PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
July 26, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the 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 Ken Elwood and Patricia S. Gibson.

Mr. Cole moved to waive the reading of the July 12, 2006 minutes and approve them as corrected. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated Case 06-Z-4 Petition of Gayle Rotz, 504 Silhavy Road, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Business to be located at 504 Silhavy Road in Washington Township has been withdrawn by the petitioner.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Gayle Rotz withdrawing her petition for a rezone.

Gayle Rotz, 504 Silhavy Road, Valparaiso, Indiana. She stated I am formally withdrawing my petition for a rezone.

Pending 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., Porter Township. (To contain 136 lots on 96.415 acres. Property is zoned R-1. con’t from July 12, 2006 mtg.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am from Hoeppner, Wagner and Evans. He stated for the secondary plat of Phase 2 for Prairie Landings. He stated this matter was continued from June 14. He stated at that time we briefly discussed the erosion control. He stated I have provided some photographs and we indicated at the last meeting that we would meet with Mr. Clem of the Planning Department on site to discuss with what his concerns are with


respect to erosion control. He stated Ken and I personally met with Jack last Wednesday, a week ago today, and spent about an hour walking around the site. He stated he identified what his concerns were and Ken has gone through and done a lot of that work as much as he could get done in a week. He stated almost all of that work in Phase I is completed, including smoothing out the edges of the pond and installing the erosion control fabric that Mr. Clem required. He stated one of the other items was silt fencing being wrapped around the corner of the lots. He stated all of those things are done. He stated Ken has done some of the erosion control work that Mr. Clem has requested in Phase 2. He stated I spoke with Jack today and he at least indicated to me that he was very pleased with the process. He stated he also visited with Ken yesterday at the site and expressed the same to him. He stated other than that this is the secondary plat of Prairie Landings. He stated you all have been provided with the drawings and nothing has changed. He stated the bond amount has been approved by the Highway Department in the amount of $1,340,000. He stated that was approved on May 12, 2006.

Mr. Burns asked any new variances.

Mr. Fergren stated no.

Mr. Breitzke stated you have made a lot of progress. He stated I was out there tonight and they have done a lot of work on the pond cleaning out the outlets and hopefully you will continue to proceed as you go into the next phase the same way.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-9. Mr. Burge seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-DP-2. Petition of Todd Adams, 492 Richard Road, Dyer, Indiana seeking development review for a 12,000 square foot 5-unit commercial building, to be located at 315 E. 316 N., in Washington Township. (Property is zoned I-1.)

Bill Ferngren stated with me tonight is Todd Adams the property owner and Dave Croft from the Bonar Group. He stated this property is Lot B in Brooks Industrial Park. He stated there is approximately 1.18 or 1.19 acres in size and is zoned I-1. He stated the project has been before your Advisory Committee on two separate occasions and we are here now before you this evening. He stated the proposal is a five-unit commercial and industrial office warehouse structure. He stated there will be no outside storage on this site whatsoever. He stated everything would be contained within the confines of the building. He stated under your “Table of Permitted Uses” this type of contractors office with indoor storage is a listed permitted use


under the I-1 category. He stated the property would be serviced by well and septic. He stated the Indiana Department of Health forwarded the approval of the septic system on to the Porter County Health Department. He stated it is a single building structure with a parking area located and it is identified in the yellow area on the drawing here to your left. He stated it provides for a travel lane of 25-feet through the center and a 25-foot access also from CR 316 N. along with the parking spots align 20 along both sides. He stated there are 40-parking spaces shown on that site to accommodate the five separate users. He stated there is also a culvert shown under the road there at the access point. He stated the Advisory Committee asked that we do that and we are showing that we would make that improvement as well. He stated the County Highway Department has issued their right-of-way cut permit on June 1 of this year authorizing this cut. He stated the setbacks for the parcel are the lot area, 20,000 square feet required and we have about 1.18-1.19 acres. He stated the front yard setback requirement is 30-feet and that is what we have. He stated the side yard setback requirement is 6-feet and we have 20-feet. He stated the rear yard setback requirement is 15-feet and we are showing at least 22-feet. He stated lot coverage on the site including the 40 car parking lot is about 51.5%. He stated we are showing also some landscaping at the north end of the site with a tree line to be installed there. He stated some mix of pine variety or some other type of trees. He stated we believe that this is a quality project and it finishes out the site and we are asking that you approve this.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions at this time.

Mr. Burns asked what type of business would be going in there.

Mr. Ferngren stated the intent is for contractors like the area. He stated if you are familiar with the site, Todd for instance is in the masonry business. He stated so those types of uses. He stated it would be office/warehouse and it will be all contained within the site.

Mr. Burns stated we have some issues in that area with a kennel that is a real problem and also truck traffic. He stated I am concerned about the high truck traffic on certain type of business’s.

Mr. Ferngren stated we don’t intend to have a kennel on the site.

Mr. Adams stated this definitely will not be set up for that. He stated it is going to be set up more for contractors or


detail shop or something along that line. He stated there is nothing going to be set up to have kennels out there.

Mr. Burns stated it will be all inside storage.

Mr. Adams stated yes. He stated everything is inside on the site.

Mr. Ferngren stated there is no outside storage permitted in the I-1.

Mr. Burns asked do you see anything with high truck traffic.

Mr. Ferngren stated we don’t envision that there would be any issues here at all with that.

Mr. Detert stated I have the same concerns that Rick has.

Mr. Hutson stated what type of business exactly is it. He asked do the contractors meet to do small projects in the building or what exactly is it.

Mr. Adams stated I myself are in the masonry business. He stated I would keep my equipment in there. He stated most of my guys meet on the job. He stated we may occasionally go and load up some equipment. He stated what I would use it for would not be a lot of high traffic. He stated there would not be a bunch of trucks coming in and out. He stated they would come to get equipment when needed. He stated I have a full time secretary and she would obviously park out front.

Mr. Cole stated I echo the same concerns. He stated this is not a concern or detriment to your plan. He stated I guess I am looking at 40 cars for five business units. He stated I am in favor of reducing parking lots. He stated it is just a voice concern and it certainly isn’t anything that I am trying to impose on anybody.

Mr. Read stated first I want to get a clarification over a sentence that is in the report to the Porter County Plan Commission. He stated on the “Summary of Conformance to Adoptive Plans” the second paragraph about the third or fourth sentence it says, “This case is not set as a public hearing since the subdivision went through the public hearing process. This is stated within the new Development Plan Ordinance.” He stated you mean that there has been a public hearing on the industrial part of this.



Mr. Thompson stated correct. He stated on the industrial subdivision there was a public hearing on it. He stated the way that the Development Plan states is if there was a previous public hearing whether it was a subdivision and in some situation if it was a BZA type case too prior to this. He stated in this case it was the Brooks Industrial Park Subdivision. He stated this particular case does not have to go as far as a public hearing where they have to contact adjoiners because that has already been done with the industrial park subdivision.

Mr. Read stated so what you are saying is that this residential subdivision that exists to the north they have already been notified and given the opportunity to comment.

Mr. Thompson stated with Brooks Industrial Park Subdivision. He stated yes they have.

Mr. Read stated when the whole subdivision came in.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated in fact this is one of the few industrial park subdivisions that actually went before us. He stated the development to the south was done as meets and bounds separate parcels. He stated they came in when they divided up this land as a commercial subdivision, which we are hoping to create in the new ordinance.

Mr. Read stated okay, then in the next sentence it states, “This is stated within the new Development Plan Ordinance.” He stated I don’t quite get the meaning of that sentence.

Mr. Thompson stated it is within our new Development Ordinance.

Mr. Read stated would you clarify that sentence.

Mr. Thompson stated the actual Development Plan Ordinance is Ordinance 06-04 and if you flip through to page 5, #4 Public Hearing. He stated it is under Section 16.044.050 and it talks about public hearings. He stated it says, “ Public hearings shall be held in accordance with the Plan Commission rules of procedure if any of the following conditions apply: The site is not in a lot in a platted commercial or industrial subdivision.” He stated this is in a platted subdivision. He stated it went through the public hearing. He stated or, “The petitioner has filed one or more development standard variance petitions conjunction with development plan petition.” He stated that would automatically send it to the BZA for a variance and a full


public hearing prior to being here with the development plan review.

Mr. Read stated as you know I do my best to go out and scout and inspect every property and I have to say that I didn’t do it this time because I was in Oklahoma up until 24 hours ago. He stated on my way back I had to try to read some of this while my wife was driving. He asked are there other buildings already built in this subdivision.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes. He stated this is the final lot.

Mr. Read stated so this is the last one. He asked the rest of them are already developed.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Mr. Read stated I see that in the comment in the staff report was something about providing screening for the subdivision to the north. He stated you are talking about white pine to a certain extent with 24 centers. He stated white pine is not very thick vegetation. He stated as far as evergreens go it is kind of thin. He stated you show 12 of them and I think that could be improved.

Mr. Ferngren stated you did mention that you didn’t get to see the property. He stated if you did have the opportunity to go out there you would see that the subdivision you are talking about is located here. He stated this home in this area has…there is an exiting tree row anyway and then there is a series of pond…

Mr. Read asked on whose property.

Mr. Ferngren stated on the neighbors property. He stated there is a series of blue spruce trees planted all along this area already. He stated then these would be the area that we are proposing for this buffer. He stated I guess I disagree with you that the white pine doesn’t work as an affected buffer. He stated it may not be as dense as the blue spruce.

Mr. Read asked have you seen white pine. He stated now don’t say something like that. He stated I like white pine. He stated it is a native species for the Indiana Dunes area but it is not very thick. He stated I don’t think you should count vegetation on adjoining property as far as part of your green belt. He stated I think that you should improve your some way or another your green belt.



Mr. Ferngren stated I guess we are comfortable that this is a screen…

Mr. Read stated obviously you are comfortable. He stated you wouldn’t be here proposing it if you weren’t comfortable. He stated but I am not comfortable with it.

Mr. Breitzke stated Deerfield Park the subdivision to the north, there is a detention pond between the homes and that fence row of trees.

Mr. Read stated he still shouldn’t count off-site as part of his green belt.

Mr. Ferngren stated I am not.

Mr. Breitzke stated we had that discussion at the Advisory and that is one of the reasons why they inserted trees. He asked did you get advice on the trees themselves or…

David Croft stated I am with the Bonar Group. He stated we did seek advice from a local landscape architect. He stated we are showing the trees per their advice. He stated I will point out that we will alternate between low branch and white pine trees.

Mr. Read stated so there will be several heights involved.

Mr. Croft stated correct and that is on the advice from a landscape architect.

Mr. Cole stated perhaps it would help to tell you that my white pine is 90-feet high. He stated they can be very big trees and there are big distances between the limbs and the limbs tend to be horizontal giving a lot of viewing space and not much sound reduction. He stated I have to agree with Herb. He stated you might want to rethink white pine.

Mr. Read stated spruce of some kind, which is thicker. He stated I think you could improve on your screening. He stated I am not suggesting that we should hold up the whole project for that. He stated I think it could be done. He asked is there going to be any process waste coming from these tenants.

Mr. Ferngren stated by process waste…

Mr. Read stated other than your sewer.

Mr. Ferngren stated just the office type of waste such as toilets.

Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to know if the staff looked up when this Deerfield Park Subdivision was approved for an I-1. She asked when did that happen.

Mr. Thompson stated I-1 rezoning happened I believe in 1996. He stated it was reverted from I-2 down to I-1.

Mrs. Marshall stated so it was an I-2 and it became an I-1.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Mrs. Marshall asked when did it become an I-2.

Mr. Thompson stated in 1983.

Mrs. Marshall stated according to the 1974 book that I have it was an I-2 then.

Mr. Thompson stated I did not do a historical research past 1983.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have asked for that several times and we don’t seem to get that on the agenda so I just want to bring it up again. She stated this is a north south building, isn’t it.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.

Mrs. Marshall stated it is going to be approximately 2400 square feet.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.

Mrs. Marshall stated first of all the notice to the people on the Plan Commission said that it was at 326 N. so I had a devil of a time finding it. She stated it is at 316 N. She stated there was no sign out.

Mr. Thompson stated this is not a public hearing so there wouldn’t be a sign placed out in front of it.

Mrs. Marshall stated it is a private road. She stated do you expect the contractors that you are targeting don’t have materials coming in on a semi truck.

Mr. Adams stated just so they are within the proper zoning. He stated I wouldn’t think so but if a company wants to go in there that meets the requirements for what it is zoned then…I haven’t sold any units yet so I can’t say for sure what business


is going to be in there. He stated with that type of building I wouldn’t think there would be a lot of semi traffic.

Mrs. Marshall stated would you thing that a car shop could go in there.

Mr. Adams asked are you saying an automotive repair.

Mrs. Marshall stated yes.

Mr. Adams stated if that is zoned…

Mrs. Marshall asked could there be painting of cars.

Mr. Ferngren stated any types of uses that are permitted other than the kennel we are expecting the building could be used for any use that is permitted under the I-1 zoning.

Mrs. Marshall stated an auto repair shop that has a paint stall there are State regulations as far as smell and chemicals that are used. She stated we have no guarantee that that is not what is going to go in there. She asked isn’t that right.

Mr. Ferngren stated I guess I could say that if an auto repair shop is permitted in I-1 and someone identifies this as a place they would like to be then they may be in there but that doesn’t eliminate an obligation to comply with the law.

Mrs. Marshall stated an I-1 doesn’t allow smell to go past the building. She stated an I-2 allows it to go not past the property line. She stated you would have to narrow it down to what you are going to do there. She stated you have to comply to what you are going to be granted here.

Mr. Ferngren stated we intend to comply with the law.

Mrs. Marshall stated the other thing is the last time we had an I-2 zoning you could see it from this property. She stated if you stand there you could see this building where these people were which would have lined up with this address at 316 N. and they had an I-2. She stated it was denied. She stated denied because I guess somebody doesn’t think the zoning is proper even though in 1974 it was that also. She stated who is going to maintain the private road.

Mr. Adams stated we are in the process of forming an association where all the property owners are going to maintain that.



Mrs. Marshall asked will that ever be given to the County to maintain.

Mr. Adams stated I am not the owner of that road so I have no control over that.

Mr. Breitzke stated it was not inspected by County Highway. He stated they will not take it.

Mrs. Marshall asked it did not meet road standards.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am not going to say that. He stated all I am saying is that they didn’t inspect it because Brooks Development Company said it was going to be a private road so they could restrict access for the purposes of their businesses.

Mrs. Marshall stated I agree with Mr. Read that the white pine is not sufficient screening on the north end of that property. She stated it is very, very close to some pretty nice houses up there. She stated I am surprised that more people from that subdivision are not here tonight because they came out in force last time against the other rezoning. She stated I am kind of surprised that they are not here. She stated I did see that in one of the buildings there was auto detailing. She stated they had their doors opened. She stated the first building down there on the right hand side is an auto detail. She asked what are some of the other business’s that are in that park.

Mr. Adams stated concrete contractor, an electrical contractor, a detail shop, there is a guy who does lighting.

Mrs. Marshall stated those buildings down the road there what do they do.

Mr. Adams stated there is the Batting Box, which is like indoor batting cages, next to that is the kennels, John McQuestion from Soil Solutions, there is a mason contractor, a heating and cooling business and I think there is an auto repair in one. He stated as far as the landscaping goes I have no problem with making that nice and giving the people some privacy. He stated I understand that there are some nice houses there. He stated the building that I am building is an all masonry building. He stated it is going to be painted and it is going to be a sharp building. He stated I have no problems doing some type of a tree over there, which ever is sufficient. He stated just so it doesn’t get totally out of hand.

Mrs. Marshall stated I see you’re from Dyer, Indiana.



Mr. Adams stated I live in Portage and my office is in Dyer.

Mrs. Marshall asked have you ever built in Porter County.

Mr. Adams stated I built a house.

Mrs. Marshall asked have you ever done any other commercial project.

Mr. Adams stated I am a mason contractor. He stated I have never done anything personally for myself but I have been in business since 1995 and I have done a lot of work in Porter and Lake County.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to ask staff a few questions. He stated if I remember correctly we were here two weeks ago on a development plan approval.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Commissioner Harper stated if I further remember correctly neighbors were notified of that.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Commissioner Harper stated I assumed that staff has decided that they don’t want neighbors to come to these meetings any more.

Mr. Thompson stated absolutely not. He stated I am following the letter of the law with the Ordinance that was approved by the County Commissioners.

Commissioner Harper stated what I am asking you is why did you notify them last time and not notify them this time.

Mr. Thompson stated because across the street was a meets and bounds development that never went through a public hearing at all. He stated so therefore that development plan had to go through a public hearing.

Commissioner Harper asked is Brooks Industrial Park the one that we discussed about the trees.

Mr. Thompson stated correct. He stated I was looking through the Plan Commission minutes on that. He stated the industrial park subdivision primary plat was approved in 2002. He stated then the final plat was approved in 2003.


Commissioner Harper stated you tell me if this is a fair statement. He stated I have read the minutes and I am sure you read them by now. He stated this Brooks Industrial Park was passed with a lot of loose discussion about the fact because it was put next to a lot of nice homes and backing up against a lot of nice homes that there was a lot of loose discussion about some sort of tree line that was going to be created between the subdivision and the homes that was never really tacked down.

Mr. Thompson stated I agree with that 100%.

Commissioner Harper stated so we had a bunch of home owners that came to hear the meeting of Brooks Subdivision and they heard this discussion and promises made about this tree line and they figured that there was supposed to be a tree line. He stated now they were at this last meeting and were complaining that there isn’t a tree line. He asked is that a pretty correct analysis.

Mr. Thompson stated there is not a tree line there however, at the primary plat was approved based on working out a buffer plan. He stated at secondary plat they were talking about that and I remember they were talking about mounding and trees. He stated Eric Biddinger at that time our AG Agent said that mounding won’t work with trees. He stated Eric later ended up writing a letter at secondary plat that discussed that he would like to go out and work out a plan for that. He stated I do have the letter in the file that talks about that. He stated there was really nothing nailed down as far as in writing exactly what was going on. He stated when I went out there to actually look through to see this buffer I did walk the site and I found lilacs planted and I found arborvitae planted. He stated I approached the developer and I asked him if this is what…and they said they were filling in the areas that the AG Agent wanted filled in with some additional trees at that time. He stated I don’t have anything based on those Plan Commission hearings really to say yes or no.

Commissioner Harper stated I am not criticizing that, Bob, but what I am pointing out is that it looks to me, and I have been out there and I don’t see much of a buffer, and we can all go out there and look. He stated there really isn’t much of a buffer between this industrial park and these $300,000, $400,000 homes. He stated to me it is a complete breakdown of this process by exactly what we are doing tonight. He stated we don’t tack it down and get it done. He stated the minutes of this meeting if we stop right now are going to read just about like the minutes of the other two meetings when we really say we can’t do anything. He stated that is all I am pointing out.


Mr. Thompson stated I agree with you. He stated that is why I try to point out in the staff reports due to the Development Plan Ordinance you can request that the petitioner here enter into written commitments on what you all decide. He stated with that written commitment if the petitioner agrees and Mr. Ferngren will have to draft up a document and he would have to give it to our attorney, Mr. Elwood, for his review to see whether or not it is sufficient. He stated yes, I am agreeing with you on that. He stated if you all are going to decide on something please nail it down so that way staff has something that we can look at when a certificate of occupancy is issued. He stated then we can go out there and say something like, “Yes you have met it or no, you haven’t.” He stated you have to give staff something to be able to go out there to work on. He stated I really felt with Brooks Industrial Park I was limited on what I could do.

Mr. Ferngren stated Todd indicated he is willing to…

Commissioner Harper stated I understand that. He stated what I am talking about is that we are not doing our job. He stated I am not saying that you aren’t doing your job. He stated we are not doing our job. He stated we better start doing our job because the second thing we have out there is a dog kennel. He stated it is right up against these $300,000, $400,000 homes. He asked were there promises made that there wasn’t going to be noise or was that ever tacked down.

Mr. Thompson stated I am out there now trying to work with them on this situation.

Commissioner Harper stated I understand Bob and I am not criticizing you. He stated it is the members of this Commission whose duty it is to protect the public. He stated I am not criticizing you for that. He stated what I am trying to point out is we have this neighborhood, these people that were here last time. He stated Liz asked why they weren’t here this time and I guess we understand why they aren’t here this time. He stated there wasn’t a public notice put out. He stated they were here last time and they said, “Look members of the Plan Commission we have a dog kennel behind our house and we are hearing these dogs all the time. We thought we were going to have this buffering tree line down here and we don’t see.” He stated I don’t see it and maybe we have some lilacs but I am telling you we don’t have a lot of buffering down there. He stated so now we are presented with another hearing and I do read the staff report. He stated one of the things and it is the worst problem that we have with residential and commercial is the lighting. He stated it would seem to me that if you were going


to allow this that you should have some definite commitments and rules about the lighting so that the neighbors aren’t you know…the other thing is about the buffering. He stated I don’t even think we should be debating on whether it is pine or spruce. He stated I think we should be debating on how many rows it is to really buffer this between a residential area and a commercial area. He stated I suggest that we put this off for a couple of weeks and get this done. He stated I just know this that if we do our job as members of the Plan Commission to protect everybody…we better do our job. He stated again and again and again we don’t do our job.

Mr. Breitzke stated you are going to have them come back and that is a good idea.

Commissioner Harper stated I didn’t say I was.

Mr. Breitzke stated that seems to be the direction we seem to be headed but we need better direction for them so we are not just telling them to go away and come back. He stated we need to give them some direction. He stated I agree with you. He stated there should be a couple of rows and it should be thicker and probably staggered in height with the service berries and the arborvitaes kind of towering in front and kind of go back to hard woods. He stated they do have hard woods in the back fence row. He stated now when Brooks Development was evolved as I said before there is a detention pond on the north side but what we wanted to make sure that the developer didn’t go in there and remove all the old trees along that tree row. He stated that was the first thing to create some kind of shield. He stated they need to create additional shield in the meantime. He stated as time goes these things need to grow. He stated you can’t come in and plant a 24-inch tree today. He stated the other issue I have is that we have never as a County attacked nuisance issues. He stated you have focused on light but there is also odor that Liz mentioned. He stated there is also noise. He stated there is not just noise from dogs. He stated it is noise from other things. He stated we have to come to terms about how we are going to measure this and how we are going to enforce it. He stated we have an enforcement officer now. He stated so we have a vehicle. He stated now we have to train people on measuring the lumens, the light disbursed. He stated give some kind of logical direction to our ordinance writers as we are attacking that right now. He stated likewise with noise. He stated we have to figure that out. He stated I will have to say that with Brooks I don’t think anybody anticipated a kennel operation. He stated it seems to me that we did ask about machine operations and noise. He stated I may be wrong but I thought I brought up something like a stamping press or something that was working 24/7, especially


computer driven vices because now a lot of times you don’t even need to man this company all 24 hours. He stated you just have people checking on computer aided machining that you can have process constantly going. He stated likewise with odor and odor detection. He stated now the good thing about a paint shop is you’ve got to register to buy a gallon of all body paint let enough to do a full operation. He stated these are some of the things that we need to consider how we are going to equip our inspectors and make it practical to enforce that kind of thing. He stated finally even with the kennel. He stated I brought up the noise of the kennel. He stated they are attempting to suppress the noise. He stated the first method didn’t work now they are trying the second method. He stated that was our expectation. He stated I do agree with you. He stated we don’t have a rule.

Mrs. Marshall stated yes we do have a rule.

Mr. Breitzke asked how do we have a rule.

Mrs. Marshall stated we have a rule because the zoning there is I-1, which doesn’t allow noise beyond the building. She stated it is pretty simple in the book. She stated if they are violating noise beyond the building and all these folks in this subdivision here and everybody else that drives down here hears it it seems to me that they are not in compliance with the I-1 zoning that they are trying to operate under.

Mr. Ferngren stated if your ordinance says you can’t have noise that leaves your site then…

Mr. Breitzke stated if this one doesn’t the new one will.

Mrs. Marshall stated we have another violation out there. She stated we have the building that is going to be to the east of this property they have outside storage. She stated that I-1 doesn’t allow outside storage. She stated we had up on SR 49 Waste Management years ago come in…no it wasn’t them. She stated it was someone else who wanted to have telephone poles or something. She stated you can’t put them inside so they came here and got a variance to the I-1 zoning that they received so that they could store those things and only those things outside. She stated so we do have avenues. She stated we just simply don’t pursue them here.

Mr. Ferngren stated we are not asking of you to do that.

Mrs. Marshall stated I know that and I realize that.



Commissioner Harper stated we are talking about the dog kennel.

Mrs. Marshall stated this petitioner is going to have to address that outside storage. She stated that guy next door who is the concrete business have forms laying out there and all kinds of stuff. She stated it is not allowed in this Brooks Subdivision.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 06-DP-2 with the petitioner to consider written commitments to limit the high noise area; high traffic areas; no outside storage; no exhausting of chemicals or fumes etc.; double the tree line and to address what type of lighting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated I would just like to add that I am not very comfortable with this especially since the last meeting. He stated I just feel that somebody in the neighborhood ought to know about this and have some input.

Mr. Ferngren stated we can answer the lighting quickly. He stated Todd has shown me some photographs. He stated there are no mounted types of lights. He stated there would simply be the signage on the building itself would be the lighting. He stated I am not certain what else we could do for this particular piece of property. He stated it is zoned I-1. He stated we couldn’t put anything else in there and it is a use that is permitted and that is what we intend to do. He stated we will eliminate the dog kennel as requested and we are committing to putting in that tree line.

Mr. Detert stated I would like to see a list of business’ that you won’t rent to that would be in the covenant.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is going to be a condominium development. He stated those are going to be units for sale so people will be able to come in and buy them.

Mr. Detert stated you can put a covenant on the property and on the sale of the property it says you cannot put this kind of business in.

Mr. Ferngren stated I think that this is an unfair restriction on Mr. Adams. He stated he has property that is zoned for these uses. He stated we are coming in and telling you that we will only do those uses that the property is zoned to commit and those users will have to comply with your laws. He


stated how you enforce them…Mr. Harper was talking about that tonight. He stated certificates of occupancy won’t be issued if there are violations of the law.

Mr. Detert asked are you saying that you won’t do that.

Mr. Ferngren asked do what.

Mr. Detert stated put any restrictions of any kind on.

Mr. Ferngren stated we are certainly eliminating kennels.

Mr. Detert stated there are a lot more offensive businesses.

Mr. Breitzke stated also how about hours of operation because you are next to a residential neighborhood.

Mr. Ferngren stated what seems to be equitable and fair to the last guy in that he gets to operate his company and to place limitations on what he can do and on who he can sell to really kind of smacks you in the face on what this country is about, quite honestly.

Mr. Detert stated it is totally unfair to the neighbors to put obnoxious businesses in there.

Mr. Ferngren stated your ordinance addresses what obnoxious business is.

Mr. Detert stated I know and I hear you.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is why you establish these rules. He stated you say an obnoxious business is not a contractor’s office/warehouse in I-1. He stated that is the law and that has been established already. He stated if it is something other than that where we have to get a special exception or variance clearly then the law is that maybe an obnoxious use and you have to prove other things in order to be able to do that.

Mr. Detert stated you are going to fall back on the legal interpretation and I think as a good citizen you ought to try to help the people that you are going to move in by on your own.

Mr. Ferngren stated I think Mr. Adams is committing to be a very good neighbor. He stated he is building the only masonry structure on this particular site. He stated he is one of the few that will have a paved surface parking. He stated he is not doing any outdoor storage. He stated he is not looking for any


variances. He stated he is simply complying with what your ordinance requires him to do in order for him to have an office/warehouse building in an I-1 zoning class.

Mr. Breitzke stated what I am going to suggest is that you consider these things because after all as he sells off the units he will loose control of what happens next. He stated since you are going to be their neighbor too you want to make sure that you have something that you can live next door to and run your business.

Mr. Adams stated that is the reason why I was doing the masonry building and I was foam filling the walls because I actually have this exact building in Dyer and they all have block partitions dividing the units and I’ll tell you the sound is…I am right next to a print shop and I can’t even hear them operate. He stated a masonry building is going to muff any type of noise.

Mrs. Marshall asked Mr. Adams could you tell me what the address of that business is in Dyer.

Mr. Adams stated 992 Richard Road in Dyer.

Mr. Burge stated I have to agree with the petitioner there. He stated this is the last unit to be developed in that little area and to scrutinize them to a different standard than everybody else that has built there prior is not fair to them especially if they are complying with all the rules that have been established. He stated the question on the additional tree line coverage that some of the members are requesting is this in addition or far beyond and above what the business’ that came before had to do.

Mr. Detert stated I don’t think that is quite true because we have on many, many cases looked at the screening and made people do additional screening. He stated I don’t think we are picking on him particularly. He stated although we may have let some slide through that we didn’t do that to but we also had some that we did do that to.

Mr. Breitzke stated let’s address the motion and the motion is to continue.

Motion 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



Commissioner Harper asked who does take care of the road in there.

Mr. Thompson stated it is private so there is a road maintenance agreement that I believe was a covenant with that development. He stated when the people buy these lots they enter into the road maintenance agreement.

Commissioner Harper asked whoever developed this park are they still around.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Commissioner Harper asked are they still a viable business.

Mr. Thompson stated no.

Mr. Breitzke stated we still hold the bond on it and he is finishing up all the road work before he turns it over to the property owners.

Commissioner Harper asked who developed this.

Mr. Thompson stated a gentleman by the name of Dave Brooks.

Commissioner Harper stated there are some promises regarding that screening.

Mr. Thompson stated there is a certain amount that has been set aside for screening. He stated I guess I am struggling with what the Plan Commission approved and what I can actually go out there and enforce. He stated that is my problem.

Mr. Hutson asked do we require them to actually maintain their screening or is it a one time thing where they actually do the planting and then the trees die and they don’t maintain it or what do we have.

Mr. Thompson stated there is nothing as far as maintenance.

Attorney Elwood stated on that note I think that if it is clear in the motion and the minutes that screening is required maintenance is implied in that or implicit in that.

Mr. Hutson stated so we need to hold them to the maintenance of screenings also.

Attorney Elwood stated I think that you can do that, yes, if the lack of maintenance gets to such a point that it is no longer screened.

Mr. Hutson stated it is relatively easy to look at a screening and not see the other side. He stated I think that it would be relatively easy to enforce.

Attorney Elwood stated it would be. He stated I think the problem becomes what Commissioner Harper has discussed tonight and you almost need a very well spelled out written commitment to define screening.

Mr. Breitzke stated plus I think it needs to be done to the individual property owner because you have property owners that will cut down all of their trees and we have had that happen before. He stated that is one of the efforts that we are trying to avoid having them clear cut the fence line.

Commissioner Harper asked to when is this continued.

Mr. Thompson stated August 9.

Unified Development Ordinance, Draft “C” report to the Plan Commission by Attorney Karen Tallian and Robert Thompson Jr.

Mr. Thompson stated I sent out to all the members a report. He stated Karen and I held three public meetings and from those public meetings we developed a listing of a number of the issues that the public was raising. He stated there are some of them that I would say that there are two sides to it. He stated what we are asking for is direction. He stated not only did we hold public hearing we did go back to some special interest groups and sit down and talk with them after these public hearings. He stated Indiana Farm Bureau, the local emergency services and we did speak to one builder and developer in the area. He stated Karen and I have been working on Draft C and trying to figure out what direction to go and some of these items that we are going to go through and what we are going to ask you to make a determination for example is lot sizes. He stated the public hearings that we attended all three nights, I took a poll on what was proposed in here and what is referred to in here as the residential septic district. He stated it is proposed in this Draft C for it to be two acres. He stated the public was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the existing requirements of one acre within the RR, Rural Residential District that we have currently. He stated Karen and I were also in the discussion that probably we need to address all lot sizes within all of the proposed residential developments. He stated so that is one of the items we wanted to have addressed tonight and we need to have direction.




Mr. Read stated you have sent out something on these changes and for some reason or another I don’t have my copy with me.

Attorney Tallian stated these were not all of the changes. She stated we went through a long, long process of public meetings and meetings with all different groups. She stated we made a lot of changes. She stated some of them seemed fairly minor and some of them were not contentious and some of them were just standard changes. She stated the ones that are here in front of you tonight are things that we really felt are policy matters that we didn’t feel confident to make as a technical change. She stated these are really things that you guys are going to have to decide. She stated the rural residential lot size, we thought that originally when this was proposed that this was a good idea and that it would make sure that you had plenty of room for a septic tank. She stated when we actually took this to the public this became something that was contentious. She stated people didn’t like it at all and it wasn’t just builders who didn’t like it. She stated it was farmers who didn’t like it. She stated the farmers said that we were forcing them to use more farmland to get five houses. She stated instead of getting five houses on five acres you are forcing them to use ten acres. She stated we had different reactions. She stated the change back to keeping septic tanks at one acre is something that we want to present to you.

Mr. Read stated before we leave that subject I have a question for our lawyer. He stated the County Health Department takes itself off the hook in case a well and septic tank does not work. He stated they are saying that they are not responsible for this and they are not responsible…if it doesn’t work don’t come back to them. He stated as you know I have very grave doubts as to the proper functioning of septic tanks and some of the soil without possibly contaminating the water. He asked suppose we have a subdivision and I have seen it happen because I have lived in one where the septic tanks are not functioning properly and are contaminating the wells and it was approved by this Body. He asked where do we stand legally.

Attorney Elwood stated first I would defer to Karen because she represents you on the new ordinance. He stated I am actually an observer when it comes to the new ordinance. He stated I will state that there certainly can be some liability.

Attorney Tallian stated I also think that when you pass a zoning ordinance you are not necessarily guaranteeing that everything that sits within the zoning ordinance is going to either be reasonable or correct. She stated when you pass a


zoning ordinance you are trying to come up with a standard form of minimum standards that somebody has to meet. She stated that is all you can do here. She stated you can’t pass a zoning ordinance that will account for every situation in the world and that is just the way that law happens. She stated no law can account for every situation in the world.

Mr. Read stated supposing a developer was required to serve notice to all potential buyers stating that they are on their own and that they have a septic and well and no sewer and water. He stated it’s the same as the Health Department saying you are on your own. He stated you have to sign this paper saying that you are on your own. He stated if it doesn’t function it is not the Plan Commission’s fault. He stated some kind of a waiver the way the Health Department does.

Mr. Detert stated I have the same concerns and I’ve been through it with the Health Department. He stated I think the answer here is not whether it is one acre or two acres. He stated it depends on the soil types. He stated you have to have enough room for two septic systems in case the first one fails. He stated that is pretty tight. He stated I have son outside of Crown Point that has two and a third acres and he can barely squeeze another field in because of soil conditions and ravines and waterways and all that kind of stuff. He stated my son that lived in Porter County had an acre and a third and he had to put in a new septic system. He stated he had trouble fitting that in even though there was supposed to be enough allowance there. He stated a lot of that may be his fault because he moved the house.

Attorney Tallian stated I certainly understand what you are saying, Bob, and it is certainly true. She stated the competency of the septic system is going to depend exactly on the soils.

Mr. Detert stated that is exactly right.

Attorney Tallian stated the question is we need some direction then as to how to write it because we are trying to figure out how do we state that in a law.

Mr. Thompson stated just to let you know those that did not attend the public hearings we had a pretty good attendance at those meetings. He stated out of three nights of hearings there was only one person that raised their hand in favor of two acres. He stated I would say we probably had out of three nights 200 plus people.

Mr. Read stated Bob let’s be realistic here. He stated the builders and the people who want small acres notified their


people and got them out. He stated I could have packed the meeting with somebody that said differently.

Mr. Thompson stated I wouldn’t say that.

Mr. Burge stated the most egregious thing of the whole code that I found consistently everywhere and everybody I talked to was the two acre minimum. He stated that virtuously crushes the American dream for the vast majority of Porter County residents. He stated you look at Center Township with an acre costing $80,000 to $85,000 to $100,000 an acre. He stated requiring two acres you are taking a whole section of population out of the new home market.

Attorney Tallian stated we are only talking about septic tanks subdivisions. She stated any place that has sewer and water this would not apply to.

Mr. Burge stated it was 100% of the people that approached me have all been in favor of reducing it to one acre.

Commissioner Harper stated I understand Herb’s concern. He stated I also have concerns about septic fields. He stated I agree with Jim on this one. He stated I think that it hurts the little guy a lot of times when the father wants the son to live next door and all of these kinds of things. He stated I think that we should do the one acre with some sort of disclaimer. He stated we have someone in the County right now that has a nightmare going on with their subdivision. He stated they are trying but they don’t know if they can salvage the whole situation even by spending all kind of money. He stated we need to warn people. He stated the one thing that always worry’s me is that people should check before they move in but they don’t.

Mr. Breitzke stated the Health Department has been saying one acre except hydric soils, except easements or right-of-ways that affect the land. He stated they will give a little bit of easement I think five feet on the sidelines. He stated as the lots develop I would say something that is consistent with what the Health Department is prescribing now might be inequitable compromise and a practical one. He stated today people are building huge houses.

Mr. Burns asked what are the State guidelines for septic systems.

Mr. Thompson stated 30,000 square feet. He stated so we are above the State requirements.



Mr. Burns stated I think that is sufficient. He stated another piece that we don’t really talk about is that people don’t maintain their septic systems properly. He stated if you talk to the septic repair contractors a high number of septic failures is lack of maintenance or pumping the tanks. He stated I don’t know how we overcome that. He stated sure there are some for soil types, I agree, but that is not all the problem in this county.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am involved with a couple of Lake Groups and that is one big problem with the lakes. He stated we have too many people that believe dumping the enzymes in the tank will solve the problem. He stated within three or four years it is worse.

Mr. Burns stated people don’t understand that they have to maintain their habits. He stated I don’t know if they need an education system. He stated that might be 40% or 50% of the problem.

Mr. Thompson stated I do agree with you on the education.

Attorney Tallian stated I don’t know that in the zoning ordinance that it is the Plan Commissions job to tell people that they have to service their air conditioner or their heating unit or their septic tank.

Mr. Burns stated when they don’t service their septic tank and it doesn’t work they call the county.

Mr. Detert stated some people just fix their own septic tanks when they don’t work and that is a problem. He stated I guess the size of the lot is purely dependent upon having enough septic capacity and maybe what I was going to propose is getting together with the Health Department and enlarge the area required currently that we have. He asked can we go against State law or whatever laws exist to go tell people they need a larger usable septic area then what we have been requiring.

Attorney Tallian stated you already do. She stated you are already asking for an acre where the State’s minimum requirement is 30,000 square feet.

Mr. Hutson asked do we have numbers on the wide spread failure of septic sytems in the county. He asked is it that large of a number.

Mr. Breitzke stated since 1991 it is less than 2%. He stated most of the problems are with the older septic systems.


He stated some of them are 40 and 50 years old and the problem is like all infrastructure it fails. He stated the one thing that I would like to stress is the Health Department does control this and maybe to help advocate in helping them do some kind of inspection. He stated it is very difficult. He stated they need the support to hire more people etc. He stated there may be some State issues too.

Mr. Detert stated we have a lot of septic problems.

Mr. Breitzke asked it may require a legislative action.

Attorney Tallian stated one of the things that I thing we do now is when somebody applies for a septic tank subdivision they are only require to do three soil borings on every lot and all lots done at primary. She stated so every single lot at primary has to have an okay for a septic.

Mr. Breitzke stated I will add to that. He stated they take the worst case of the three borings typically too.

Mr. Read stated that okay from the Health Department has this self protecting clause in it, which pushes it back on the home owner. He stated I will go along with the one acre but I think that this Body should do something to protect itself from potential liability in case you have a case where an adjoining septic system that is poisoning the well of the adjacent property owner.

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t if anybody can indemnify themselves until it gets tested in the court but it is worth investigating.

Mrs. Marshall stated years ago the Plan Commission received a written document from the Health Department when they reviewed a subdivision they identified the soils and they gave an approval to the lots that were in the subdivision. She stated we don’t get that anymore. She stated I have not seen one since I’ve been here the last year and a half.

Mr. Thompson stated I have been including the Health Department letters in all the staff reports for the septic subdivisions.

Mrs. Marshall stated they don’t identify the lots. She stated if we had a hundred lot subdivision and it was on septic and well it would seem to me that the Health Department in the past wrote a letter and said lots 1, 13, 17 and so forth have proposed this amount and it would pass. She stated then I think


that Health Board would be responsible for any failure. She stated it doesn’t become because we here on the Plan Commission said the subdivision is okay. She stated maybe there is a lot that isn’t buildable.

Mr. Thompson stated I will approach Keith Letta down there at the Health Department…

Mrs. Marshall stated he knows about it. She stated he was here fifteen years ago when I was here the first time.

Mr. Breitzke stated they still submit those letters. He stated they tell if they require perimeter drains, if a mound is possible. He stated but if it is unbuildable they also state that. He stated typically the developer will redevelop. He stated as oppose to years ago it kind of was hanging loose for awhile. He stated it was an outlot or something like that. He stated today if they site the lot it is buildable and often there are several revisions until they can fit the lot in.

Mr. Read stated there is a disclaimer at the bottom that says that the Health Department takes no responsibility for the installation or the functioning of this system.

Mr. Burns stated we were talking about the maintenance issues. He stated there is a new design catch basin or filter system that is installed after a tank flows in the septic field.

Mr. Breitzke stated there are all sorts of engineered products out there and there always had been. He stated there are even small home waste water treatment plants.

Mr. Burns stated this is supposed to be a mechanism that will illuminate the stoppage from blocking of the field tiles. He stated can the Health Department require that.

Mr. Breitzke stated what I am going to suggest is that if that gets clogged up what it will do is back up into the house. He stated they will probably take care of their system right away.

Mr. Detert stated the State of Indiana and the local Health Department has their heads buried in the sand. He stated there are all kinds of things that can be done. He stated I go down to Missouri and it is rock. He stated you can’t have trenches. He stated there are other options that can work and they won’t listen to you and they won’t look at you. He stated I’ve tried to discuss something with them and got shut out cold.



Attorney Tallian stated one of the things that we do have in the ordinance is that the Plan Commission can consider alternative sewage disposal methods. She stated for example the small package plants. She stated so the Plan Commission could consider like a private package plant as an alternative. She stated so that is in there that is in your discretion that you could look at that.

Mr. Detert stated you need to get the Health Department to agree.

Mrs. Marshall stated but the record on small package plants is that they fail.

Attorney Tallian stated I don’t know whether they fail. She stated I am just saying you get to consider this.

Mrs. Marshall stated if you talk to the State about these small package plants and the literature is out there. She stated I have a whole bunch of it at home of these small package plants that don’t function and they don’t function because they hire operators and if you try as a private individual to get the information from the State Board of Health you cannot find information that these small package plants don’t operate correctly. She stated we had it out here in Aberdeen and they had thousands and thousands million gallons of untreated sewage into Clark Ditch and eventually into Salt Creek and into Lake Michigan. She stated we have small package plants in Shorewood, in Burns Harbor, in South Haven. She stated we have these package plants and they don’t function correctly.

Attorney Tallian stated the only thing that we have put in the ordinance…and the ordinance is written to be good for the next twenty years. She stated what is in there you can consider this and if somebody comes up with better technology next year or ten years from now it is here that you can consider this. She stated one of the things that we are trying to do with this ordinance is to make it broad enough to live and catch up with technology that may happen over the next twenty years. She stated we put it in there and it doesn’t say you have to. She stated it says you may.

Mr. Thompson stated PUD’s is another one. He stated we had a lot that came out and said no it is an abused ordinance. He stated some said to keep it but for only large tracts with mixed use. He stated we had one comment that came from the public that said to do what Chesterton does and that sense is to keep the PUD for large box type commercial retail that could come in.



Attorney Tallian stated to do a PUD ordinance from scratch takes a lot of work. She stated if you decide to get rid of it and you ever want it back it is going to cost a lot of time and money. She stated the idea is that if you keep it and reserve it for only for very special limited uses it may serve you well. She stated for example one of the things that were talked about was to put limits on this. She stated if you want to do a PUD we want to see four or five hundred acres and multiple uses or as Bob said use that PUD to regulate and scrutinize the boxed developments that like show up.

Mr. Detert stated I think a PUD should be used for multiple uses when you have commercial and residential mix. He stated when we first came up and started talking years ago about PUD’s that was a concept that I understood that they were encompassing. He stated a mixed use type thing like Four Seasons. He stated I think that what has happened with PUD’s it has been used for developers to get more bang out of their buck by making small lots.

Commissioner Harper stated in my opinion a PUD is a waiting trap to get crammed down the Plan Commission zoning things that they don’t want. He stated no matter how it is written. He stated the original concept of a PUD was to create a neighborhood. He stated their idea of a neighborhood was not to create some doctor offices in a subdivision because that obviously is not a neighborhood. He stated people in the subdivision aren’t just going to use the skin doctor or the heart doctor that is there. He stated people come from all over the place. He stated their idea was a neighborhood of having a large enough place where you have a grocery store and a drug store and this and that and the other. He stated that is a huge development. He stated that is the way it started. He stated it turned into probably the most abused thing that has existed in this country. He stated right now everyone is waiting to sit stores and apartments along Hwy 30 from Valpo to the County Line both ways. He stated they have all sorts of plans and the instrument is going to be this PUD. He stated if this Plan Commission is going to keep any control in this county to assure that we have some sort of rural residential atmosphere we cannot have a PUD ordinance in my opinion. He stated it just should not be in there, period. He stated it is just a trap, a legal trap.

Mr. Breitzke stated I personally got frustrated by them because they degenerated into just becoming single family and duplexes type of development. He stated they didn’t even introduce like a gas station for the community or a small service store and anything like that. He stated they might have had a small commercial office for doctors. He stated I have voted


against a couple of the PUD’s. He stated my personal opinion is in the county we should be pushing more of that kind of development to the urban cores and…here again I don’t know if you care much for annexation but when they are providing the services the utilities etc. that should probably find itself closer to those urban centers and that is where the highways are too. He stated the other facilities that help that kind of population inflow. He stated that is something we are going to have to concern ourselves with because what we are looking at in the near future as another growing area we are going to have large contractors come in, large home building companies that will be looking at this to build a lot of homes all at one shot. He stated they have the financial ability to do it. He stated it is not a bad thing but it has to be something that is more focused where we are not pressed to build additional roads, create additional drainage, put in additional infrastructure to the inconvenience of all the neighbors.

Attorney Tallian stated one of the things that…one of the ways that this ordinance differs from the last ordinance is that the last ordinance had basically one type of building requirements. She stated we had this size lot with this setback that setback this kind of street and these kind of requirements. She stated this new ordinance lists several types of neighborhoods and each type of neighborhood has standards. She stated they are not exactly the same but we have traditional neighborhood and I don’t know if you have gone through this. She stated you have already built into this ordinance a variety of types of neighborhoods that you can create. She stated for that reason a PUD ordinance, separate ordinance, might not be necessary because you already have flexibility created in here.

Mr. Read stated I understand that the original purpose of a PUD is what Bob Detert said was to provide for next neighborhood development and I also agree that this has been abused. He stated there have been other instances where the zoning has been abused. He stated so I don’t know what to do about that. He stated let me use the example of Chesterton having a property interest very near the G.K. Development, specifically Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy, which I am you might say a part owner and manager of Coffee Creek area. He stated it was the fact that it was a PUD that they could make requirements. He stated that got turned down and there is a new one coming up now. He stated it seems to me that under some circumstances having a PUD makes it possible to force the developer and in this case the commercial developer to make changes in amenities, which he would not do for financial reasons. He stated so I just put that question out to Bob Harper, what do you feel about something like that.


Commissioner Harper stated I tell you legally a PUD is a mine field. He stated I am telling you it is. He stated it is a mine field to planners. He stated I realize that they have been able to keep the lid on it that development in Chesterton. He stated the PUD is a mine field waiting to happen.

Mr. Read asked how would we force the developer to do thing like providing…

Commissioner Harper stated we are going to put those types of requirements in our commercial areas and so forth. He stated we have requirements for landscaping and green space and so forth. He stated these PUD’s are land mines as far as keeping control.

Mr. Breitzke stated I will say this in answer to your question Herb, we do have written commitments or did with PUD’s. He stated I agree with Bob. He stated there is real inherit dangers in them in making sure they are followed through with because there is a time element to a lot of the construction. He stated typically the long term development of the PUD. He stated build out could be 15 years or 20 years. He stated it is really hard to keep your thumb down on something. He stated even if you got written contract with the Commissioners. He stated the Commissioners change with time too. He stated you never know from one administration to the next what will happen.

Mr. Read stated let’s say we have our green belt requirements in here and so forth but if he meets the minimum can we recommend a better plan.

Commissioner Harper stated Herb, let me answer your question this way. He stated if I want to develop this area I could either do it for the commercial development or the PUD. He stated I am going to take the one that is easier on me. He stated as a developer that is what I am going to do. He stated I am going to look at it and if I can get by with what I want to get by with on the commercial plan I am going to do and if I can get by with what I want to get by with on the PUD I am doing it. He stated so something tells me that this G.K. for some reason they went to that PUD because they didn’t think that they can do what they wanted to do under the regular development standards in Chesterton. He stated if they could they would have gone in and done it. He stated they wouldn’t have to have an argument in front of the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would just like to make one thing clear. He stated we have business men out there and we have developers. He stated I think the developers are committed to


neighborhoods and try to do good job because they want to keep developing. He stated then your businessmen elements do the kind of picture you are suggesting and…

Commissioner Harper stated I am not saying they are doing anything wrong. He stated what I am saying is that you are going to look at the ordinance and you are going to go to the easiest road. He stated anybody is. He stated you are going to take the requirements that you want to work with.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically that is the businessman philosophy. He stated we are going to figure out how to make the most money out of this and that is the bottom line.

Mr. Burge asked would Aberdeen be a good example how the PUD’s are used.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Mr. Burge stated so there is a positive example of how it is used. He stated I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. He stated I agree with Karen to keep it and maybe put some constraints on it so it is not abused.

Attorney Tallian stated I am not making a recommendation.

Commissioner Harper stated let me tell you about Aberdeen and the one thing that really concerns me. He stated Valpo right now on their site with their Planning Commission say they have a problem with their mix of rental properties versus owned properties. He stated you have to have a correct mix of that or your tax base and everything gets out of control. He stated they have about 50% of people are living in rental properties now in Valparaiso and they have acknowledged that. He stated what I think that you are going to get if we get this PUD is everybody’s going to want a PUD and then in every PUD they are going to want to they are going to want to put as much rental as they can. He stated if you try to limit their rental they are going to threaten a lawsuit against you. He stated I am just telling you what is going to happen and we are talking about, I think, a rural residential type county with home building going on and that but we are not talking about commercial and rental every time someone does a subdivision I don’t think. He stated if we are talking about that then we are going to completely change the complexion of the county. He stated we are going to have what everybody else has and that is why I am against it. He stated I think we are going to loose control.




Attorney Tallian stated I just want to point out that I don’t think Bob or I are advocating one site or the other. She stated I think that what we are trying to do is to give you the arguments on both sides. She stated this is your decision.

Mr. Detert stated my problem is they are a vehicle and have been a vehicle for abuse. He stated maybe Bob is right and maybe we just ought to throw them out them and control it through the subdivision ordinance and it won’t be abused.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is a case too where we have an issue with the commercial possibilities or multi-family possibilities in the southeast corner as opposed to…because historically that is a matter of question and here it is forty years later and maybe thirty years older.

Mr. Detert stated I think it is pretty clear that somebody tried to interpret it differently.

Mr. Burge stated you can address the uses when they take and try to work it out versus throwing the whole thing out.

Mr. Detert stated I guess I would have to vote to throw it out. He stated I have mixed feelings on it but the safest way is not to have one and it won’t get abused.

Mr. Burns stated I feel the same way.

Tim Chesna, 550 E. 150 N. He stated I am a builder, I own a horse farm, I own rentals and I own a lot of different things. He stated I got to tell you something you have had three hearings and you invited the public. He stated you advertised for it and you want the public to come to your meetings. He stated what I don’t understand is that you have people here that are reporting to you what the public came and wants their opinions on. He stated I feel that you are fighting against the opinions of the public that were here. He stated I think that you could have done a better job advertising it and get more public here to let them understand what…

Mr. Breitzke stated let me stop you right now. He stated this is an input session or more or less a workshop. He stated we are going to have a public hearing after this draft. He stated we need the feed back information and what I was hearing was their impression from the public largely was not really in favor of the PUD’s. He stated maybe I am mistaken. He stated I didn’t hear any outcry for it.




Attorney Tallian stated what I think what we were heard were two sides of that. She stated throw it out or keep it for special occasions.

Mr. Chesna stated I think it is important to take the publics opinion that was here. He stated it wasn’t a really big turnout and I was here all three nights. He stated I was a little bit disappointed by it and I thought we would have more public opinion. He stated but the public that was here had a lot of input. He stated sometimes I think that there is a very argumentive point about it that it was everything against developers. He stated you have to remember we are good people in the community and we are people that drive the economy. He stated we are care about our community and we want to see it grow and we want to see it be good for everybody. He stated so when you talk about PUD’s and I heard you say that PUD’s should have some gas stations, some cleaners and you don’t see that being used by multi-family’s. He stated I have seen PUD’s come up and they say that they are going to have a dry cleaners and this and that and then we have people concerned about the lighting and that it is going to be too much. He stated I think that this is what PUD’s is used for to have the cleaners, the community store and have that. He stated but it seems like you are saying it doesn’t happen when it comes up before you…

Mr. Breitzke stated I have to be honest with you it hasn’t. He stated we have had one that actually had all those mixed uses.

Mr. Hutson asked can you restrict the business’s that are in the PUD’s.

Mr. Thompson stated you can add any kind of restrictions you want within the ordinance. He stated we heard from the Emergency Services for one PUD that went to very narrow roads. He stated you can go and put in the PUD ordinance that you shall not vary or waiver from the county specifications set in. He stated I am just throwing out suggestions on what you can do in an ordinance. He stated I was talking to Ground Rules on this. He stated if multi-family is a concern you can actually put in either a percentage saying that only 1% or 2% or whatever percent you want shall be multi type units compared to the rest of the residential units. He stated you could put this in your ordinance as you want. He stated you can also state that a PUD cannot go on a parcel of land unless it is 200 acres or more. He stated these are some of the things that you can do with this. He stated if you want you can restrict certain types of businesses. He stated you could sit there and say that you only want business’ that are allowed within the commercial neighborhood district that is being proposed. He stated this is


your chance to write this ordinance if you want it in.

Mr. Breitze stated over the last few years what has worked well was to have the petitioners come in for two or three different zones at the same time and just propose it that way.

Attorney Tallian stated in terms of flexibility that the PUD was originally intended to do was to give you flexibility and create neighborhoods. She stated this new ordinance has a lot of flexibility in terms of the types of neighborhood that you can build. She stated it also has flexibility in allowing certain types of uses next to appropriate other types of uses.

Commissioner Harper stated in my opinion and maybe I am wrong the question is that we have a county where most of the land is going to be developed. He stated it is just going to happen. He stated we are a collar community of Chicago. He stated most of the people that live in the county came here for rural residential type of environment. He stated we are either going to start out and create what Lake County has where they have shopping centers and apartment buildings and all down Rt. 30, which is probably good for economic development but I don’t think it is why most people chose to live here. He stated I think that most people chose to live here and I think that the idea of our Master Plan is that the commercial and the multi-family is going to go in the cities and the towns and the county is going to be where we maintain a little bit scenic rural type atmosphere of Porter County to allow building along these areas. He stated if that is the vision we certainly don’t need a PUD ordinance going on in the county. He stated I still tell you it is going to be a shove down ordinance before it is done. He stated you are going to get something shoved down your throat at some point this year, next year or five years from now that you don’t want. He stated that is what I think.

Mrs. Marshall stated I don’t think we should throw out the PUD because there are some areas in Porter County that need to be developed with a PUD. She stated first of all I think Rt. 30 is a prime example of it. She stated if we don’t keep the PUD in then we are just going to have commercial on the highway and we are not going to have that residential area that needs to be developed with the PUD. She stated I think that I would agree that builders in Porter County, not builders, I am not going to put them in there. She stated but these planners in Porter County have abused the PUD that we now have. She stated we don’t sit up and say anything about it either. She stated I think that when somebody comes in there should be some direction given to the person that is bringing in this petition in order to direct it in a way that we want to have it. She stated I don’t see


taking the PUD out completely. She stated I think that we have had an abuse of the application but I don’t think that we should not have that mix. She stated I think that the rentals in Aberdeen are too much. She stated we just have a big complex of rentals over there. She stated I think some of that has been abused. She stated I think that the PUD needs to stay there but used with more discretion.

Mr. Cole stated I am torn very much so. He stated I like the PUD concept because the concept builds communities. He stated in an era where we are going to maybe or maybe not may possibly experience reduction of raw materials to the point where we will be using our legs and our bicycles and our sidewalks once again to go to the corner store and buy our groceries. He stated a PUD affords that. He stated a PUD encourages development of mixed uses. He stated our book with our new ordinances with all the availability of development next to it doesn’t encourage mix use. He stated it just simply says if you put this here this can be next to it. He stated on the other hand that was what the PUD was supposed to be in the beginning. He stated it didn’t work. He asked why didn’t it work. He stated it didn’t work because we have some very shrewd people who said, “I see a way to do this. I see a way to get smaller lot sizes. I see a way to get my multi-family residential into an area where I probably would never get it in any other manner.” He stated can you build an ordinance that is so restrictive so detailed that it can prevent that from happening again. He stated or do we just simply rely on the fact that people are going to demand that corner store or demand that gas station or demand a doctor’s office or a small clinic. He stated I see us returning to small stores. He stated maybe without the PUD we will get our mixed use communities back again because the public will want it and the public will demand it or that is all the public can afford to do. He stated I don’t know what the percentage is but I would say the vast majority of this Country or this world are those small people who don’t have the money, who don’t have the opportunity or who don’t have the time to travel 30 miles to South Lake Mall to go through a 50,000 square foot store to buy a box of bolts. He stated that is my viewpoint. He stated I am torn but I really think that maybe the PUD is Pandora’s Box.

Mr. Thompson stated we were told by Ground Rules that if you choose at this point to remove the PUD it is going to be extremely difficult to put it back into the ordinance if later you decide want to have it in.

Mr. Breitzke stated bare in mind that all of the uses we have named and exploded, so to speak, are part of the PUD. He stated unlike in the past where these options can exist. He stated now they already do by rezoning.

At this time, the Plan Commission members too a straw vote on who was against having the PUD ordinance. There were seven people against the PUD ordinance and two were in favor of the PUD ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated on the two acres, the consensus was to eliminate the two acres.

Commissioner Harper stated I think we should forget the horses. He stated I think that they are right. He stated if you have cows in the country we don’t limit the number of cows. He stated why should we limit the number of horses. He stated I don’t get it.

Attorney Tallian stated let me tell you where we are with horses. She stated it turned out to be a huge group on this. She stated we tried to come up with some scheme that would say for every horse you had to have so much land. She stated we pretty much got everything cleared up now based on the comments that the public made about where you put fences and how far barns have to be. She stated there are a couple of issues that we don’t have resolved. She stated this is what it is. She stated we kind of separated things into a commercial operation where you are doing a stable or something commercial where you have traffic going in and out versus the private people who want to keep their own horses at their own place. She stated I don’t have any problem regulating the commercial part. She stated the question is do we want to put any size or number limitation on what you can have at your private residents. She stated do we want to have any kind of correlation between the size of your parcel and how many horses you can have. She stated if we just leave it that private people can have whatever they want you can end up with 30 horses on an acre of land and that could be a problem. She stated that is the question. She stated is there a way or how do you want to do this with…do you want to have any limits on what a private party can do with the number of horses.

Mr. Burns asked is there a health issue.

Attorney Tallian stated there could be. She stated if you have 30 horses on an acre.

Commissioner Harper asked why don’t people have 30 cows to an acre. He stated because there would be a health issue unless they had a sophisticated type of way of doing it. He stated if you don’t regulate cows I don’t think you should regulate horses for private.

Attorney Tallian stated generally you don’t have cows on your residence.

Commissioner Harper stated but you can in Porter County.

Attorney Tallian stated just if you are zoned Ag, right?

Commissioner Harper stated what I understand if you are in Porter County you can have horses anywhere in the county, right.

Mr. Thompson stated right.

Attorney Tallian stated I don’t know about the new ordinance. She asked can you have cows anywhere under the new ordinance.

Mr. Thompson stated we were talking about the right to farm and the Indiana Farm Bureau wanted us to have the right to farm anywhere so we are going to be allowing the right to farm in any zoning district we have in the county.

Commissioner Harper stated if they aren’t taking care of them then the Animal Control can take care of them.

Mr. Detert stated the problem is if you don’t restrict the private sector you’ll have all these people putting in stables and running a business and calling it a private…

Attorney Tallian stated we can call this private and commercial. She stated we can distinguish between what is commercial and not. She stated the question is do you want to regulate horses, keeping of horses for private use on your own property.

Mr. Breitzke stated first confined feeding operation is controlled by IDEM and Indiana Department of Agriculture. He stated there are water quality issues involved. He stated cattle are investment for agriculture, typically a crop. He stated horses have a different tendency…do we have a limit to the number of dogs we can have on property.

Attorney Tallian stated yes we do have a limit to the number of dogs you can keep on a private residence before it is called a kennel.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is what my point was. He stated that is something worth considering. He stated we are talking about the nuisance of dogs to a residential neighborhood and we could have the same problems. He stated after our discussion the other day I actually had a guy come to me and we had someone check out an operation.



Commissioner Harper stated we are trying to pass a zoning ordinance. He stated there are a lot of people in the county that have horses and they are scared of this particular portion of the ordinance. He stated I can’t see that it is so critical as to private ownership right now. He stated you have all sorts of laws that can control that. He stated you have nuisance laws, not taking care of their property…

Mr. Breitzke stated no we don’t really have nuisance laws, Bob. He stated I will concede that it is not a big deal. He stated one of the biggest issues was an archaic reference called a “horse yard” and they gave a fence limitation and that drove the horse people nuts right off the bat. He stated they had to pull in their fences. He stated that was an archaic term some kind picked up and I had to look it up because it is an English term.

Commissioner Harper stated this is sort of a big issue too. He stated again we are talking about people that have come out here for a rural residential type dream. He stated one of the things they like to get is a horse. He stated with all the fear that this thing put in I just can’t see it stand up in court as to private individuals.

Mr. Hutson stated the only thing that I would see is that we are looking at septic systems that are failing and then you have some horses that are producing hundreds of pounds of manure a day in some cases. He stated it seems like it is an issue to a point. He stated I am not saying that we should regulate necessarily the animals but we might take a look at things like manure storage and odor because with continued development you are going to have issues with odor and manure storage and runoff.

Mr. Burge stated this gets back to property rights issues. He stated I don’t want to see this trample on people’s property rights. He stated I think the basic economic factors will address this fine. He stated horses are expensive to buy, to raise and to feed.

Mr. Read stated there is some sanitary aspect. He stated if this bad situation occurs do we have enough laws to stop something on the basis that this is unsanitary for the people around there.

Commissioner Harper stated the Health Department just got done with that court order and everything else in that home in Ogden Dunes that had no horses and no animals or no anything else. He stated it was just a health hazard and they went in got a guardian and took over the house. He stated we have laws and we just have to enforce them.

Mr. Thompson stated one of the reasons we were looking at horses is because we were getting a number of complaints coming in about a certain one acre parcel with a number of horses on it. he stated I even had the Township Trustee come in and the people around there just screaming at the Plan Commission on how we could do this. He stated one neighbor of mine from the South part of the county just sat there and said, “Bob, I don’t see that as a Plan commission issue. I think that it is an Animal Welfare issue.” He stated later we found out that this particular parcel was taken care of by Animal Welfare Control.

Mr. Hutson stated Hebron has an odor ordinance. He stated I had a person call me up that actually had horses and was being fined $50 a day. He stated the odor left the property.

Mr. Thompson stated just to clear this up I guess what Karen and I are hearing you want no regulation on horses.

Attorney Tallian stated no regulation on the number of horses on residential or private horses as opposed to commercial facilities.

Mr. Thompson stated as far as differentiating between private and business if I approach someone and they it is private and I don’t feel that I had a proper answer and I have to investigate it the only way I can prove is if I find some kind of exchange of money for some reason or an advertised business is on that site.

Mr. Breitzke stated are we segregating breeding purposes from regarding that as private as opposed to commercial. He stated we need to define that.

Mr. Elwood stated I would certainly echo what Bob said as far as it being one of the most difficult enforcement issues is the business being run out of a home or residence. He stated it is going to be the same thing with the horses but I don’t know what you could do to make it easier.

Attorney Tallian stated the next thing is single entrance subdivisions caused a lot of contention. She stated there is apparently a big market. She stated people like them and like to live in them. She stated people like the privacy and kind of security that you know that you have children and they are in a contained area. She stated people like to live on cul-de-sacs. She stated it is a very marketable attractive thing to home owners. She stated on the other hand there are some problems with people living in this neighborhood not being able to get to that



neighborhood because the streets don’t interconnect. She stated so it forces people in and out and maybe have more traffic then they otherwise would have. She stated there are also a few issues that the fire department had with these and they mostly had to do…what happens if we have a fire right at the entrance and people can’t get in and out. She stated can that problem be solved by boulevard entrances or something wider. She stated this is a problem.

Mr. Detert stated I think that this is a safety issue. He stated we ought to keep two entrances. He stated when I first moved to Four Seasons they only had one entrance and now they have two and now people are screaming for a third one.

Attorney Tallian stated does it depend on the size.

Mr. Detert stated yes.

Mr. Read stated Ogden Dunes where you live is a perfect example of having only one entrance. He stated now they are trying to develop a second. He stated they had once entrance and if you block that with trains or anything else and you had a problem.

Mr. Burns stated I think you are right. He stated most people feel more secure. He stated people like cul-de-sacs too.

Mr. Burge stated I lived in a subdivision that had a single entrance. He stated it is a boulevard with trees down the middle and plenty of access for emergency vehicles is one side happens to be blocked. He stated from having kids and young kids that was one of the things why we wanted to be there because it does limit the access. He stated I say let the market place drive what it is.

Mr. Thompson stated when we met with the emergency service people they picked out a subdivision that was in the county with a single entrance and they had a fire in a large house right at the entrance and they blocked off that whole subdivision from anyone entering or exiting for three and a half hours.

Commissioner Harper stated there have been several subdivisions that have been here where we bent the rules on that. He stated like Rick said people don’t want two entrances. He stated we have emergency entrance put there. He stated I know they don’t like it and Highway doesn’t like it but surely we can construct some rules that allows them to do it.

Mr. Thompson stated just to let you know what is built into


these codes on this situation any standard that comes through as far as standard development in that particular chapter you will see people that don’t want it and talk about that this Plan Commission can waiver from those rules instead of going to the BZA. He stated we are writing these codes so that way the developmental standards dealing with the subdivision with the approval of the subdivision this Body here can waiver the development requirements to allow for something like that to happen. He stated right now because of the way our ordinance is written it is called a variance so we have no choice because of a certain ruling but to send it to the BZA. He stated by State Statute on variances only the BZA can grant a variance. He stated what we are doing here within these development standards and development codes under Chapter 7 is that if that there is something that should be wavered on for safety or public opinion on the situation you can waiver from those standards and grant that waiver for that subdivision.

Mr. Detert stated from my experience there should be a second way in and out. He stated you might limit a real small subdivision to one way in and out, twenty houses or something but if you have any size on up you need a way out. He stated even if you have to plot it on the plat not to be developed. He stated eventually there is going to be the need for another entrance.

Mr. Breitzke stated do you have a suggestion for the number of lots or acreage.

Mr. Detert stated I was just thinking out loud. He stated I just feel that we need one.

Mr. Thompson stated a person brought up the idea of it being based on frontage. He stated in some situations you could put the requirement of after so many lots it has to have a second entrance but it may not the frontage on an actual road to be able to do that or it could be on the State Highway. He stated that would not allow for a second entrance because of limited access but then here again that is why I was questioning Commissioner Harper and everything like that because that is where this Body can waiver from that.

Attorney Tallian stated Bob and I couldn’t agree on this.

Mr. Read stated we approved that one near TalTree. He stated that was a long narrow lot and as I recall it had only one entrance. He stated it really wasn’t feasible for a second entrance but it was limited in size. He stated as a general rule I think there should be two entrances but if somebody wants to put a number on it I have no objection on it.


Mr. Detert stated I think connecting roads was the biggest objection on this.

Attorney Tallian stated that seems to be a problem. She stated a lot of times there have been road stubs on some subdivision and then ten years later they are going to build the adjacent subdivision and they are going to connect those two roads. She stated then all of a sudden the people in the first subdivision that they don’t want all that traffic coming through here.

Mr. Detert stated the problem is if you don’t get connect these subdivisions you put a burden on the tax payer because the school buses are going to have to go around, the fire trucks are going to have to go around, your police are going to have to go around. He stated that is not fair to the general tax payer to increase the cost.

Mr. Burge stated I agree with Bob on that.

Mr. Cole stated the whole issue of a sense of security a sense of safety is maybe fictitious. He stated I don’t know that you are that safe nor that secure just having that one entrance. He stated certainly in the best of times where there are no problems and there are disasters and there are no minor emergencies, yes you are secure and yes you are happy. He stated just that one time where that emergency happens where you can’t get out or it is you who have the emergency and you can’t get through then the issue becomes very, very different. He stated we are running out of road names because we are not connecting streets. He stated I really think that we do need in subdivisions of over 20 to 25 houses two entrances and we certainly need connecting streets between adjacent subdivisions.

Mr. Burge stated on the connecting of subdivisions I disagree. He stated typically where those connectivity points are generally towards the back of the subdivision that has already been developed the people that originally chose their lots in those locations was because there were no thru traffic. He stated when you start connecting it completely changes the whole complexion of the neighborhood within the development that they purchased. He stated so I think it should be judged on a case by case basis.

Attorney Tallian stated we can write it that way. She stated in order to come up with some sort of compromise about this we could put in some language that says, “Subdivisions are recommended to have more than one entrance, but the Plan Commission can waive this requirement if there are a small number


of houses or if the configuration doesn’t allow for more than one entrance, if there is some alternative access for emergency.”

Mr. Detert stated I like that.

Mr. Cole stated can we use a stronger word than “recommend.”

Attorney Tallian stated how about “preferred.”

Mr. Breitzke stated how about “required.”

Attorney Tallian stated “required” sounds like “shall.”

Mr. Burns asked how many people brought this up.

Attorney Tallian stated it was a big issue between the local emergency services and the developers. She stated the developers want them because the customers want them.

Mr. Breitzke stated one of the confusing things about connectivity is that the pavements weren’t constructed so the new owners didn’t know the pavements were going in between their houses. He stated for the last four or five years the Highway Department has been making that pavement go in. He stated so that is pretty much broadcast so when people buy their houses know that connection is there and potentially will be there.

Mr. Burns stated I think a lot of people move out to the county because the county has small subdivisions normally. He stated I really think that we should keep that unless it is a very large subdivision.

Commissioner Harper stated we are building subdivisions with one entrance right now. He stated we are just making provisions for a second one where the road goes through. He stated what is the big emergency if you have 30 houses especially if you have some emergency type entrance in and out. He stated some people do want privacy.

Todd Henderlong stated I am 40 years old and I have been a Porter County resident for 17 years. He stated I have raised three children all born and raised in Porter County. I just wanted to point out that there is a lot of assumptions being made by you folks on what we want and why people move here. He stated I would just like to say I live on a cul-de-sac right now. He stated the three homes that I have built been on private streets and I have done that for security. He stated to simply dismiss that it is not relevant or that is unreasonable or is not true is a little short sided on your part.

Mr. Breitzke stated I didn’t hear anybody say that.

Mr. Henderlong stated I heard someone say it is a false sense of security. He stated it is real and it is what the public wants.

Mr. Read stated people have different opinions. He stated I attended all three of those hearings and I didn’t hear any discussions on one or two entrances. He stated if there was it certainly wasn’t prominent.

Mr. Thompson stated those adamant about it were the emergency service people, the Highway Department and the developers brought that up as an issue.

Mr. Chesna stated I have to kind of go back to the point that single entrance subdivisions are security. He stated I will definitely say that because the public will demand what they want. He stated if we build single entrance subdivisions and the public doesn’t want to come and buy them we are going to go to two or three or four if that is what they want. He stated the boulevard entrance is a very big issue. He stated if you have two entrances coming in off the main street you have a couple different entrances to access throughout the subdivision. He stated the emergency vehicles will definitely go across somebody’s lawn.

Mr. Thompson stated in the end the majority of the Plan Commission if they see that it is not proper for that requirement they can waive it.

Attorney Tallian stated I do have one more thing. She stated Ground Rules just can’t understand why we wouldn’t put a limit on the number of political signs that one could have in ones yard.

Commissioner Harper stated the Commissioners office have been talking about to limit the time too. He stated we would like to see the time limited to 30 days but Valpo had that law suit and they lost it.

Attorney Tallian stated but the 30 days before and 10 days after that has been upheld. She stated we were going to put that in. She stated the number is the problem.

Mr. Detert stated I think that there should be a fine for leaving them up too long.




Mrs. Marshall stated what about builders who put signs out on other people’s property advertising a subdivision down the road.

Mr. Breitzke stated charge them rent, Liz. He asked is there going to be a time if they don’t pick them up afterwards. He asked are you going to send out your zoning inspector if they don’t pick them up and are you going to carry a bond.

Attorney Tallian stated it is kind of a big deal every two to four years that you would make somebody come in and bond.

Mr. Chesna asked where are we with out zoning maps.

Mr. Thompson stated the two intern students that I have working for me from Ball State University drove this whole county and they had the existing township maps with them. He stated by that we updated all of the zoning amendments that have happened from 1983 on to present. He stated those were marked on maps such as this. He stated they went through the whole county township by township looking at those and taking photographs and actually commenting on what is on these parcels. He stated now we are going to sit down and develop a color code key that is probably going to be exactly what we have in the color version of this here. He stated we are going to start working on the map. He stated it should be ready I am hoping to go along with draft “D” so everybody could look at the zoning map along with draft “D.” He stated it is a lot of work and it is going to be going parcel by parcel and trying to figure out the use that is there and whether it meets the appropriate zoning district. He stated it could mean contacting the property owners. He stated today a spoke with my intern and told him that we were going to sit down and start working on a color key for it tomorrow and start going through the documentation that they have created showing all of those parcels.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is a bigger task than what I even imagined when we first started it. He stated I thought everything would be right there. He stated having the boys go out and photographing the site and figure out what is actually there and not necessarily in use as the way it is zoned right now. He stated they are actually looking at what is there and what the zoning is today. He stated they have the duplicate number, the tax record number so that we know the owners and it is a very thick volume. He stated they have done an outstanding job in my opinion and I am really proud of their effort.

Mr. Chesna stated their qualifications are second year or third year students and are they from the area.


Mr. Thompson stated the students are not preparing the proposed map. He stated they are just doing the research and the documentation based on existing conditions today and based on the existing zoning today. He stated their qualifications should not enter into this at all.

Mr. Cole stated before we adjourn can I just bring up one issue that the neighbors have been complaining about that deals with your map. He asked how do you deal with somebody who has lived rural residential for the last 20 years and looks at the map and says it is going to continue rural residential. He stated then the town comes in and annexes them and says that they are commercial.

Mr. Thompson stated there is nothing we can do. He stated State Law essentially tells us that there is nothing we can do.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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