PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
August 9, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Cole moved to continue the reading of the July 26, 2006 minutes. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Correspondence:

Mr. Thompson stated concerning Case 06-Z-5, which is the rezone petition for tonight’s hearing. At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Jennifer Gibson requesting to withdraw her rezone petition. The letter is in the rezone file.

Mr. Thompson stated I have one other item. He stated just so everybody knows that we have no new business or pending business for the August 23, 2006 meeting. He stated I was just wondering what the Plan Commission wanted to do. He stated do you want to move to cancel the August 23, 2006 meeting or keep it.

Mr. Cole moved to cancel the August 23, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 06-SE-9. Inspection Committee Report for George Bulfa & Jeane DeGrazia-Bulfa, 315 W. 300 S., seeking a Special Exception to permit an enclosed riding arena for private use and to permit said arena to be approximately 33 feet in height, taller than the 25 feet permitted.

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



Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 06-SE-9 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice 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, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned I-1. con’t from 7-26-06 mgt.)

William Ferngren stated if we could share these. He stated this is a letter I sent to the attorney for the Plan Commission after the last meeting. He stated if you recall at the last meeting we talked about the idea of eliminating some of the potential uses on this particular lot. He stated my client and I have reviewed the list and the list before you is a list of items which we have elected to say that we will not permit on this particular site. He stated additionally we have taken some photographs of some White Pine trees that are providing a buffer strip along some apartments. He stated just to demonstrate to you what we thought was an appropriate buffering. He stated I want to give a copy of these photo’s just so you can see what we are talking about. He stated these photo’s were taken at Golf View Apartments, which are located in Valparaiso on Campbell Street right by Valparaiso High School. He stated looking at those photo’s I think you will see that White Pines do provide a nice buffer. He stated we think that we have been the good neighbor that Mr. Detert asked us to be at the last meeting. He stated we have eliminated a number of uses that are permitted under the I-1. He stated this is the last lot in this subdivision. He stated we are going to incorporate the landscape buffer at our north boundary as we have shown to you on the drawing.

Commissioner Harper asked is the public hearing closed on this.

Mr. Detert stated yes. He stated if you have someone you want to recognize you could do so.

Commissioner Harper asked is there anyone in the public here on this proposal. He stated I don’t have any questions.

Mr. Burns stated looking at this list does that mean a stamping plant or a machine shop or repair shop could go in there.

Mr. Ferngren stated whatever would be permitted in the I-1 other than those listed would be permitted. He stated there is a


number of requirements included within the Light Industry category as far as noise, vibration.

Mr. Burns stated see that is my concern is the noise for the neighbors.

Mr. Ferngren stated all of those items are levels set forth in your ordinance that provide acceptable levels and anything that would be included within this building would have to comply with the ordinance.

Commissioner Harper stated it is the last lot in this park. He stated I was back out there again and Mrs. Marshall pointed out at the last meeting, which I think everybody should consider that in this zoning everything needs to be inside.

Mr. Ferngren stated there is no outside storage.

Commissioner Harper stated including the sound. He stated hopefully our new ordinance will solve some of these problems with buffers and so forth between residential and commercial.

Mrs. Marshall asked is this going to be five rentals.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is intended to be developed as condominiums so these individual units can be sold. He stated there are five.

Mrs. Marshall asked this is for people that are in the construction business or the building business.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is primarily who the intended occupants are to be.

Mrs. Marshall stated I am against any outside storage.

Mr. Ferngren stated we will not have any outside storage.

Mrs. Marshall stated I think that staff ought to look at the other ones who are violating the outside storage in that development because I think that it could be a much better place.

Mr. Thompson stated staff has done that and I have sent out letters.

Mrs. Marshall stated okay. She stated the dog abatement; the noise abatement needs to be addressed also.

Mr. Thompson stated staff is currently working with out attorney on that.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no further questions.

Mr. Read stated as you know last time I objected to this on the basis of the adequacy of the tree screening. He stated first of all as I look at these photographs of White Pine I notice that it seems to be in two rows, staggered rows. He stated that is what it shows here. He stated it is not what it shows here.

Mr. Ferngren stated this was simply to demonstrate to you sir that a White Pine does provide…

Mr. Read stated when we are talking two rows of staggered it obviously is a better screen but this is a misrepresentation. He stated my next question is how old are these trees.

Mr. Ferngren stated they are probably fifteen years old.

Mr. Read asked how old are the trees you are going to put in.

Mr. Ferngren stated I am not aware of the age. He stated also there is nothing that would require any sort of a buffer in your ordinance in this particular zoning classification either. He stated we are the only ones out there offering that.

Mr. Read stated we are talking about what you say you are going to do and the efficiency of what you are going to do. He stated as I mentioned before I think that White Pines are very nice trees. He stated it has to be one of my favorite species. He stated it is native to the Indiana Dunes area where I live and where I have lots of White Pines on my property. He stated as they do get older the lower branches fall off or loose their needles and ultimately fall off and you have a bare trunk from their down. He stated my question to you is why not use and supplement this with some other species. He stated I have no objection to the White Pine but why not put in some additional species that go and screen off the lower areas.

Mr. Ferngren stated if you look at the plan a little more closely there is shown some low branch surface area trees to accommodate those types of concerns.

Mr. Read stated what your note has is arrows pointing to the White Pine. He stated and your note says, “Alternate 5 feet 4 inches tall low branch service berry and White Pine in 15 to 20 feet on centers. He stated that is rather vague to me as to whether…

Mr. Detert stated do you have some suggestions Herb on what you would like to see there.

Mr. Read stated I would like to see some low branch in between the White Pine.

Mr. Detert stated I think that is what he said he is going to do. He asked are you committing to do that.

Mr. Ferngren stated this drawing right here that you have right before you shows that…

Mr. Read stated it doesn’t say that. He stated look at that note.

Mr. Detert stated let me ask the petitioner if he is willing to commit to that.

Mr. Ferngren stated we will stagger, we will alternate White Pine low service area trees.

Mr. Read stated that is not what I am talking about. He stated what I am talking is leave the White Pines where you show them and then put in between the White Pine staggered back slightly the low branch screening. He asked why can’t you do that. He stated here is some land where you are going to make some money and it seems to me that the minor cost of putting in some low branch stuff.

Mr. Detert stated let the petitioner respond to that, please.

Mr. Ferngren stated okay we will do that.

Mr. Cole stated I have nothing.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-DP-2. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner Harper stated can you verbalize what you are going to do.

Mr. Ferngren stated we will plant White Pines and between the White Pines we will plant the low service berry trees.

Mr. Burns stated also the letter of commitment must be part of the motion.

Mr. Detert stated part of the motion will contain the letter of commitment.


Mr. Burns stated also no outside storage and restraining any noise level, containing all of the items that they have committed to; committing to the tree line as outlined here.

Mr. Thompson stated I would also like to point out that with this ordinance it allows this Plan Commission to request the petitioner to develop a written commitment document that can be reviewed by all your statements by our attorney on this Board for recordation so that way we do have it on file as a recorded document.

Mr. Burns stated you have to make sure they submit plans for lighting that must be approved by staff.

Mr. Detert stated you are going to contain that in the written commitments about the lighting, the noise and the tree line.

Motion reads as follows:

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-DP-2 contingent upon written commitments to be reviewed by the Plan Commission attorney, no outside storage, restraining any noise level, submitting plans for lighting that must be approved by staff, committing to the tree line as outlined. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-13. Petition of DBL Development, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Augustine Subdivision, Phase I, to be located on the East side of CR 325 E., the South side of CR 400 N. and the West side of CR 400 e. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 56 lots including outlots and retention areas, on 92.44 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Larry Bucher, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, Indiana. He stated on May 24, 2006 we received primary plat approval for the Augustine Subdivision located in Washington Township. He stated we are here tonight seeking secondary plat approval for Phase I of that project. He stated at the May 24 meeting Commission members asked us for an additional drawing outlining the open space, which I delivered to Mr. Read. He stated he had specifically asked for that. He stated he also requested that we look into three other items. He stated they were number 1, how our entrance affected adjacent property owners specifically how looking at headlights if they would be shining into the living rooms or family rooms; number two, the possibility of our CR 400 N. entrance lining up with Eastwood or Woodfield and three a potential bridge over the Hutton Ditch to the Washington Township


School’s property. He stated Whiteman Petrie our engineers staked both entrances in Phase I and both are positioned such that headlights of vehicles existing Augustine will not affect adjacent property owners. He stated our North entrance does not line up with the existing roads. He stated try as we might we could not find an acceptable way to make this change. He stated the location of our North entrance has been discussed with and accepted by the Highway Department. He stated regarding the school crossing we had a conversation with the East Porter County School Board and are working with them to find a safest and most suitable solution. He stated this solution would most likely be incorporated into Phase II for Augustine.

Mr. Burns asked were there any changes to the plan itself.

Mr. Bucher stated no. He stated just a street name.

Mr. Hutson stated the conversation with the schools as far as the bridge and so forth, do you think that is going to occur or not going to occur.

Mr. Bucher stated I would say there is always a cost on whether the school has the money to do it. He stated so I can’t speak for them. He stated the bridge that we have already designed for Phase II already has walking paths on it. He stated as far as crossing the ditch it looks very likely from our aspect.

Mr. Cole stated I will pass at this time.

Mr. Read stated I realize that we are on secondary and have improved at least the concept on the primary but I just want to clarify a number of things. He stated what percentage of open space do you have and what does it count.

Jason Hanaway stated I am from Wightman Petrie, 4703 Chester Dr., Elkart, Indiana. He stated I believe according to the report for the primary plat it is 15.62 percent open space.

Mr. Read stated according to our open space ordinance when there is no natural feature your minimum is 15%. He stated if you include your detention basins and so forth, which I assume you have included here.

Mr. Hanaway stated we have included one but the other one is not included.

Mr. Read stated which one, the one that is about in the middle of this sheet that I have in front of me here.


Mr. Hanaway stated yes. He stated I think it is labeled retention area two is not included in the open space because it is too deep according to the ordinance.

Mr. Read stated what about these bars that are going along the north boundary and the east boundary. He asked is that included in your open space.

Mr. Hanaway stated yes. He stated that is landscaped areas buffer areas between the road and the lots and those are included.

Mr. Read stated I am not going to object to this but it shows or demonstrates something which I think as a Board are going to have to face. He stated these long narrow strips, especially along a ditch is not what we visualize for our open space, recreation of open space. He stated I think that the subdivision should have a green belt along the boundaries anyway. He stated what you actually have is recreational areas as a very tiny percentage. He stated we approved this in concept last time because in this particular case a walkway along a ditch is not normally in my opinion a desirable open space feature. He stated in this particular case it offers the opportunity for the people in the subdivision to get to the school. He stated now if they don’t get to the school then my original reason for voting for this is out the window. He stated but I am not going to change my vote on this now. He stated we have approved the concept. He stated I want to point out to you and other members of the Board that our open space ordinance needs to be updated to address that situation. He stated it apparently permits it under the current circumstances but it was not part of the original concept. He stated in fact the original open space ordinance specifically excluded retention detention basins manmade waters and of course a regulated drain you can’t build anyway for a certain distance either side. He stated the net add of usable recreational space is very tiny. He stated that being said I would urge you if this a matter of cost of putting a bridge to make access to the school and I would think that the school wouldn’t care as long as they have the access and they don’t have to pay for it that you should pay for it. He stated after all there is a great deal of potential for earning money. He stated that is the only comment that I would make at this time.

Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to ask if DBL Development is the same development that is coming in with the I-2 in the near future.

Mr. Bucher stated we own some I-2 land and that business decision has not been made yet.


Mrs. Marshall asked could you put a map up of this subdivision and point out where that property is because I know it is being talked about.

Mr. Bucher stated I can show you on this one. He stated the ground goes this way and this would be Powder Tech.

Mrs. Marshall stated so this is the school and this is where the railroad is down here.

Mr. Bucher stated yes and that is where Powder Tech and ISK would be.

Mr. Read stated this is how far you own up to this line.

Mr. Bucher stated yes.

Mr. Read stated then from this line down to the existing is what is presently possibly under consideration for industrial.

Mr. Bucher stated it is currently zoned I-2 that land.

Mr. Detert asked can you describe in directions so that we have it in the minutes as to what area you pointed out to them.

Mr. Bucher stated we are here talking about Phase I. He stated what is being discussed is part of Phase II and it would be…

Mr. Detert stated no, I am talking about the property that you are pointing out.

Mr. Bucher stated okay, it would have frontage on CR 325 E. and would be directly north of Powder Tech and ISK.

Mr. Read stated and up to the southern boundary of your residential subdivision. He asked am I correct.

Mr. Bucher stated correct.

Mrs. Marshall stated it is interesting that we have an RR subdivision and it is going to be abutting an I-2. She stated there is no area in there for any kind of buffer or whatever you want to call it. She stated I was just trying to figure out where it was.

Commissioner Harper stated Bob this property has no natural features on it.

Mr. Thompson stated in my opinion no.

Commissioner Harper stated I am looking at this stand of trees. He stated it is not large but there is a stand of trees.

Mr. Thompson stated it would have to meet our definition of what is defined as forest area.

Commissioner Harper asked does it.

Mr. Thompson stated I am going to have to go out there and measure diameters of trees and add it all up.

Commissioner Harper stated if it did how would it affect this.

Mr. Thompson stated they would have to go up to 20%.

Commissioner Harper stated I think that we should find out before we vote on it.

Mr. Bucher asked can I see what you are pointing to. He stated this is an aerial photograph so it is not to scale.

Commissioner Harper stated I think that we should find out because it is in that drawing.

Mr. Detert stated I would think that if you are going to do that it would be best to table this until such time.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 06-FP-13 till the September 13 meeting. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Read stated are you willing to pay for whatever bridge is necessary to make a connection to the school property.

Mr. Bucher stated we are already paying for that. He stated the bridge that is part of Phase II includes a walking path on the bridge.

Mr. Detert stated I think that you are talking about the other bridge.

Mr. Read stated you have to cross the ditch to get to the school.

Mr. Bucher stated I would be part of the design of the bridge that would be in Phase II. He stated that would be the part of the path that would get the children there.


Mr. Read stated people on both sides of the ditch would be able to get to the path that leads to the school.

Mr. Bucher stated that is correct. He stated could I make one other comment about open space. He stated part of our plan for this and if you look at the piece of paper that I handed out was that we made a conscious decision here to provide a playground and a ball field. He stated to do that we took one of our retention ponds and made it deeper so that it would hold more water so that we would be able to have a ball field and a playground rather than just having three separate shallow retention areas. He stated we felt that that met the spirit of the ordinance. He stated that deep retention pond, which is a big retention pond does not currently count in our open space calculation. He stated to go to 20% we would have to look at that and put that on the table where we take that deep retention pond make it shallow and take the ball field out make it shallow retention, take the playground out and make it shallow retention. He stated then we get close to what…if those trees which we are not even sure is on our property…

Mr. Detert stated I think that we could discuss that at our next meeting.

Mr. Bucher stated we wanted the Board to see our intent. He stated another month of delay that costs a lot of money. He stated that is why I wanted to bring it up and to me it is important. He stated a month delay is a very big delay for an issue where I can’t confirm that we don’t own those trees and I don’t want to misspeak but I don’t believe we even own those trees.

Mr. Burns asked can we make a motion to approve contingent on the size of the trees. He stated if the trees are large enough where it meets the 20% then the motion doesn’t hold up. He stated I hate to hold them up if the trees are not on his property.

Mr. Read stated according to the aerial photograph the trees are clearly on the property and spread over two identified lot numbers.

Mr. Bucher asked can we see that map.

At this time, Mr. Bucher looked at the map and Mr. Read explained to him where the trees where located.

Mr. Burns asked to you know whether it is on your property for sure or not.


Mr. Bucher stated I don’t believe that they are on our property. He stated our property starts where the field starts and it is all in soy beans. He stated that is a very old picture. He stated I don’t think there are any trees on our property.

Mr. Detert asked does the maker of the motion wish to amend it or change it.

Commissioner Harper stated it is fine with me if you want to make is contingent on staff checking it out in the next couple of days. He stated if staff decides that there is an issue then it will be continued over to the next meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to withdraw my motion.

Mr. Bucher stated Dean would be willing to go out and take a look at it to see if it is on our property then report back to us before the end of the meeting.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-13 for secondary plat contingent on whether the trees are on his property or not. If they are on the property then the motion does not hold up.

Mr. Detert stated if I understand right if there is additional open space needed then the motion approving the case will not be valid. He asked is that correct.

Mr. Burns stated that is correct.

Mr. Detert stated the motion is to approve it contingent on what has been presented to us by the petitioner in way of open space.

Mr. Read asked is there a date when this will be determined.

Mr. Detert stated at the September 13 meeting. He stated staff will determine that and tell them that the motion is not valid and not to pursue. He stated it will automatically be continued.

Mr. Burns stated if it is valid staff will tell you in a couple of days. He stated if it is not valid then you will have to come back.

Mr. Detert stated we have a motion to approve contingent on what they have presented as open space is correct. He stated if that is incorrect the motion no longer stands and they will have to come back at the first meeting in September.

Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-14. Petition of Mark & Kelly Holder, 458 S. 450 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Holder Estates to be located on the West side of CR 450 E., ½ mile North of CR 500 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 4 lots on 14.3 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Steve Stofko stated I am from McMann and Associates. He stated I have with me tonight Mark Holder and Kelly Holder who are developing two lots on the west side of CR 450 E. approximately one-half mile north of CR 500 S. He stated we came before you at the June meeting and received preliminary plat approval. He stated what I just passed out were the minor comments that were made at the DAC meeting last week. He stated we have addressed some posted signage, the ingress egress from the easement along the east side of lot 2 and calling it a private drive. He stated what we are requesting is secondary plat approval on these four lots tonight.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read stated what you have identified as preservation easement 130 feet wide on the front on the east side…that is total from north to south.

Mr. Stofko stated that is correct.

Mr. Read asked what is your percentage and your total acreage.

Mr. Stofko stated the total I believe is listed here as 10% 1.43 acres out of the 14 acres.

Mr. Read stated that includes this ten foot wide border around it.

Mr. Stofko stated yes.

Mr. Read stated I guess according to our legal opinion that there is nothing in the existing open space ordinance that addresses a ten foot wide preservation as being part of the open space. He stated again I would like to remind my fellow cohorts on this panel that it is something that they should address coming up very soon.

Mr. Stofko stated on the ten foot preservation easement along the perimeter of the property they asked for it at primary approval.

Mr. Read stated I think the subdivision should have a ten foot wide preservation around them anyway whether it is part of the required open space or not. He stated we can’t make you do it.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions except to say that I think this strip thing keeps coming up again and again. He stated I agree with Mr. Read that we should address it. He stated we are doing a brand new ordinance so lets address it.

Mr. Detert stated my feeling is that we are allowing too much open space compliance with things that they would have to do anyway. He stated we are not really getting what we had hoped to get.

Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-14. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

New Business:

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

Case 06-P-14. Petition of James Lechtanski, 718 Freyer Rd., Michigan City, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Stones Throw Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 700 N., just West of Porter-LaPorte County Line Road, in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 42 lots on 84.55 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Sarah Lawson stated I am an attorney with the Heistand Law Office in Chesterton, Indiana. She stated I am here tonight representing Jade Development II, LLC and James Lechtanski. She stated I have several people with me this evening who will be available to answer any questions you may have about our development. She stated representing the developers are Jim Lechtanski and Dale Meyer, two of the members of Jade Development. She stated the third member of Jade Development unfortunately had a prior engagement and was unable to make tonight’s meeting. She stated also present with me at the table is Bill Rensberger of Davies-Rensberger and John McQuestion from Soil Solutions. She stated the current owner of the property


John Coulter, is also here. She stated finally Michael Zappia, Vice-President of commercial lending from Cities Savings Bank is here. She stated Cities Savings Bank has committed to provide all the necessary financing for the development. She stated we are here this evening seeking primary plat approval for Stones Throw Subdivision, Case 06-P-14. She stated Stones Throw Subdivision will be located in Jackson Township on the north side of CR 700 N. between CR 625 E. and LaPorte County Line Road. She stated the subdivision will consist of 40 lots on 84.55 acres. She stated the lots range from one acre to over three acres. She stated the plans for Stones Throw Subdivision have been presented to the Drainage Board and the Development Advisory Committee and all recommendations have been incorporated into the plans that we are reviewing this evening. She stated with us this evening we have brought posters showing the types of homes we anticipate building in the subdivision. She stated if you look over to my right we have an example of a home that the developer built in Michigan City in White Oaks Manor. She stated this is a type of home that they are looking to put in this subdivision. She stated we also have some other examples with us. She stated this is an artistic rendering of a home that the builder has selected as one of the possible homes to build in the subdivision. She stated all the homes in the subdivision will be stick built homes with minimum square footage of 1600 square feet. She stated the price range for the homes is set between $275,000 and $325,000. She stated since Stones Throw Subdivision will be Jade Developments first project in Porter County before discussing the specifics of the project I would like to take a few moments and discuss the experience of the members of Jade Development. She stated I faxed over this morning a biographical summary of the three members of Jade and I hope this has been handed out. She stated if not I have extra copies with me and I can hand them out at this time. She stated this is just a brief summary of the three members of Jade. She stated there was some concern as far as what experience that they had. She stated the three members have been in the construction industry for over 30 years. She stated Jim Lechtanski who is with us this evening is the owner of Harbor Electric Inc. She stated he is an electrician and does basically residential work including large housing developments. She stated Dale Meyer who is also here this evening is the owner of Blue Ribbon Residential Builders and has built over 60 custom homes. She stated Hugh Murray is the President of Michigan City Associates a custom home building company based in Michigan City. She stated the three members have known and have worked together for 16 years. She stated in fact Jim Lechtanski and Dale Meyer purchased White Oak Manor in Michigan City out of bankruptcy and worked on completing the subdivision. She stated Jade Development is looking forward to working in Porter County and I think as we look at the plans for Stones Throw Subdivision their


dedication to building and establishing a quality neighborhood in Jackson Township will be evident. She stated now lets look at the specifics of the property. She stated the property is zoned RR. She stated the neighboring properties are used for residences and farms. She stated as the subdivision is currently designed no variances are necessary. She stated as planned Stones Throw Subdivision meets or exceeds all county standards. She stated with respect to utilities the electric will be provided by REMC, the gas will be provided by NIPSCO, the water by private well and sanitary will be septic tanks. She stated at this time I would like to invite John McQuestion to speak briefly about the soils and septic systems proposed in this subdivision.

John McQuestion stated my company is Soil Solutions. He stated I would just like to talk briefly about the procedure that we go through and the soil types on the property. He stated one of the first things that we did for Jade Development was to delineate all the non-usable soils on the property for septic systems. He stated non-usable is defined in Rule 410 of the Indiana Administrative Code and then additionally in the Porter County Health Department regulations govern which soil types can and cannot be used for septic systems. He stated some of these include hydric soils, waterways, creeks, streams, swales and areas that are in excess of 15% for conventional septic systems and areas that are in excess of 6% mound systems. He stated there are no mound systems in the subdivision. He stated they are all conventional gravity septic systems. He stated the areas that are unsuitable for septic systems are here, up in through here and out in through here. He stated additionally once we delineate these areas Davies-Rensberger did a layout with the intent of providing a minimum of one acre lot size for each of the lots. He stated the forty lots that are out here thirteen of them would qualify to be suitable for 30,000 square foot lot size areas, although each lot is design to exceed one acre in size. He stated the soil types on the property are Sebewa Loam on the eastern portion of the property. He stated Tracy Sandy Loam, Riddles Silt Loam, Riddles Loam and Washtenaw. He stated Washtenaw we don’t consider suitable for septic systems because it is somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs in depression areas with swales and glacial moraines. He stated the Sebewa also is a sandy soil but is also considered a hydric soil. He stated in this case these are farmed and these are drained hydric soils. He stated we are not utilizing any septic systems in any of our very poorly drained soil types. He stated the soils that we are using for septic systems are Tracy, Sandy Loam, which is a well drained sandy soil, Riddles Loam and Riddles Silt Loam.

Ms. Lawson stated the now for the drainage of the property. She stated the drainage systems have been designed in accordance


with the Storm Water Ordinance. She stated the water from the property drains to Bower Ditch which runs along the northeasterly side of the property. She stated the developer has agreed to install a ditch maintenance path to allow the City easier access to the ditch and in addition the developer has agreed to clean out the ditch as part of the development process. She stated there will be two large detention ponds located in the subdivision. She stated one is on the north side and one on the east side. She stated as the county’s request the developer is using swales along the streets and between the lots for drainage. She stated the swales will help clean the water before it gets into the ditch. She stated the county has requested and the developer has agreed that the drainage system be designated as a regulated drain and be maintained by the county. She stated to offset such costs all residents of Stones Throw Subdivision will pay annual assessments. She stated the developer has worked very diligently to preserve the character of this 84 acre parcel. She stated as you will notice in the picture of the site there are tree along the boundary’s which will be preserved as open space. She stated in addition instead of cutting down the woodlands located on the property the developer is maintaining these woodlands as open space for use by the residents. She stated the developer has dedicated 20.39 acres or almost 25% of its site to open space exceeding the 20% minimum. She stated to ensure the residents are able to enjoy the open we have added a walking path through the woodland and a parking area near the north detention pond. She stated the north detention pond is shallow and should be dry most of the time. She stated it will make an excellent area for neighborhood activities and community picnics as well as athletic events. She stated as we look at the entrances Jade Development has proposing two. She stated initially the developer planned only one entrance where Stones Throw Drive is located on the west side of the property. She stated however, after meeting with the neighbors and receiving feedback from the DAC a second entrance was added causing the deletion of one of the lots. She stated it was very important the emergency vehicles have two access points to get into the community. She stated also to alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors the second entrance, Stones Way, was made the main entrance. She stated this entrance is located farther to the east near the center of the subdivision and across from woods. She stated all the right-of-ways in the subdivision are 60-foot in width will be public roads and of course will be built to county standards. She stated several concerns have been raised about the condition of CR 700 N. She stated the developer has entered into a road agreement to contribute funds to the maintenance of CR 700 N. and in addition the subdivision will have acceleration and deceleration lanes. She stated the developer will also be establishing a Property Owners Association. She stated the


purpose of this association will be to maintain the open space as well as to enforce the restrictive covenants, which will be adopted for the community. She stated I think that I have covered all the basics of the community, however, before I conclude I wanted to take the opportunity to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors. She stated the developers worked to try to accommodate the request of the neighbors. She stated based on the letters received by the Plan Commission and the number of people here it seems there may be some opposition. She stated I think the opposition may be to any type of development and not our specific. She state Jade Development held a meeting with the neighbors on May 10, 2006 to get their community feedback and open the lines to communication. She stated we listened to what the neighbors had to say and attempted to address, hopefully successfully some of their concerns. She stated the main concern raised by the neighbors as voiced again in their letters were the appearance of the subdivision from CR 700 N., the traffic, the water runoff, the quality of the water, the use of wells and septics, the usability of open space and the location of the single entrance. She stated I would like to touch base on these. She stated in response to the concern regarding the backyard spacing on CR 700 the developer has agreed to plant low growing trees along CR 700 N. as the homes are built. She stated we have an example of what these trees may look like to provide a buffer from CR 700 N. to the backyards of the built homes. She stated the maintenance of these trees will be done by the homeowners as required by the restrictive covenants. She stated with respect to traffic it is obvious that any new subdivision or development will increase traffic. She stated in response to the neighbors concerns regarding to the speed of traffic as well as how dangerous the intersection with CR 625 E. is Jade Development spoke with the county and the county readily agreed to install a three-way stop at CR 700 N. and CR 625 E., which will make this intersection safer and also slows down the overall speed of traffic on CR 700 N. She stated with respect to water runoff after the neighbors meeting they examined the water flow and increased the drainage easement between lots 15 and 16 to accommodate water runoff. She stated also, through the use of detention ponds the rate of water entering into Bower Ditch will be greatly reduced. She stated finally by installing the maintenance paths and clearing the ditch the water flow through the ditch should improve. She stated with respect to the possible environmental contamination after receiving the CAM-OR environmental update Jade Development retained the services of an environmental consultant to ensure that the CAM-OR contamination would not impact its site. She stated after all no developer wants to spend its resources to develop a subdivision in which no homes can be sold because there is no usable water. She stated John Mundell an environmental


consultant concluded that the site would not become contaminated by any CAM-OR contamination. She stated a copy of his report was attached to my April 4 letter, which you should have a copy of. She stated with respect to the wells and septics this developer will comply with all applicable regulations. She stated the developer has contacted John Henrich a local well driller and he determined that the wells should not cause any problems. She stated once again a copy of his opinion was attached to my April 4 letter. She stated the septic systems have been approved by the County Health Department and as mentioned by John all of them are gravity systems and no mound systems will be used. She stated with respect to the open space the open space has been designed to satisfy two goals. She stated first the open space permits the preservation of the current trees including the trees along the borders and the woodlands on the site. She stated second the open space provides the residents a larger community with areas for them to use for their enjoyment. She stated the walking path through the woods will be a welcome retreat and a nice alternative to walking down the streets. She stated also the parking lot near the north detention pond allows the north detention pond to be used for recreational neighborhood activities. She stated this pond is as large as one and a half football fields shallow and should be dry most of the time. She stated with respect to the single western entrance as previously discussed the developer added a second entrance, which will be the main entrance further east towards the center of the subdivision. She stated the line of sight from both entrances easily exceeds the required distances. She stated Jade Development has worked hard to develop a subdivision of which Porter County can be proud and I hope you agree with me that they succeeded in that effort. She stated we respectfully request your approval of our primary plat and at this time if you have any questions or concerns we would be happy to address them.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Lynda Haniacek was not present.

Gordon Sheffer, 618 E. 700 N. He stated my wife and I each wrote a letter to you on July 5 prior to what we thought was this meeting was originally take place. He stated I would like to mention a couple of items that were in this letter. He stated you mentioned the street that we wouldn’t need to use any longer for recreation since we have the woods there out behind the development. He stated we often do use this street to pushing baby carriages, riding bicycles. He stated it is a quiet street and we enjoy it being that way. He stated there are 17 homes along a one mile stretch. He stated the request before you is to



add 40 homes to that one mile stretch. He stated there is going to be a big impact particularly for those of us who live in that section of road. He stated we have moved there from cities in order to escape some of the population and some of the closeness and some of the traffic. He stated one of my major concerns of this is the road itself. He stated right now the road itself is in good condition. He stated it is chip and seal. He stated the report from your County Engineer states that we can expect an additional 410 vehicles a day to be passing along this road. He stated it says that structurally the existing road is barely adequate for present traffic. He stated I have some question as to the ability of that road to receive an additional 410 vehicles a day without even changing the kind of road that is there. He stated the other concern I have about the road there is that the access to emergency vehicles would be from Westville to my understanding. He stated the end of that road which attaches to Rt. 2 is not a maintained section of road. He stated I don’t know how an ambulance could go across there. He stated my other concern that was mentioned by the attorney was this CAM-OR Environmental action update, which I believe you have a photocopy of. He stated the result of this study, which was done in 2005 says that a large section of ground water starting in Westville itself and then a emanating out from that directly toward this piece of property has been contaminated by 1,4-Dioxane Chemical Poisoning. He stated apparently a consultant has given some initial finding to the proposal here and is saying that probably the water there has not been affected by this poison. He stated personally, if I were a person wanting to buy a piece of property there I would probably want a little more information on that and maybe some wells actually bored there to know what water is sitting under that land. He stated we have a development here that is going to take place in a field where there is nothing. He stated there is no power, no water and no access to anything. He stated also if we are adding 40 homes that could be adding 80 students if there are two children in a home. He stated they would be going to the local school, which would be Duneland. He stated I have talked to people whose children go there and that school is already crowded. A copy of Mr. Sheffer’s letter is in the primary plat file.

Fran Kras, 648 E. 700 N. She stated I would like to talk about one versus two entrances. She stated I believe they were referring to the letter dated August 4 and not April 4 where you spoke about the neighbors meeting and there being a heated discussion. She stated I don’t recall it being a heated discussion. She stated I think it was more the neighbors trying to understand what the benefits or no benefits of one or two entrances were. She stated I think at the time there was only one entrance planned and we expressed an interest in having two


thinking that it would not be on CR 700 N. but somewhere else. She stated the implication of this letter that the second entrance has solved not only my problems but everyone’s problem with the busyness of CR 700 N. and the dangers there. She stated particularly now that it is going to be the minor entrance which is very close to my own driveway and at the bottom of a hill. She stated they say that the sight lines are within legal limits but I don’t believe that to be true. She stated one entrance would be the ideal thing here. She stated the biggest issue is the Old Rt. 2 that was mentioned earlier. She stated it is almost an unusable road. She stated it is also located in LaPorte County. She stated the rural setting is why I came here. She stated another thing I would like to talk about is open space. She stated they are referring to unbuildable space on that property as open space, which may remain dry for usage for ballgames or whatever. She stated as far as the tree line that they have agreed to install these short trees, which they would have to remain short because of the telephone poles there. She stated I don’t think that this is going to solve the problem. She stated there is nothing that legally binds them to this that I know of. She stated as far as the water contamination from CAM-OR site, I question Mundell and Association offered up. She stated it was an opinion that just agreed with a letter that was written.

Cathy Williams, 682 E. 700 N. She stated I live directly across from this proposed subdivision. She stated I don’t think that this subdivision fits in with the area. She stated it is all very rural and you are going to have people coming out here. She stated you are really building a town. She stated this area is just not for a subdivision. She stated this just doesn’t work. She stated also there are deer, wild turkeys, Gray Horned Owls and hawks. She stated the wildlife is here and this is just going to destroy the whole thing. She stated if there were larger lots I wouldn’t mind.

Deb DeVries, 626 E. 700 N. She stated one of my major concerns is the stop sign that runs right into my front yard. She stated they frequently run right off into my yard. She asked does the Sheriffs Department have the man power to back these subdivision that you are allowing to go into North County. She stated this is a rural area. She stated I have livestock that I am sincerely concerned for out there. She stated I ride my horses on those roads and my children ride horses on those roads. She asked are they going to allow me to ride my horses into the subdivision where I am not going to be able to ride down the road anymore because of the amount of traffic.

Bruce DeVries, 626 E. 700 N. He stated my wife has already spoken.

Tuge Nimtz, 617 E. 700 N. I agree with most of what has been said. She stated I am concern about the traffic on the road. She stated I am concerned about the entrance. She stated I am concerned about the ambulance and fire trucks that must come there. She stated I am concerned about the housing market if it is going down. She asked do we really need another subdivision. She stated there are several developments started north on Rt. 6. She stated this is a beautiful rural area in Porter County.

Barbara Kulchawick, 635 E. 700 N. She stated we moved here four years ago from a subdivision area, which we were hoping to escape. She stated we love our area and we love our home. She stated on 700 N. it is a beautiful rural area. She stated the proposed subdivision is a nightmare to us. She stated we know that times change and perhaps that land and the owner needs to sell it off for whatever reason. She stated the proposed subdivision is way too much like everything we escaped.

Darrell Kulchawick, 635 E. 700 N. He stated I agree with everything my neighbors said.

Tim Walsworth, 709 N. 625 E. He stated we live on the west side of the subdivision. He stated my main concern is the high traffic area that we are going to be involved with. He stated the subdivision is going to be pretty dense for that area. He stated there are some alternatives to dumping all of this traffic onto 700 N. He stated if you people would look on your maps of this they could put in here lot where lot 12 comes through, get on the other side of Bower Ditch and come out on Old Hwy 2, which is going to have to be fixed. He stated this whole subdivision is connected to Westville regardless of whether it is in LaPorte County or Porter County. He stated we all use the old highway and the part that Porter County has going out to Hwy 2. He stated if this was done in a manner where they could connect to the old highway, the old highway is fixed you have most of this traffic will be taken off of CR 700 N. He stated all of our fire protection comes out of Westville.

Sue Walsworth, 709 N. 625 E. She stated my question is regarding their green space. She stated they talked that they were going to provide walking paths and create areas for these people in that subdivision. She stated I am curious on how much money you are spending on this. She stated are they going to put down gravel walking paths and who is going to maintain this or is it going to grow up in weeds. She stated I am particularly interested in the trees. She stated when they talk about short trees and it is true that it will block some view but are they planting two feet or three feet stuff that is going to take ten years to get big enough to provide any privacy or backdrop to this subdivision.

Kelley Croft, 688 E. 700 N. She stated our property is directly across from the east side of the subdivision. She stated we would like to see something a little more rural in character. She stated we looked at the subdivision they did in Michigan City, which was basically an extension of existing homes. She stated I am concerned with their experience as a developer. She stated they are builders and that is great. She stated they are probably great builders but that is not being a developer. She stated I am also concerned with the fact that they have no vested interest in Porter County. She stated they are all from LaPorte County. She stated I would like to see ideally a Porter County developer who has experience in this area and lives in this area and has a vested interest in this area.

Kim Pilarski, 694 E. 700 N. She stated we are at the east end and across the street from the proposed subdivision. She stated my husband and I submitted a letter at the end of July and my main concern is the traffic on the road. She stated also for the condition of the road that goes out to Hwy 2. She stated I pretty much agree with what everyone else has said.

Julie Fitzgerald, 674 E. 700 N. She stated I agree with what everyone has said. She stated I am directly adjacent to the property on the north side on CR 700. She stated one thing that nobody brought up was the amount of traffic…when you pull out on Rt. 6 from 625 E. and go west there is a hill on the other side and when you pull out onto that road you have to step on it. She stated when cars come over that hill you can’t see them until they are there. She stated another thing is all of the septic systems and so many wells. She stated another concern is fences being allowed.

Domenica Hartman, 552 E. 700 N. She stated I agree with everything that has been said. She stated this road CR 700 N. runs from CR 500 E. out to Old SR 2. She stated it is about a two mile stretch. She stated it is a very quiet road because there is no through traffic. She stated there are no sidewalks so people use it for walking, people use it to walk strollers. She stated this property here, this little corner, is my biggest concern. She stated that feeds out into…it is a lot. She stated you are on Old SR 2 and they are not maintained by LaPorte County and that is what takes you out to SR 2. She stated so if these people are going out to SR 2 you are going to have a lot of traffic going onto these roads that are not maintained. She stated you have two entrances here and this west entrance is dangerous. She stated I am concerned about the low trees. She stated I don’t know where this picture has been taken but I think that this picture was taken about a half mile away at the corner of CR 625 E. and maybe CR 500. She stated these trees have been


here for about 30 or 40 years so there not the type of trees that would be planted to hide those backyards. She stated I just think that Porter County has spent all that time a few years back developing that big plan the whole vision of Porter County. She stated where we live is a very low density kind of area and you have this two mile road that goes nowhere else. She stated this subdivision is totally out of character with what we have there and doesn’t allow you the right kind of access in and out.

Clifford Troup, 784 N. 625 E. He stated I am opposed to this mainly because of the traffic. He stated the schools are overcrowded now.

Ray Pijon, River Forest, Illinois. He stated I own a piece of property immediately south of this proposed subdivision. He stated I have been communicating with my neighbors out there. He stated my property is almost completely wooded. He stated it is not fenced in any way. He stated it has always been my objective and the objective of my family who has lived in this area or who owned this property for over fifty years. He stated I was quite surprised that a subdivision of this size was going to be put into this area. He stated I am concerned about the dramatic affect that it was going to have on the people who live in this area and who have a very vested interest in. He stated I was waiting to hear someone come up here and say something favorable to the development. He stated it appears that everyone has not only a personal concern but a legitimate and logistic concern to what is going to happen. He stated you have a report from David Schelling from the Highway Department that accurately describes the road that is present here. He stated it is 19-feet wide as it presently exists. He stated he says that it is barely adequate for the traffic that currently is using this roadway and it is undersized for what a county road ought to be. He stated so it needs at least another 5-feet to bring it up to the width of 24-feet. He stated I haven’t heard anybody say what is going to happen to this roadway or how is it going to get changed to handle the extra 300% of traffic that is going to be occurring in this area. He stated I have written a letter to all of you on the Commission. The letter is in the primary plat file.

Sharon DeMeo, 703 N. 625 E. She stated my concern is the traffic because we live right on the corner. She stated I am also concerned about the water. She stated we live at the bottom of the hill and we are concerned that are water quality will be nothing.

Kathy Williams stated I wanted to bring up about the drainage. She stated I understand that their drainage is going to be going into Bower Ditch. She stated Bower Ditch drains into


Crooked Creek. She stated that ditch has not been cleaned since before 1990 and it can’t handle anymore water. She stated it is full of trees.

Ms. Lawson stated I tried to write down a summary of most of the points. She stated with respect to the two entrances. She stated the developer has gone back and forth from one entrance to two entrances. She stated we actually started with two and then went to one and now we are at two. She stated the neighbors now say that they would really prefer to just have one. She stated the developer doesn’t really have a preference from one entrance to two. She stated our understanding is the county requires the two entrances and they want the two access points for emergency vehicles. She stated there are 40 lots and they require the two entrances. She stated therefore we have complied and provided the two entrances. She stated as far as an access entrance on to SR 2 this property is not adjacent to SR 2. she stated there is property between us and that road. She stated this property is along CR 700 N. and that is where our access points are. She stated with respect to Old SR 2 the “Y” shape that connects to the new SR 2 part of it is in LaPorte County and part of it is in Porter County. She stated the Porter County half is in better shape. She stated the LaPorte County half is in worse shape. She stated we have spoken to LaPorte County and we are trying to see if we can get them to do something. She stated it does create a loop. She stated there are two alternatives. She stated when you get to the end of 700 N. you can go north or south. She stated both are short jaunts to get to SR 2. She stated so there is a way to get to SR 2 from the area. She stated with respect to the CAM-OR site and polluting this subdivision or area of land, in your packets was a detailed letter four pages in length explaining what the environmental consultant looked at and why he reached the decision he reached. She stated I would like to read his conclusion to you. She stated it says, “Since the site is located west of Crooked Creek is not hydraulically located directly down gradient with reference to the CAM-OR facility. As such, if ground water contamination should continue away from the CAM-OR site the site will not become contaminated by any CAM-OR contamination.” She stated he is not saying probably and he is not saying likely. She stated he is saying if you look at the way the water flows the water from the CAM-OR site does not flow towards our current development. She stated all of the current neighbors in this area have wells and they are drinking this water. She stated it has been tested. She stated the CAM-OR site has been under Government supervision regulation to get it cleaned up for the past twenty years. She stated so it has been a well examined area and a well detailed area. She stated they have done test wells and everything else. She stated what the environmental


consultant told us is that this site will not become contaminated from that contamination that occurred twenty years ago. She stated with respect to the two entrances and what you can and cannot see from the roadway. She stated in your packet of plans Bill was kind enough to put together a detailed drawing showing the lines of site because it was such a concern. She stated he has what distances you can see as well as what the appropriate stopping distances at different miles per hour. She stated for if you were to look at the plan and the overall affect the stopping distances you can clearly see beyond that. She stated the line of site should not be a problem with either the two entrances. She stated with respect to the tree buffer on 700 N. the neighbors were concerned. She stated they didn’t want the backyards with no visual break between them and 700 N. She stated what the developer has agreed to do is to put in evergreen trees. She stated they will be six to eight feet in height and four to six feet wide. She stated they have provided an example and as you can see it does provide a buffer and you no longer can see directly into the backyards. She stated if fences go into the neighborhood what the developers are requiring in the restrictive covenants will be shadow fencing. She stated it will not be chain link. She stated they are interest in building a quality neighborhood limiting swimming pools to three feet or inground. She stated with respect to the affect it will have on the school system I think that we are fortunate that Duneland School Corporation has recently restructured their schools and Jackson schools now has K through 4 instead of K through 5. She stated so they should have some room available having switched a grade out of the school into the intermediate schools. She stated I will have Jim Lechtanski now speak to you about his background and the background of his partners.

Jim Lechtanski stated I am one of the developers. He stated to explain a little further why I think Mrs. Croft and her husband David Croft who is also an engineer. He stated if they would have visited our subdivision and if they would have done a little more research they would have known they we put in close to $200,000 worth of infrastructure which included sewers, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, curb, gutter, paving, road cutting and everything. He stated Del and I did all the supervision on that. He stated we hired excavators to take care of that. He stated Reith Riley did our paving and everything went according to plan. He stated I know that they took pictures of the subdivision. He stated I hope that the pictures they took of the houses did justice to them. He stated I know that they took some pictures of the other area there that is a work in progress. He stated we are making progress over there and I have been in the electrical trade for 30 years and 20 years in business. He stated I have worked on many, many large development type


projects, town homes, condos and subdivisions. He stated Del has worked on quite a few of them. He stated tonight in the audience is Mike Zappia from Cities Savings Bank who is giving the opportunity to have a vested interest in Porter County. He stated as someone had mentioned that we had no vested interest in Porter County. He stated if this subdivision is approved we will have in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 invested into Porter County. He stated the houses that we are going to be building are very compatible to the houses in the neighborhood. He stated if you have driven down the street a lot of them that are just to the west of 700 N. our subdivision are on two acre parcels, one acre, 1.72, 2.3 and so on and so forth. He stated it is not like they are living on ten acre parcels. He stated we feel that the houses that we picked to go in there were very compatible to the neighborhood itself.

Bill Rensberger stated I am the designer of the subdivision. He stated I have worked in Porter County for fifteen years and I have been involved with some major subdivisions in the county. He stated some of the larger ones were Whitethorne Woods, St. Andre’s, Spring Meadow, Valley Run. He stated I perceive this to look something like Valley Run. He stated this is on CR 400 N. and CR 400 E. He stated all of these subdivisions are of this nature prior to development.

Mrs. Kras stated the biggest thing you haven’t spoken to is changing the aesthetics of the area. She stated the pictures that they are showing are extremely flattering portrayals of the homes that are depicted in White Oak Manor. She stated that is not what I saw there. She stated what I saw there I don’t see fitting into the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

Mrs. Williams stated I just want to make another point. She stated he mentioned people’s acreages. She stated I own a little over seven acres. She stated the neighbors to the east of me all own three to five acres. She stated we are not all small lots.

Mrs. DeVries stated no one address what the Sheriffs Department is going to do and if there is man power to cover that area and that amount of homes. She stated there was nothing said about our neighbors being allowed into this neighborhood. She stated we are not going to be able to ride horses or ride our bicycles, walk with our children or push strollers on those streets.

Mrs. Kulchawick stated all our points have been expressed. She stated we hear a rebuttal that this report said this and this report said that about the line of sight. She stated I urge you to see for yourself.

Mr. Walsworth stated I had made a suggestion about going across Bower Ditch with a pipe. He stated the attorney said that they don’t own this property here. He stated Mr. Coulter is selling this property to Jade. He stated also this property. He stated it is not out of the question that this can’t be done. He stated when CR 700 gets fixed who pays for it.

Mrs. Walsworth stated I would like to address that fact that the property being small. She stated on the corner piece next to them that was a developer that came in and bought that acreage and divided it into small pieces. She stated we happen to own 65 acres that joins onto this property. She stated there are a lot of large pieces of property out there ranging from three to sixty-five acres.

Mrs. Hartman stated I agree with Sue that you stated that the homes just west of the proposed subdivision are relatively small acres. She stated we are on twenty-five acres and there are a lot of ten acre plots out there. She stated this density just does not fit what I think the spirit of the Porter County Master Plan that was hyped so highly a few years back.

Mr. Troup stated please listen to the voice of the people.

Mr. Pijon stated when the redesign of the road system as far as the entrances and the driveways are concerned as it turns out both of them are immediately across from my property. He stated in other words Stones Throw Away, which is the main entrance is immediately across from the east end of my property and then the other one is immediately across from west side of my property. He stated I don’t know if anyone has given any thought to what the traffic flow will be like. He stated but certainly as far as the affect of the impact on my property and I don’t know to what extent you consider that as an individual.

Mr. Read asked did you say that you owned some woods across the way and how many acres is it.

Mr. Pijon stated 60 acres.

Mr. Read asked how long has it been in your family.

Mr. Pijon stated more than 50 years.

Mr. Read asked do you plan to live there yourself some day.

Mr. Pijon stated I don’t have any plans for the future at this point. He stated I think that what happens in the area certainly will impact on what my thoughts will be along that line.

Tim McCarthy, 718 N. 625 E. He stated something that concerns me is the traffic safety, which I think is going to be a very treacherous situation on that road. He stated something else that bothers me is the as I understand it, there is going to be one home for just a little bit over one acre. He stated one concern I have is the water saturation and also from checking with your blueprints I noticed there is no basement. He asked are these homes going to have basements.

Attorney Lawson stated there have been a lot of questions in reference to White Oak Manor. She stated these two homes are homes that were actually…they are on smaller lots in the city. She stated we brought them to show the quality of the homes that they are looking at putting up in the area. She stated these two homes are artists renditions of house plans that they have looked at to specifically put into this subdivision. She stated the reason we mentioned White Oak Manor is so the people can take a look and see what type of homes as far as quality and workmanship the developers will be putting in the area. She stated there have been a lot of questions raised with respect to Sheriffs, schools and what are we going to do with all these people. She stated fortunately when adding more people you are actually adding more to your tax base. She stated if you look at this community and the tax revenue that it will generate it is going to provide more funding so that we can have the additional manpower. She stated as far as acreage. She stated I know that there are people out there that own a lot of acreage. She stated there are also people out there on smaller lots. She stated they fit together nicely. She stated that is part of our point. She stated there will be covenants that will address fences, swimming pools etc. She stated it is my understanding that there is some nice slope to this property and they are looking to do some walk out basements. She stated most of them will have basements.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Read stated I have a couple of questions regarding basements and water. He stated I see that Mr. McQuestion is here and I would expect that he would answer some of these questions. He asked what is the depth on the surface of the ground to the seasonal water table.

Mr. McQuestion stated greater than five feet on the majority of the subdivision.

Mr. Read stated that is seasonal water table as determined by the soil.

Mr. McQuestion stated yes.


Mr. Read stated you have not taken a water table reading at any point.

Mr. McQuestion stated I don’t know what you are asking me.

Mr. Read stated have you done any tests to determine where the water table is.

Mr. McQuestion stated I would say in excess of five feet on a majority of the subdivision. He stated my soil evaluations were done at a time where actually a portion of the property…there are some nonusable soil areas. He stated those areas were actually inundated with water. He stated I wasn’t out there just in the dry Fall. He stated I was out there in the Spring evaluation too. He stated so a profile description were evaluated to 64-inches at three points, several hundred soil borings. He stated I did not encounter free water in the areas where we are going to put septic fields and home sites in five feet. He stated I didn’t go back after one hour and see the borings fill up with water if that is your question. He sated you can even confer that back to the soil survey, which describes Tracy and Riddles as well drained moderate permeable soils.

Mr. Read stated one of the things that this is important not only for basements but also for the septic systems, as you would agree. He stated what I have to ask myself here is that I have read all of the people’s letters and I have to say that some of your concerns we have no influence over at all. He stated we are an advisory to the County Commissioners. He stated some things we have influence over. He stated the lawyers, which there are several up here, like to say that we do have influence over the health, safety and welfare of the people in Porter County in the unincorporated areas of Porter County. He stated so I have to ask myself about the health aspect and certainly I have to mention the one. He stated that is the matter of the septic tank and wells potentially being a problem. He stated bearing in mind that the County Health Department does not guarantee even if they sign off on it as the saying goes that it is going to work. He stated that is a health problem. He stated another health problem is this CAM-OR stuff. He stated I have read very carefully the letter from Mr. Mundel. He stated he says, “If ground water contamination should continue away from the CAM-OR site the site will not become contaminated by any CAM-OR stuff that is left.” He stated well I have had some personal experiences with experts who come in and say much the same. He stated experts are paid to be qualified in this thing. He stated that is all they are doing in here is saying that they are going to have test wells. He stated test wells show it. He stated it is too late to do anything about it. He stated that is a


question that I have to look at. He stated safety. He stated I drove all around this area and I can see some real safety problems. He stated I went down that real narrow roadway. He stated that is a one car lane. He stated now we can’t expect the developer to solve that problem. He stated it is beyond the developers property line. He stated so who can solve it. He stated there are three or four government agencies that have to be contacted. He stated money spent, allocated, authorized and spent to solve this problem. He stated I don’t think that we are going to solve that problem within the next fifteen minutes tonight. He stated welfare is kind of a hard thing to analyze. He stated density I regard as part of the welfare. He stated this certainly would be more dense than what is there now. He stated it would be a change from what you have there now. He stated what is welfare for one person may change to be a welfare for another. He stated I have to throw this thing around in my mind before I vote. He stated the final point that I want to bring out is the Master Plan. He stated our objectives of the Master Plan is to encourage development close in to existing urban areas so that you have the availability of sewer and water, which in my opinion is easier to control than where ground water is going to go as well as people who are already living in cities or towns would not regard their welfare as being highly changed by another denser subdivision close in. He stated this is far out geographically.

Mr. Cole stated this is a fine subdivision. He stated there is quality built into it. He stated it is not the greatest plan but it is not a WhiteThorne Woods. He stated it wasn’t meant to be. He stated it does have all of the amenities. He stated the developer has bent over backwards to listen to the people, to listen to the Board, to listen to the Advisory Committee. He stated he is willing to work with the road. He stated he is willing to work with the neighbors. He stated I have to look at it. He stated it is an island. He stated it is a boat in the wrong pond. He stated CR 700 N. wasn’t meant for this development. He stated this area was not meant for this development. He stated you are changing the lives of the people who live around it by putting in a development that probably will not work with the community for a long, long time. He stated we have to look at everything involved here. He stated CR 700 N. has a lot of traffic on it. He stated it is a 19-foot road and it wasn’t meant for a subdivision and neither did our Master Plan say that there should be a subdivision in this area. He stated this is a Michigan City project. He stated this is an urban project. He stated this is the wrong place and that is my stand. He stated you talk quality. He stated quality goes further than the style and the cost of the homes. He stated it has to go to the community and what the benefit is to that community. He


stated on the other hand we have a land owner that wants to sell his property and he wants the best price for it. He stated a developer comes along and perhaps the land owner is the developer. He stated we have to recognize a person can do with his property what he needs to do and not necessarily what he wants to do. He stated what it comes down to if you don’t put the development there and the land owner must sell the property than he is probably stuck with some farm ground that he will have to rent out as farm ground or sell in much bigger lots. He stated however, he is only jeopardizing his own stance in that there are other home owners that are involved here that really must be considered and that is what this Plan Commission should be doing. He stated is it fitting this community and is it benefiting this community.

Mrs. Marshall stated this is only a concept. She stated I don’t think that you adequately addressed the drainage in the subdivision. She stated I don’t know if you are going to have sidewalks. She stated my first blush when I went out there thinking about this subdivision is a subdivision that doesn’t belong there and I will tell you why. She stated the houses that you are trying to make a subdivision that is contained within itself this subdivision does not lend to the friendliness of 700 N. She stated it is going to be contained and it is going to attract a certain kind of person that doesn’t fit into that community. She stated if you build a subdivision with the backs of the houses fronting on the road…I really don’t like those kinds of subdivisions. She stated they are not friendly. She stated the only place they really work is on a State Highway or where you want to have a buffer for something. She stated this is such a nice area that I don’t see this development in that particular property. She stated to have two outlets for this subdivision on 700 N. just doesn’t seem that it is a good idea. She stated it seems like there should have been an outlet somewhere else and I don’t where that could be. She stated when I drove down to the end of that road and I came to that “Y” and you came to SR 2 I just don’t think it is a place where you want to put the density of houses that you are proposing on this subdivision. She stated it is not in the right place.

Commissioner Harper stated I want to ask Tim McCarthy a few questions. He stated this road is only 19 feet wide. He asked is that all it is.

Mr. McCarthy stated I never measured it but it is one of the narrower roads in the county.

Commissioner Harper stated so I imagine two cars got to slow down.


Mr. McCarthy stated yes they do.

Commissioner Harper asked does part of this subdivision touch County Line.

Mr. McCarthy stated it borders County Line, I know that. He stated I don’t know if it touches it.

Commissioner Harper asked what is between the edge of the subdivision and County Line Road.

Mr. McCarthy stated County Line Road does not go through there. He stated County Line Road dead ends at Hwy 6.

Commissioner Harper asked what road is this that goes up around Clear Lake.

Mrs. Marshall stated 800 is Rt. 6 right here.

Commissioner Harper stated so their only way in and out of there has got to be 700 N.

Mr. McCarthy stated it has to be on what we call Old SR 2.

Commissioner Harper stated I want to ask the developer something. He stated there’s a little corner out of there. He asked who owns that.

Mr. Lechtanski stated there are two houses there owned by a Mary Mills.

Commissioner Harper stated where does the west end of this property touch. He stated I mean the east end.

Mr. Lechtanski stated Bower Ditch.

Commissioner Harper stated so the property ends at the ditch.

Mr. Lechtanski stated correct.

Commissioner Harper asked what is the next road east of this property.

Mr. Lechtanski stated Old SR 2 or 2.

Commissioner Harper asked how far are they from…

Mr. Lechtanski stated from the middle entrance or the main entrance I would guess a quarter to a half mile.

Commissioner Harper asked how many square feet are the homes in Michigan City.

Mr. Lecthanski stated 1600 to 2400 square feet.

Commissioner Harper asked is it part of your commitment that the homes on this would be 1600 square feet stick built.

Mr. Lechtanski stated that would be our very minimum.

Commissioner Harper stated my question was is that a commitment. He asked is that something you would make a written commitment on.

Mr. Lechtanski stated it is.

Commissioner Harper stated I have to agree with Liz. He stated you have a road that is 19-feet wide. He stated if every lot pays $700 you can’t touch that road for that. He stated you have a road 19-feet wide and then you have the emergency vehicles coming in off Hwy 2, which is an old road. He stated I don’t think this place has the access to build a subdivision on.

Mr. Hutson stated I took a ride out there myself. He stated I was a bit surprised at the condition of the road also. He stated we are talking about a subdivision here that has 410 vehicles per day. He stated I cannot see that out there. He stated I don’t see that it fits into the community that we have out there. He stated some folks have horses and there are orchards out there. He stated it is rural life and I do not see a subdivision. He stated it is a great subdivision maybe somewhere else but not in this particular area.

Mr. Burns stated I feel the same way. He stated it doesn’t fit the area. He stated it is too dense. He stated my major concern is the traffic off 700 N. He stated if you take the engineers report it tells right on his report that the existing road is barely adequate for the present traffic now. He stated I don’t know how we can add more traffic on CR 700 N. He stated for those reasons I am against it.

Mr. Detert stated I don’t think that there is anything left to be said. He stated my concern would be traffic mainly. He stated I still have a big concern on the water situation.

Mr. Burns moved to deny Case 06-P-14. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote.




Discussion:

Mr. Rensberger asked what are the reasons for denial.

Mr. Burns stated we gave the reasons.

Mr. Read stated we have explained the reasons.

Mr. Detert stated you will get a response from our attorney when we prepare the findings.

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

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


Commissioner Harper stated we tonight had that Augustine Subdivision final plat approval, which we approved a couple of weeks ago. He stated after we had the preliminary plat approval on Augustine we had the hearing on the stone company last meeting. He stated if you remember the map that they had up.

Mr. Thompson stated the stone company is at the very south end of that I-2 section that the developer has but at the very north property line to ISK or Powder Tech there.

Commissioner Harper stated 325 runs north and south, correct.

Mr. Thompson stated CR 325 E. does run north and south.

Commissioner Harper stated the land north of that six acres that they were asking for approval on the land north of it runs north to this Augustine Subdivision. He stated it is bounded on the west by 325, which is a road that does have weight limits on it. He stated most of 325 is that subdivision in there. He stated bounded on the east by Washington Township School and the land that they have there. He stated I think that shortly there is going to be a proposal…there is no plat filed as he was asked tonight. He stated they said that they have some preliminary plans but they haven’t filed anything. He stated I think we are going to be shortly approached to put an industrial park subdivision with 26 or 27 parcels in there, which will be bounded on one side by this Augustine Subdivision, on one side by Washington Township School and on then on the east side by 325 and then north of it a subdivision. He stated basically it is in sort of a residential type area. He stated I would like to move


and I asked Bob to get me the legal description…I would like to move that that parcel of property and I am not including that six acres that we denied because that may get into litigation. He stated I would like to move that the Plan Commission file a petition to rezone that land RR. He stated if you voted for that tonight you wouldn’t be voting to rezone it RR. He stated that is all you would be doing is to vote to allow the Plan Commission to file that petition. He stated then at some point all the home owners and the owner would have to be notified and the debate on that subject could be held. He stated I think we should at least leave our options open. He stated we have school children on one side and subdivisions on two other sides and a road with a weight limit.

Commissioner Harper moved that this piece of property that I have just described here tonight that Mr. Thompson be directed to file our petition to rezone that piece of property to RR and if that vote carry’s then further proceedings will be held on it at such a time where property owners and neighbors can be notified of that. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked why can’t we add the six acres.

Commissioner Harper stated the possible litigation might muddy the waters.

Mrs. Marshall stated was there a finding of fact why we denied North Star Stone.

Attorney McClure stated yes. He stated it is finished.

Mrs. Marshall asked do we get it back here as members.

Attorney McClure stated yes. He stated one of the reasons for denial was the load baring road with the frost law and how much weight is allowed and not allowed on that road. He stated the other impact was the numerous comments made by the Commission members on whether or not there was air pollution, noise pollution. He stated there was also some concern that was brought forth concerning someone residing in the current commercial location.

Mr. Hutson asked is this the first time that we have done something like this.

Mr. Detert stated no.



Mrs. Marshall stated I remember that we have done this before.

Attorney McClure stated Indiana Code explicitly allows it.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

At this time, the Commissioner members had a discussion concerning covenants.

Commissioner Harper moved to make it an office policy that when the plans are submitted the covenants are also submitted with a copy for each member. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

At this time the Commission members had a discussion on getting more help for the office.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Robert C. Detert, Vice-President

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