated what Bob is describing to Commissioner Harper is where the residential subdivision is proposed for.

Commissioner Harper stated so Augustine doesn’t abut the school property anywhere.

Mr. Breitzke stated it does on the north side.

Mr. Thompson stated the road came in and then they had an easement agreement with the owners of this ten acre parcel to cut here and then go in. He stated this is another area of residential so the actual residential area did come into this area very close to the school.

Commissioner Harper stated I want to make a few comments. He stated there is some feeling that if you don’t zone everything you are not for economic development. He stated you got to do it right away. He stated in my way of thinking this mess in this area is one of the things that is going to hurt economic development in Porter County. He stated when you get an area and you start mixing residential and business right up against one another in a few years the residential starts to deteriorate and it happens everywhere you see it. He stated so to my way of


thinking you can’t waive the flag and say that it is for economic development and let’s hurry up and get this done because we are going to have some really great development in Porter County if we do it the right way. He stated that is number one. He stated number two this is just the start and it is very obvious of a whole series of businesses that we just got done and I can’t believe that we did it, two weeks ago passing residential right next to it. He stated we had a chance then to do something but we don’t do it and we don’t plan ahead. He stated so we approved this subdivision and between these folks live and the subdivision that we just approved we are going to stack a bunch of businesses. He stated let me tell you what happens when you are Commissioners. He stated when you get calls about lights and noise and things that go on. He stated we can pretend that it doesn’t go on day and night. He stated I understand that these houses are a little down the street from this. He stated this is just the start and there is going to be one right after another of businesses. He stated we should be ashamed of ourselves for sticking that subdivision in there. He stated last week and I disagree with a lot that Valpo does and I disagree with this but they annexed the area out by Beauty Creek and they took the zoning and they changed some of that zoning, which I fought commercial out there, from commercial to duplexes to multi-family. He stated they down zoned it. He stated you can change zoning. He stated you don’t have to leave zoning the way it is. He stated I have heard more about this dog kennel and we all say it’s like we have the water and we wash our hands of the situation. He stated well what can we do about it. He stated well we are the Plan Commission and we better be doing something about these things. He stated that is what I say. He stated this man catches me tonight in the hall, Mr. Heavilin, and he has called my office before. He stated the Brooks Subdivision and they didn’t put their trees in. He stated maybe it isn’t all in the minutes but these people went to meetings and they thought there was an agreement that these trees were going to go in. He stated now we have a dozen reasons why they didn’t put the trees in that subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated I have walked it and they have put in a number of trees.

Commissioner Harper stated okay. He stated we are the Plan Commission and like Herb said we are the plan. He stated we have this poor subdivision on CR 250 and old road going to Hobart. He stated we have a race track south of it and that is zoned industrial. He stated they get their subdivision in and these people move into these homes and next thing that is going up is a Crazy Dee’s next door to them with the lights shining all over them. He stated oh, we can’t help it because it was already


zoned. He stated then an outdoor semi storage goes in next door to that. He stated are we going to plan or are we going to let this start looking like Whiting. He stated this starts to remind me a little bit about what might look like Whiting or Hammond in twenty or thirty years sticking this together.

Mr. Breitzke stated the outdoor semi storage had already pre-existed for many, many years.

Commissioner Harper stated then we shouldn’t have let the residential in.

Mr. Breitzke stated they down zoned the residential from I-2, which I agree with you. He stated that should have never happened.

Commissioner Harper stated I think Tim Cole mentioned it. He stated we have some great industrial parks. He stated by the way you are not going to have Cisco or someplace like that come out and want to be in this area. He stated they want to be in an industrial park with roads. He stated by the way we are turning down some driveway permits, the Highway Department is, on semi’s going down roads and if there are semi’s going down there there will be an issue over the driveway permit. He stated I am letting you know that right now because we are turning down driveway permits. He stated we better get on the stick. He stated one thing I think we better get on the stick with this new zoning plan is to make sure that these people don’t have…if it is residential here and it is residential here we need to stop this right now. He stated it is not going to be easy to do some of this. He stated people are going to be in here raising the devil about their land. He stated we can’t be setting a subdivision right next to industrial and not having buffer zones. He stated I can’t believe that we had this whole discussion over this Augustine Subdivision and it didn’t come up that we were sticking this subdivision right next to a bunch of I-2.

Mr. Thompson stated I will apologize for that because it was my fault for not mentioning it in the staff report. He stated I have been trying to send out the zoning maps and point out where all this is as part of the staff report. He stated I do want to point out one other thing with the Development Plan Ordinance that we have. He stated they can possibly address concerns if you…such as Mr. Cole brought up about a residential light that is there. He stated we do have a part where in here and it is new that we can ask for certain particular commitments. He stated Mr. Andrews stated that he was going to pave his parking area so that way there is no stone there or dust. He stated we can ask him if he is willing to put that in a written


commitment. He stated we can also ask the architectural that he was showing as far as the front of the building and making it look like a nice building and put it in a written commitment. He stated there are steps and procedures that this written commitment will need to be presented and approved by the attorney and signed off by the president of the Plan Commission and it needs to be recorded so that way we get assurances that these things are going to be done. He stated we have the ability now to ask them to enter into a written commitment document to assure us that these items will be done.

Commissioner Harper stated I think we should consider rezoning the whole or a lot…we have to put a stop somewhere to it.

Mr. Detert stated if we are going to stop and start rezoning and down zoning and I think the first step to start is to deny this.

Mr. Breitzke stated I have been pushing for commercial and industrial ordinance as part of the new UDO. He stated that is something this county has needed for a long time. He stated the development on Evans that was developed largely by family in the area with a well known surveyor has been piecemeal. He stated it has been the poster child of just bad organization design. He stated we have been lucky with some of the tenants and they have worked with us to improve some of the situation. He stated I think in this case you have a tenant who wants to get out of this place to the south and improve this area in here too. He stated I would also like to say that Mr. Thompson did give us a zoning map from what I recall with the zoning for Augustine.

Mr. Detert moved to deny Case 06-DP-1. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burge stated I understand Mr. Harper’s stand and I completely sympathized with the crowd and the fact that this needs to be changed and it needs to be done better. He stated but by the same token the gentleman that is before us today has done everything according to the rules as they currently stand. He stated you are asking to deny something that they have achieved to the letter of everything you have asked for. He stated I don’t know legally if you can do that. He stated I agree that you should not have industrial next to residential but the way it currently stands they have done everything that we have asked them to do.



Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Burge - No Burns - Yes Cole - No
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes
Marshall - No Read - Yes Breitzke - No

Mr. Thompson stated after the workshop hearing tonight where we had an engineering firm talk to us about an independent review of storm water situation for developments. He asked how do you want staff to proceed on this situation. He asked is this something you would like to see done where I could send out requests for qualifications or proposals to come forward to the Plan Commission for interviewing.

Mr. Detert moved to proceed to do requests for qualifications from engineering firms to do an independent review of storm water situation for developments. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson stated Karen Tallian and I will be presenting a report to the Plan Commission at the July 26, 2006 meeting. He stated the report is essentially going to be telling everybody the comments that we have had from public hearings, which we have held three public hearings on the Draft C of the Unified Development Ordinance. He stated we have also gone to other places for additional input such as the builders and developers, the Indiana Farm Bureau and we have had State people from the Indiana Farm Bureau to talk to us about it. He stated we have also sat down with emergency services. He stated one of the things that we will be talking about at this meeting is that there are some differences of opinions that have come through. He stated what we are going to do is present these differences that we have heard to the Plan Commission at this public hearing so we can get direction from them on how we want to proceed with the next draft.


Commissioner Harper moved to have the attorney research the power of the Plan Commission on rezoning property without the property owners consent. Mr. Read seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

Burge - No Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes
Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes


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

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


/ Kevin D. Breitzke, President

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