PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
December 13, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, 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., Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Scott McClure.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the November 8, 2006 meeting and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 06-P-19. Petition of David and Brighitte Snemis, 2701 Beech St., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Cherokee Woods Subdivision to be located at 199 W. 550 N. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 12.003 acres. Property is zoned R-1. Con’t from 11-8-06 mtg.)

William Ferngren, representing David and Brighitte Snemis. He stated when we were here at the November 8 meeting the proposed subdivision had three lots. At last Friday’s Development Advisory Committee, we presented a new drawing consisting of two lots. Nothing else has changed. The other issue that was before the Commission was the issue of covenants for the parcel. I have provided your Counsel a copy of some title work and other correspondence which clearly indicated that there were in fact no covenants of record that affected this parcel.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would just like to remind the public that the public hearing has been closed.

Mr. Burns asked was our attorney going to look into the covenant issues.

Attorney McClure stated Attorney Elwood and Attorney Ferngren had some correspondence and as I understand it the title work had been completed on the property. He stated a search through the Recorders Office had been completed to try to


determined whether or not any recorded covenants had been placed on the property. He stated as of to date we have not been able to find any of those. Attorney Ferngren provided the title work etc. Frankly, unless someone has some recorded copy of covenants, we believe that none exist at this time.

Mr. Detert stated I pass.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated I don’t have any questions.

Mr. Read stated the matter of the preservation easement, who would own that preservation easement.

Mr. Ferngren stated that would be owned by the lot owner on which it is located. The reason for that is because the functionality of having creating open space in that location and trying to create an association to manage that would simply be impractical. So what we have created is a preservation easement that will run with the land and be part of this plat.

Mr. Read stated the major conditions of our open space ordinance should be put on the plat. Would you be willing to do this?

Mr. Ferngren stated we will do that.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

Mr. Breitzke stated the driveway to the second lot off the county road will have to have a 36-inch culvert. I am asking you to commit to a minimum of 36-inches.

Mr. Burns moved to approve primary plat for Case 06-P-19 subject to a 36-inch culvert for the second lot off the county road and the language requirements for open space. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous ballot vote:

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

Case 06-FP-21. Petition of Tuscany Developers, LLC, 376 Devon Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Tuscany Subdivision to be located at 2650 Heavilin Road, Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 81 lots on 40 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Todd Leeth and Rich Hudson representing Tuscany Developers, LLC. The petition is for secondary plat for Tuscany Subdivision, which was approved in March 2006 by this Commission. It contains 78 buildable lots on 40 acres, it is zoned R-1 and is located in Center Township. The sewer and water extension has begun and are substantially complete from Valparaiso Municipal utilities to the project. At DAC it was estimated that the infrastructure is approximately 80% to 85% complete. The performance bond has been posted and approved by the Board of Commissioners. There have been no changes from the primary plat.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns asked if all the drainage ponds and detention ponds complete.

Mr. Hudson stated yes and there are photos that you can see what has been done. At this time, Mr. Hudson submitted pictures to the Commission members.

Mr. Burns asked there shouldn’t be a negative impact to the other property owners.

Mr. Hudson stated to my knowledge nothing has happened and there shouldn’t be any thing.

Mr. Detert asked is the developer going to pay attorney fees or have the owner of the lot pay attorney fees but you don’t give that same opportunity to an owner forcing something that the POA may have forced on them but it is in disagreement with the covenant, unless of course has a finding. The property owner should be entitled to a same entitlement on attorney fees as is the developer.

Mr. Leeth stated if that is your desire that is a simple modification or change we can live with.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions now.

Commissioner Harper stated you are in agreement that you will change the covenant the way Mr. Detert wants.

Mr. Leeth stated yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated I think when we reviewed it the first time we talked about the neighbors were concerned about these roads that go into their property. She asked are you still putting those barriers across there.



Mr. Hudson stated yes and those are detailed in our construction plans.

Mr. Read stated I noticed on the plat that you have a separate paragraph on open space parcels and restrictions. It is not quite the same wording and I wanted to clarify one thing first. My concern is will the open space be owned by the Property Owners Association or not.

Mr. Leeth stated the POA will control and own.

Mr. Read stated reading Section 6 on page 5 of the covenants it seems to me that the Board of Directors of the Association don’t have all the powers to own, maintain and manage the storm drainage. There is more to open space than storm drainage.

Mr. Leeth stated in this section I used to be very detailed and actually refer to your ordinance in the open space. What we have found, however, in our efforts to then the Association and get it qualified as a tax exempt organization by the IRS. They are telling me that it is not a qualified entity to be tax exempt if we are complying with the law. What we did was removed those as I had previously put that specific language in there. I think that the language that we have says just that. It doesn’t however, refer to your ordinance.

Mr. Read stated as far as the wording on the drawings you do mention the Section 17.108 on the drawings. It mentions some of the things that I previously read. The only thing that was missing was the matter of running with the land. I think that ought to be added in there that it is running with the land including subsequent owners.

Mr. Leeth stated we will put that on.

Mr. Read stated on page 4 of the declaration you have a section for retractable real estate. Would you explain what you mean by that?

Mr. Leeth stated if in the future my clients desire or whoever would own the development desires to remove part of the development from the restrictive covenants they could do so. In my opinion they could do so without these provisions, but with this provision it makes it clear that to the future owners that the subdivision could be retracted.

Mr. Read stated the way I read it is that it could apply to the open space.


Mr. Leeth stated that is certainly not the intention and we could modify that provision to indicate that all of the open space and drainage infrastructure has to remain.

Mr. Read asked would you do that.

Mr. Leeth stated yes.

Mr. Cole stated there is a well by the entrance. What is going to happen to that well?

Mr. Hudson stated it will be removed.

Mr. Cole stated the water table appears to be rather high in that area. What are you doing about basements?

Mr. Hudson stated the possibility exists for basements on a majority of the lots. All of the elevations have been set out.

Mr. Hutson asked how do you remove a well.

Mr. Hudson stated I assume that you pull the point and it is a submersible pump. I assume that there will be some material put in it to cap it off.

Mr. Hutson asked what happens if you carve out lots.

Mr. Leeth stated we would have to come back here to the Plan Commission to vacate a portion of the plat. We can vacate all of the plat by ourselves if you grant the secondary plat and it is recorded. If we don’t do anything we can unilaterally vacate that plat. As soon as we develop and sell one lot then the vacation of the plat is required to come to a public hearing back at the Plan Commission.

Mr. Detert asked were those pictures taken after the big rain.

Mr. Hudson stated they were taken today at noon.

Mr. Detert stated it looks like there is a lot of standing water.

Mr. Detert asked how much do we have to worry about a POA violating the open space. If it is on the plat it is a legal document that is there, right.

Attorney McClure stated correct.

Mr. Burns asked what size is the well.

Mr. Hudson stated I believe it is at least a 4” well.

Mr. Read moved to approve Case 06-FP-21 contingent on capping the existing well, the open space clarification and the responsibilities of the Property Owners Association relative to the open space and the attorney fees provision in the declaration. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-22. Petition of Henry Boynton, 2100 E. 48 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for a replat of Boynton Subdivision Lot 1 to be located at 2000 E. 48 N. (Wittmer Lane) in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 2.51 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Don Bengel representing Henry Boynton the developer of Boynton Subdivision. We have prepared the final plat according to the approval on the primary plat. There have been no changes. We have added another ten feet of right-of-way. It is now 40 feet.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read asked are you going to go for a POA.

Mr. Bengel stated no.

Mr. Read stated it would remain in the ownership of the two people that are here.

Mr. Bengel stated each lot has access to the other lot.

Mr. Read stated I don’t see that you have the wording on the plat that I have referred to previously. I think you should have some wording that refers to the open space parcels and their restrictions pertaining thereto and refer to Section 17. 108.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Bengel was instructed at the last DAC to add such language. He stated it won’t be recorded until we have the language on there.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.



Commissioner Harper asked who checks to make sure that is on there.

Mr. Thompson stated myself before I sign it. Kevin and I have to sign the plats so I check to make sure everything is on there.

Mr. Burns asked what is your plan for the location of the driveways.

Mr. Bengel stated the driveway for lot A will come up through Wittmer Lane and we have had a discussion on that and we will line up the driveway up with the road that comes out across the street.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-FP-22 contingent on the language being on the plat for the open space. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-23. Petition of John Sessions, 156 W. 350 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Sessions Addition to be located at 156 W. 850 N. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 11 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Don Bengel representing John Sessions. There have been no changes and they will have to add the language on the plat for the open space. There will be two lots on 11 acres. There was some discussion at the primary plat about taking some trees out and that has all been done. The only difference is that this 33 feet by 99 feet piece in the right-of-way came up and we had a title search done and that was dedicated back in the 1800’s to the Township road right-of-way and it really doesn’t affect the plat at all.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Sessions you and your father are agreeable to waive any rights to that property.

Mr. Sessions stated yes.

Commissioner Harper asked was there a drainage discussion on this at primary.

Mr. Bengel stated there are no problems up here.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read asked does that open space with the wetland go onto anybody else’s property.


Mr. Bengel stated it goes a little bit to the east.

Mr. Read stated so the drainage is to the existing wetland.

Mr. Bengel stated that is kind of a hole in there and I don’t know if it flows off anywhere.

Mr. Cole stated I did check into the little strip of property and the township does not own the property for roads or…what that property was deeded to Liberty Township we have no idea. I did check with the Trustee and she has no record of any ownership of that property within her knowledge of the history.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am suggesting for any motion that we make that part of it be that the petitioner waives any rights future or otherwise to that property to the County Commissioners of Porter County.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read moved to approve Case 06-FP-23 contingent the addition to the plat the notations regarding the open space parcel and the various restrictions, the filing of a Quit Claim Deed to us for the roadway. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

New Business:

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

Case 06-P-20. Petition of Brian and Glenn Franzen, 690 N. 50 W., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Mary’s Quest Subdivision to be located at 690 N. 50 W. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 7.29 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Rensberger land surveyor for the Franzen’s. This lot is on CR 50 W. and CR 700 N. is about 200 feet north of this parcel. There is a little over 7 acres. There is an existing house were the Franzen’s live. There is a two acre pond back here. There is 20% of open green space. The statement that states who is to maintain the pond is on the plat along with an additional statement about the open space. We have usable soils for septic systems.


Dave Brandt, 66 W. 700 N. The Franzen’s will be good neighbors. I am in favor of this petition.

Terry Nelson, 680 N. 50 W. I have no problem with this.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burge stated the neighbors seem to be okay with this so I have no questions.

Mr. Burns stated I looked at this parcel and I don’t have any problems.

Mr. Detert stated I have no problem with this.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read stated I noticed that you do have the open space paragraph that I have referred to earlier. What do you propose for the ownership of the preservation easement?

Mr. Rensberger stated I believe the Franzen’s will have to maintain ownership of it and it will be jointly maintained.

Mr. Read stated there is a small pond behind the dam where it goes to the northwest. I think it ought to be looked into and before you get to secondary get with our counsel and look into that. The dam is owned by somebody else?

Mr. Rensberger stated the water is restricted on the other side of the pond and he controls the water.

Mr. Read stated could you take that off with our attorney to see if there are any legal or potential problems of either the water raising or lowering by somebody else off the site.

Mr. Rensberger stated I will talk with the owners about this and see what they can do.

Glen Franzen, 690 N. 50 W. The way it is designed there is a drain at the dam that maintains the level. If it gets too high it overflows and goes around the dam. The owner that owns the dam regards that lake as a very beautiful piece of his assets on his property. He has a fountain there and I am sure he regards that lake as a very necessary asset.

Mr. Read stated all I am saying is run it past our Plan Commission attorney.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns asked what are the locations of the driveways.

Mr. Rensberger stated there is a driveway that serves the existing house and another drive that is up to the north that they are going to expand upon and beef up a little bit.

Mr. Burns asked who is going to own the driveway.

Mr. Rensberger stated each lot owner will own their own driveway.

Mr. Read moved to approve Case 06-P-20 contingent on the addition on the wording on the open space paragraph and a report to the Commission of their discussions and investigations with the Plan Commission attorney prior to secondary plat. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 06-Z-9. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-2, General Industry to RR, Rural Residential to be located approximately 1,000 feet North of Evans Avenue, between CR 325 E. and SR 2 in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Bob Thompson, Porter County Plan Commission, Executive Director, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana. On August 9, 2006, this Plan Commission requested the office staff to file a petition to rezone a petition from I-2 to Rural Residential. This is in Washington Township and this is the I-2 zoned parcel of land that we are talking about. The south 200 feet of this is excluded. It is North Star Stone and that case is under litigation and I cannot speak to that. This parcel here is owned by the Bucher’s and this parcel here is owned by the School Corporation. The reason for this is to eliminate the I-2 zoning adjacent to the residential subdivision. The only reason why it came about is because it conflicts with the industrial close to the residential subdivision. The residential subdivision that we are referring to here is immediately here. This is Deer Path Subdivision and up to the north is a proposed Augustine Subdivision. Augustine was approved by the Plan Commission this


year. There are a number of industry’s adjacent to this parcel and to the south in particular. There is the Brook’s Industrial Park Subdivision and Powder Tech to the south. Again Washington School Corporation is directly to the east of this parcel. By the County Comprehensive Plan this area is in the fringe area between urban and suburban development areas. The subject parcel is currently within the I-2 and allowed with the I-2 uses. The request is to have this go to RR, Rural Residential allowing for a residential subdivision to be able to go on this parcel with the owner so chooses.

Todd Etzler, Burke, Costanza and Cuppy. I represent CATHAY Pigments. It is a successor and owner of the property that is the ISK property. It is the large manufacturing facility just south of the I-2 facilities. Powder Tech is to the east and CATHAY is to the west. CATHAY is objecting to this rezone for a couple of reasons. Reason No. 1 is CATHAY has been a manufacturer and a very good manufacturer for our community since 1968. Along Evans Avenue to the west are smaller industrial uses and then to the east of our property is the Powder processing company. To the north of us is an institutional use, the High School and on the east side of SR 2 are warehousing and heavier uses that are typically found in industrial use locations. The reason you are seeking to change this is because there is residential encroaching upon these industrial uses. That causes CATHAY a problem because as residential comes in it conflicts with industrial use because the neighborhoods become established neighborhoods. Each of those property owners comes and starts to say that the industrial facility that is in our neighborhood doesn’t fit in our neighborhood. This industrial facility was here first and it is an industrial use and it is surrounded by industrial uses. The new ordinance that the county seeks to adopt, under your Unified Development Ordinance, also recognizes the incompatibility of industrial and residential uses. What you need to do through your ordinance is have some sort of buffering uses between those uses. This would in that situation be in violation of the new ordinance. I am asking that you not rezone this parcel as it has been presented.

Larry Bucher, 215 S. 75 E. I am a member of the family that owns the 41 acre parcel that is subject to the petition to rezone. Tonight I am going to ask 24 questions that when answered truthfully will demonstrate that this petition does not meet the reasonable regard test of the five Statutes our State Law requires in order to change a zoning classification. At this time, Mr. Bucher asked the 24 questions. A copy of the 24 questions are in the rezone file and also attached to the minutes of this case.



Rod Gardin, Superintendent for the East Porter County Schools, 502 East College Avenue. The school owns the small piece of land on the opposite side of the Bucher’s property and opposite of the subdivision. That small piece of land represents about 8 acres. The school corporation also owns this section here that is already zoned RR and this is about another 20 acres. This small section here is estimated that current value is between $28,000 to $30,000 an acre. If that is rezoned from I-2 to RR that could drop down to about $5000 an acre. From a school corporation’s perspective we have no plans to build on that section. We do have plans to hold on to that for resale value. When it was purchased it was purchased for I-2 zoned land. If we can sell that and the value continues to rise the school corporation can then use that money to off set any costs that we may have particularly capital project expenditure, which means building. The school corporation is asking the Plan Commission to exclude the school corporation’s portion from this rezoning.

Vince Julian, 304 Long Prairie. I am against this petition.

Bryan Bucher, 197 E. Arthur Rd. I am a member of the family who owns the parcel subject to tonight’s hearing and a partner with my dad in Bucher Construction. My presentation tonight will describe the concerns and comments of my partners and me. My comments will cover 1) our desire and goals for this parcel of land; and 2) our thoughts on the rezoning under consideration. At this time, Mr. Bucher read his comments. A copy of Mr. Bucher’s comments are in the rezone file and in the minute book.

Todd Leeth, on behalf of DBL Development. That is the entity that owns the larger parcel of the two parcels that is subject to the rezoning. I can’t recall a petition where government has sought to rezone a property owner’s land where they have immediate intent and petition to develop that land in accordance with its existing zoning classification. One time, a City Council member in the City of Valparaiso did this probably ten years ago for a property that was in his own back yard. A very selfish petition. I thought that this was the worst zoning result that I had ever seen and I think this is coming right on the heals of that, in my opinion, as bad zoning. You heard the facts from the Bucher’s. You are seeking to down click this zoning classification ten rungs on your table of uses. Immediately as they have petitioned you to zone use that property consistent with the classification that was there when they bought it. I think that is bad policy. Mr. Etzler, on behalf of his client, told you that he thought that the purpose of your petition was to prevent the residential encroachment into the


industrial area or vise versus. I agree. I think that is the reason why you are trying to do that. I don’t think your petition accomplishes that goal. It simply moves the conflict to a different location. Why does this petition come before us tonight? As the Bucher’s indicated and as my research confirms this land has been zoned industrial since 1959. It has been zoned that since Porter County has had zoning. I also think that it is bad public policy to take the large parcels that we are talking about today out of the industrial zoning classification and out of the inventory that is available for our economic development in the future, for a couple of reasons. First, it is important to us as a community and the community is from Lake Michigan to the Kankakee. It is important for that community to have a broad basin of uses. It is important for us to have industry so that we and our children who follow have jobs and so that we have a tax base who supports the infrastructure, the roads, the rivers and all of the things that we want in our life and our quality of life in Porter County. We need to have that infrastructure to provide the tax base so that we as a government, as a society and as a community can support those essential infrastructure services. This is not a good petition and in my opinion it is in violation of good public policy. I also believe it is in violation of Section 602 of the Indiana Planning and Zoning Code because it does not pay reasonable regard to the five criteria that your ordinance requires.

Ken Borthals, 5103 Evans Avenue, President of Powder Technology. I am against this petition.

Mr. Breitzke stated we did receive six different letters. Five were against the petition and one was for the petition. These letters are in the rezone file.

John McQuestion, 308 E. 360 N. I am in opposition to this rezoning.

Bonnie Flint, 326 N. 325 E. I am in favor of this petition.

Ralph Heavilin, 331 Deerfield. I am in favor of this petition.

Lorraine Heavilin, 331 Deerfield. I am in favor of this petition.

Robert Frederick, 296 Deerfield. I am in favor of this petition.

Randy Wilgus, 346 Long Bow. I am in favor of this petition.


Robert Pearl, 341 Deerfield. I am in favor of this petition.

Rick Skaggs, 341 Long Bow Court. I am in favor of this petition.

Wayne Swanson, 310 E. Long Prairie Rd. I am in favor of this petition.

Carol Skaggs, 341 Long Bow Court. I am in favor of this petition.

Tabby Evans, 345 Long Bow Court. I am in favor of this petition.

Bob Janulis, 377 N. 325 E. I am in favor of this petition.

Stephen Dolak, 397 N. 325 E. I am in favor of this petition.

Hilary Braden left the meeting.

Michelle Sellers stated I have nothing else to say.

Quida Jones, 344 Long Bow Court. I am in favor of this petition.

Commissioner Harper stated Mr. Thompson is here just presenting this on behalf of the Commission. I am suggesting that different members of the Commission respond to the questions that they want to respond to, unless you want to go through all of those.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think that is a fair way of doing it.

Commissioner Harper stated I think that as long as the other members agree with it.

Mr. Thompson stated one of the very first questions that I want to answer is the reason why the meeting was postponed in the first place. Yes this was scheduled for the November meeting. The reason for the postponement was at the request of our Plan Commission attorney, Ken Elwood. It was at Mr. Elwood’s request that this case was continued. Mr. McClure is here tonight sitting in for Mr. Elwood. So I am going to look at Mr. McClure and ask him what questions I can answer and would he feel comfortable with me answering some of these questions. I confirmed that the land was zoned I-2 since 1959 and yes I do have the 1959 zoning map for this area and yes it was zoned I-2. What percentages of


houses in this immediate area were built after 1959? I have not done any of that research and I do not know. Is it correct that residential land was not changed to that classification in 1983? That is not necessarily fully true. Directly to the north of this parcel and directly to the west of this parcel there was residentially zoned land. Where Washington Township School is and where everyone is pointing out as parcel’s 5, 1 and 2, those areas were zoned agricultural in 1959. That area did change in 1983 to rural residential. The County Commissioners in 1958 passed the ordinance to create the Plan Commission. There first duty was to create zoning and subdivision control ordinances and that was approved 1959 with the adoption of our first Master Plan. Was there an informal discussion about an industrial park prior to the Plan Commission requesting staff to file a petition for rezoning? Yes there was. They were in front of the Advisory Committee for an informal hearing showing plans for a potential industrial park. Had I received complaints of agricultural equipment using CR 325 E. I am not aware of any but that doesn’t mean that staff or anybody else might have received any. I don’t recall ever receiving any. This petition was the result of considerable remonstrance from Deerfield Park Subdivision. I have that in my staff report. Yes, I do admit that I had that in my staff report. Yes, there was considerable remonstrance and it was in the case of North Star Stone. Can I confirm that this is an independent case of spot rezoning and not part of a comprehensive overall rezoning plan? I don’t think I can answer that. I have to leave that one up to the Board. The petition is to eliminate I-2 zoning adjacent to residential subdivision. Does it accomplish that purpose? There is still going to be residential next to I-2 zoning. There are a lot of questions here that the Planning Commission is going to have to answer. Am I aware of any “shovel-ready” sites? On private situations I know a private industrial park that was approved by the Plan Commission. Whether or not they put in any infrastructure yet I do not know. Public wise, do I know of any in Porter County? Yes I there are a few that are available. City of Valparaiso is pursuing that, the City of Portage has some and is pursuing another one. Do we have one as far as Porter County goes? No. Take-up rates as far as inventory, 3000 residential lots and the pace that we are going at issuing about 650 single family residential homes within the past three or four years this 3000 residential lots would probably last four years. Has Porter County ever filed a petition to down zone a land-owners property against their wishes where the petition was an independent case? I do remember the discussion when this petition was filed and if this has ever happened and I do believe there was a statement that the Plan Commission has done this before. Do I know what cases? I don’t know. I would have to go back and ask the people that have been involved with the Plan Commission. There were


some questions on whether you can have outside storage in I-2 zone. Yes you can have outside storage and that is an allowable use. There are some points going out on the Brooks subdivision. I have zoning administrators in there and I have sent out letters to one of the property owners in there and I have to do a follow-up on it. In regards to loading of the trucks in the right-of-way and the pay loaders on the road, that is not a land use issue and I don’t know the rules of the road. That is something that I would have to confer over with the Sherriff’s department. With this I-2 zoning were are a non-attainment area and it would be very difficult and they would have to apply to IDEM for any kind of factory emissions. And yes, there would be even in an I-2 zoning the possibility of factory type emissions but they would have to go through very strict guidelines through IDEM.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to say a few things about it. This residential rezone just to put this thing in a little bit of perspective that we did was back in May. May, June, July and August, four months before it all came to light we files our petition and they filed their petition I got an e-mail from Dean Bucher that really upset me.

Mr. Breitzke stated Bob, right now we are here just to answer the questions and after we get through the public hearing then we will start addressing some of those issues.

Commissioner Harper stated let me say first about the tax issue that Doctor Garden mentioned. I think that if you asked him his big tax issue with the schools are the TIF District that was created on the east side of Valpo where Menards and all of those stores are. Isn’t that one of your big problems where you are loosing money?

Doctor Garden stated yes.

Commissioner Harper stated that district was created for ten years when it was first started to provide money for the infrastructure for that development out there, which was a good plan, I think because the buildings that were put up out there didn’t have to pay taxes. Now we are giving them services and everything else and I heard the other day that they plan on using that money for thirty years.

Doctor Garden stated you are correct.

Commissioner Harper stated that is your TIF problem right there. You were introduced here at that meeting in May as a special guess and that you were here to speak for the subdivision and at that time you told us a few things. You told us that you


plan to build on most of this area and you have been talking to the architects. You weren’t referring to the industrial area but you talked about the acreage that you have behind the school and so forth. You told us that this was space to add new rooms and ball fields and so forth. Can you remember telling us that?

Doctor Garden stated yes and the section that is identified as number 5. If we need to add substantial amounts to the Middle School/High School we could relocate our ball fields to that area.

Commissioner Harper asked do you have one of the Bucher’s on your School Board?

Doctor Garden stated we have Tim Bucher.

Commissioner Harper stated who is a partner is some of these, but not these here.

Mrs. Marshall stated the schools are not an issue in this because schools are allowed in any zoning. So if you bring the people to the area the school has to provide the education for the students. The only thing I see from the school here is that they want to keep the I-2 zoning on property that is an investment property for them that they may sell it off at some future time. So I think the school is kind of out of this. The zoning has been in place since 1959 and that is important. We have not changed our opinion about that. We have to keep property that is zoned I-2, I-1 we have to keep those in the county because industry brings revenue just as well as houses do. It is important, if we want to attract business in this county that we keep “I” zoning so that it is available when people come to this county. I don’t know what the Bucher’s paid for their property but I can assure you they paid a premium price for the I-2 zoning. If we downzone this to an RR it is almost like a taking without compensation. They will never recover if we downzone this what they paid for this property. I don’t support a rezoning. I support it being left I-2.

Mr. Cole stated this question on who came first the industry or the residential area is probably answered in the terms of “dynamic land use.” For years and years and years it has been industrial zoned but very little industry has moved there. The moment that the residential opened up residents moved in. It seems to me that land use wins. This is a community and that community has to work together for the benefit of our economics interest or expeditious interest exists in that area. If rezoning is necessary for a community to stay together to be viable, to be expeditious then maybe that is the answer. But let’s not talk about “not in my backyard or who came first.”

Mr. Hutson asked does anyone on the Commission have an answer to #19 and #20?

Mr. McClure stated the Commission has within its powers to bring a petition to rezone property. Whether or not it happened in the past or will happen ten times in the future to me is irrelevant to the fact that the Commission has the power to ask, which it has and that each individual petition stand on its own merits.

Mr. Thompson stated on question 22, “On July 28th, 2004 in case 04-Z-4, Gregg Engstrom tried to rezone I-2 land located within this contiguously zoned industrial tract from I-2 to RR.” If I remember correctly that was on CR 400 E. south of Evans. Yes it was in the middle of an I-2 zoning and that is the reason why the Plan Commission denied him RR because it was still going to be surrounded by I-2 zoning.

Commissioner Harper stated question 24, “We appeared before the Plan Commission on May 24 and clearly talked about this industrial zoned land and therefore it wasn’t a concern to you then.” Let me answer that question. They came to this meeting and hear is what our minutes said, “Mr. Bucher said that he would like to introduce the surrounding area. He stated that this would be CR 325 E., this would be CR 400 N. and this would be CR 400 E. He stated when you look around this subdivision and come north towards the proposed subdivision you would first encounter Deerfield Subdivision. This is Whispering Hills Subdivision that comes in right here and it curves back around to Bartz Road. He stated Bartz Road is CR 275 E. so it is a half a mile from here. He stated the City has annexed up to that point. He stated the City’s annexation is just a half a mile from this property. He stated this is Eastwood Hills Subdivision. He stated this is four tenths of a mile back to this cul-de-sac. He stated that single family, one acre lots, two roads with one connected in the middle. He stated that the newest subdivision that is actually built in Valley Run, which is on the corner of CR 400 N. and CR 400 E. He stated this has been built out. He stated it extends both north and south, kind of where CR 400 N. stubs out here. He stated when you look around this is what an urban planner would call a built in subdivision. He stated there is building all around it. He stated it is bordered on the south by Washington Township Schools. He stated that their property they hold for the future expansion of the school. He stated there is some I-2 land that is not developed and Powder Tech is down the street.” Two or three months before…and doesn’t say, “by the way, if you put this subdivision in here, I am planning to make an industrial park down here.” He wants us to believe that two or three months later all of a sudden this plan develops in his mind. I don’t


think that there was full disclosure. I disagree with question #24.

Mr. Skaggs commented about the TIF program and the tax abatement.

Larry Bucher stated we are here tonight mainly because of Brook’s Subdivision and how bad it is. These people are angry and I understand why they are angry. I don’t like Brooks Subdivision and we would never build anything like Brooks Subdivision. I am a pretty good businessman. I am not going to follow the business motto of Brooks Subdivision. He went bankrupt because he built an inferior product and he could not make it. I have residential. I have the most to loose of anybody in this room tonight if I screw up this business park because I can’t sell my residential lots. Phase Two of Augustine would get developed after this business park. I told the neighbors that on Monday night. We are already schedules for the January 10 Plan Commission meeting for primary plat. Secondary on Augustine, we haven’t sold a lot in Phase One. We have three years of lots to sell before we even consider Phase Two. I have the most to loose. If you want a buffer, who better to do it. There was an ariel map that we showed so it was a more visual thing. I displayed an ariel photograph and mentioned the I-2 land. I didn’t say I made a big case of it but I did point to it on an ariel map.

Mrs. Evans stated we are here tonight as a community is to look out for the future for all the subdivision in the area.

Mr. Julian stated I am a contractor and I need a place to put my equipment and a place where I can park my trucks inside. I am against this petition.

Aaron Simac, 2909 Blue Grouse. I have a shop off of CR 316 and all my guys take their trucks home and I don’t have anything outside. I am against this petition.

Mr. Leeth stated a gentleman asked tonight how can we be sure that what the Bucher’s have told you tonight is enforced or has the enforcement. I met with the Bucher’s prior to tonight’s meeting. We talked about outlining their presentation before you and I questioned them in their narrative and they said that they agree to…I told them to be careful with the choice of words because if you stand up here and tell the Board that you agree to plant trees then this Board may hold you to that. It is a contract. The Bucher’s said, “That is fine. We have every intention of doing that.” I said then you can use that word. That I think is enforceable. If it is not then it is fraud and you can


make that happen. But you don’t have to do that. You don’t have to rely upon the minutes and enforce it that way. He stated my second point is that TIF takes money away from the corporation or it takes away growth, the increased in assessed valuation of new development in the TIF district and it does it for a long period of time. All that is recaptured by the TIF district to pay for infrastructure that benefits the community at large. Tax abatement is a different item. In the first year it is the only time that it is like TIF. In the second year now the money is going off to the taxing entities including the school corporation and it can only last for a maximum of ten years. It comes out that the government and the school corporation never lose a dime and just don’t get the gain over time. I would also like the Commission to acknowledge the letters from the property owners who are not here this evening.

Mr. Breitzke stated Regional Mechanical wrote us a letter. Lamp Shapes by Delores, Larry Bucher, PPT, CATHAY Pigmonts, USA signed by Rick Trapp who were against the petition. We have one person for the petition who was John and Joanne Downing, 343 Long Bow Court.

At this time, the public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper stated this is not easy and I am sure that every one up here knows that this is not easy. He stated either we face it and we try to do something about it or we run from it. Dean Bucher sent me an e-mail that sent me through the roof. “I want to send you folks a note about what I see as an issue for Porter County. It seems to me that we are overly concerned about every whiney neighbor that shows up at a public hearing.” You know, I think that we are here for the neighbors and for the people that live here to try to create a decent atmosphere to live and raise children here. We look at this and realize that this is a problem. As Tim Cole said, the area has been developed as residential and I am here to tell you that when that presentation was made on that subdivision this was glossed over. You can’t tell me that two or three months before hand they didn’t know what they planned to do there. This land is surrounded by residential and I think that it should be residential. I can understand taking the school portion out because it is on the highway there and so forth. I personally thought when I proposed this amendment I listened to the superintendent about his plan to increase the school area and build these ball diamonds, I thought that they could do that.

Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 06-Z-9 to the Board of Commissioners with a favorable recommendation to rezone this parcel from I-2 to RR with the exception of Washington


Township School property because 1) the current conditions and the character of the current structures in the area and around it are that type of zoning; 2) it seems to be the most desirable use for this land abutting up next to a school surrounded by residential subdivision; 3) it helps conserve the property of the neighbors that live in these subdivisions and the subdivisions that the Bucher’s are building; 4) for responsible growth you don’t put an industrial park next to a school where kids are playing. Mr. Read seconded the motion.

Mr. Breitzke stated we need to stick to the issues and Bob kind of covered them, the comprehensive plan, the most desirable use for the land, property values, current use and responsible growth. Those are the five major issues and Bob covered those to some degree.

Discussion:

Mrs. Marshall stated I think that I have stated what I believe. It has been zoned I-2 since 1959 and I think that everybody had the opportunity to look at the zoning around the house that they bought. Jacobs developed Deerfield after that. I think that this is a taking without compensation.

Mr. Read stated I have questions for a number of people. Mr. Leeth is it your position that the current Plan Commission in 2006 is bound forever by decision made in 1959?

Mr. Leeth stated unless you can answer the requirements of Section 602, yes.

Mr. Read stated I don’t know what Section 602 is.

Mr. Leeth stated it is the State Statute that are the five elements or points that you have to have in order to change zoning.

Mr. Read stated do you agree that if Porter County had rigidly adhered to the land use indicated throughout the 1959 Master Plan we probably never had the Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore.

Mr. Leeth stated I would agree to that but in order to change land use from what was established in 1959…if you look at the zoning maps from 1959, 1961, 1974 and 1983 those are the zoning maps that we have ever had. They look very, very similar. The only changes that I know about are the ones that come from the citizens asking you to change the zoning. Not the other way around.


Mr. Read stated you mentioned that some of these changes from the 1959 land use objective was the result of citizen action petitioning their government. I think that is a good thing, don’t you?

Mr. Leeth stated yes.

Mr. Read stated we always refer to this type of rezoning as down zoning under the assumption that industrial property is more valuable to the developer than residential. Are you saying that that is always the case?

Mr. Leeth stated no.

Mr. Read are you aware that there are some parcels in fact at the north end of the county that were zoned industrial that have been down zoned by the developer who realized that they could make more money or at least faster money by some other zoning other than when they past the industrial bloom that went on up there.

Mr. Leeth stated I have represented countless people in front of this Body and others in the municipalities of our county where we have taken industrial property and asked you to down zone it to a residential classification to allow for a residential subdivision. This happens all the time. The property owner asks for it and the government doesn’t force it down their throats. We also have to show to the Plan Commission and to the Legislative Body and in this case the Board of Commissioners the 602 five requirements reasonable regard.

Mr. Read asked would you agree that in an industrial area by a residential area could have an adverse affect on the resale value of that residential property.

Mr. Leeth stated the way you worded that question I would have to agree with you. The way you worded it was, “could have.” Remember the comments and commitments that Brian told you and those are things that are going to protect the property values of the neighboring properties. I do not believe, if you had worded your question to say, does industrial property to residential devalue it, I would have to answer that question in the negative.

Mr. Read stated you are saying the increase so in an expanding economy or an in an inflationary economy the residential area would not go up as fast a residential area adjacent to now an industrial area.

Mr. Leeth stated I have seen some of the literature suggest


just that. You have to understand that we are not talking about landfills, we are talking about smoke stacked industries, we are talking about high intensity land uses. Nothing like what the Bucher’s are suggesting in their business park.

Mr. Read stated I have another question for Mr. Etzler. Do you agree that between your clients property to the south and on your clients’ northern boundary there is this North Stone property?

Mr. Etzler stated yes there is.

Mr. Read stated except for the North Star Stone property the property we are talking about here does go to residential of some kind your client would not be bumped up against residential?

Mr. Etzler stated that is correct.

Mr. Read stated as I understand it your client is objecting primarily on the principal of down zoning industrial areas and so forth. Does the rezoning, if it occurs, in any way affect your clients current operations.

Mr. Etzler stated after the rezoning is done my clients concern is the residential development that occurs and those people establishing their neighborhood next to an industrial property and thereby then saying that the industry that is next to their residential property and in their neighborhood is no longer an acceptable use. They will be able to continue to operate.

Mr. Read asked who speaks for the Bucher’s? Do you own these two parcels that is the residential subdivision in fee?

Larry Bucher stated we have a mortgage. We are the owner in record.

Mr. Read asked when did you buy this property?

Larry Bucher stated 20 months ago.

Mr. Read stated you came before the Plan Commission on that date, which was mentioned before and I don’t remember that you ever mentioned the fact that you had plans to develop that area as industrial.

Larry Bucher stated that is correct.




Mr. Read stated you do agree that there are potential conflicts between industrial and residential. You have had some experience in developing residential subdivisions. Do the purchasers of your residential subdivisions come to you and ask you about surrounding zoning.

Larry Bucher stated I don’t recall ever being asked that.

Mr. Cole stated most home owners expect to change homes in seven years according to the national statistics and probably say if I don’t like it here I can get out from underneath it. If someone wants to buy in and industrial park they will buy it at market value or negotiate the value if the sellers is desperate. By just simply stating that industrial property is higher than residential that is a matter of statistics and statistics take averages and averages mean that there are some above and some below. I don’t know if talking about values of property really is very relevant to much of anything. The opportunity exists here. The Buchers have a wonderful opportunity here to present a show case industrial park that is an entrance to Valparaiso University and an entrance to the City of Valparaiso. Right now the industry’s occupying that spot are not the prettiest. The opportunity exists but I haven’t seen a good plan.

Dean Bucher stated I would like to respond to my e-mail. At this time, Mr. Bucher apologized to the neighbors that he may have hurt by his e-mail. At this time, Mr. Bucher read his e-mail to Commissioner Harper.

Mr. Burge stated first of all I would like to know who lives near here. We need to do a better job separating residential and industrial lands. The Buchers have a tremendous amount at stake here as well. With all of the discussion here there has been a lot of talk about land use and what was used first or not. Yes it is farm land but as I look up here I see industrial, industrial, industrial, industrial, industrial etc. Powder Tech is probably one of the first buildings in this whole area. If you are going to make the argument of land use, this is the first development here. So that set the precedent. At some point the residents have a responsibility to look around at where you are buying a home or where you are building a home what is close by and what could the future hold. Since 1959 this has all been industrial. So that possibility has always been there. If the roles were reversed and there were residential and then a factory shows up that would be the absolute wrong thing to do. But it was industrial first and the homes came second. I believe it is a little bit disingenuous on one hand to be talking about planning and economic development and county redevelopment. At the same time, someone is attempting to do that and you are


trying to cut them off at the knees. As far as kind of roasting the Bucher’s on disclosing the I-2 with the Augustine deal I think that this Board has just as much responsibility. We went through that whole discussion and we missed it. As far as helping to make sure that what is going to happen does take place, it would appear that the Bucher’s whole livelihood depends upon development, whether it is residential, commercial or industrial. You build long term relationships when you do that. You have to have trust and integrity. From the people that know the Bucher’s and have worked with them they have all indicated that they have the up most integrity of these folks. It is to their best interest to make sure that this will work as they say it will. I agree with Elizabeth Marshall when she said that the Bucher’s did everything right. They invested in an I-2 development and to suddenly change it how are they going to get compensated if we do that.

Mr. Burns asked what types of businesses will be there.

Larry Bucher stated we have been approached by several other people in the construction industry. Our plan is to limit what kind of business would go in there that we want to be neighbors with.

Mr. Burns asked would you sign a letter of commitment on what business’s that would be allowed in that area.

Mr. Leeth stated to answer your question what we are willing to do is kind of turn the tables a little bit and we don’t want to start from what you will allow. What we want to start is with what you don’t want to see.

Mr. Detert stated we get comments that say we have professional opinions on this. None of these remonstrators that live in the neighborhood said that their opinions were professional. They said it was opinions from living there. You said that yours was professional and that is all I am saying is that is deceiving unless you back it up.

Mr. Leeth stated no one wants something in paper that is evidence that if I have to go to court on my clients’ behalf I could have that. We have talked to the Buchers about that. I want that. If we have to protect our rights in court, I certainly want that. It wasn’t available to us because the professional wasn’t going to put it on paper for fear of retribution.

Mr. Detert stated bad industrial doesn’t command high prices. It depends on what you put in there. To say in general that all industrial property is higher priced doesn’t cut it.


Mr. Leeth stated I agree with that.

Mr. Detert stated I think our job here is to produce the best places to live for the people in Porter County.

Mr. Hutson asked Mr. Gardin do you think that the current industry that is out there has any affect on the health and ability of your students and staff at your school?

Mr. Gardin stated you are asking me to make a medical opinion.

Mr. Hutson asked do you see any unusual autism rates, lower I-STEP scores?

Mr. Gardin stated the I-STEP scores are higher than the State average.

Mr. Hutson asked with the motion that we have on the floor what type of impact will it have on your parcels is we choose to change this to RR and keep yours as I-2?

Mr. Gardin stated if our property remains I-2 then we will assume that I-2 is more valuable then rural residential.

Mr. Breitzke stated I have every reason to believe that the developer might have accepted a lower type of use of the property something that might be received by the neighborhood, absent of nuisances, limited hours, watchful of light pollution and noise pollution, order and dust pollution. Also, I brought up the suggestion because I knew the issues that the school had that they work with the school to bring a road across to alleviate the traffic. The traffic is not going to let up regardless of what happens on this stretch of road for all the growth that is happening out at that site. I do have concerns on condemnation without remediation.

Motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

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

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 06-Z-9 to the County Commissioners with no recommendation. Motion failed due to a lack of a second.





Mr. Burge moved to forward Case 06-Z-9 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on January 9, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.

Case 06-Z-11. Petition of Bruce Rackouski, c/o William Rensberger, Agent, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from AG, Agriculture & Open Space to RR, Rural Residential to be located on the West side of CR 600 W., North of CR 500 S. with Yellowstone Subdivision bordering to the North in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Greg Babcock stated I am representing Bruce Rackouski and Mr. Rensberger is here to answer any questions. Our request is to look at rezoning approximately 72 acres in Porter Township from AG to RR. Rural residential does allow for residential development in the county. The Yellowstone Subdivision is adjacent to it. They have a road proposed that would meet up with a road that we would be preparing in our subdivision. This particular site is five miles to the Town of Hebron. It is about nine miles to U.S. 30. On the board is a sketch drawing that gives us a perspective as to what we might be able to do with the 72 acres that we have. There is a 14 acre parcel there that we are looking not to develop rather leave that as our open space. This would set our lots 700 feet off of CR 600 W. There are some home owners on that side of the road. There are about four homes that would sit in here on the road adjacent to our parcel. The way we are looking at it we will be setting our homes 700 feet deep. We will have one entrance. We are trying to build a subdivision adjacent to another existing subdivision set back far that it gives it a standard look when you drive down the road and you see homes on the roadway going all the way straight back to the bitter end. The lots would be one acre of usable ground. The Cornell Ditch lies along the boundary line near the roadway and that is where the water currently goes in this particular site. It drains from the back to the front. There will be well and septic.

Bruce Rackouski stated I would like to make a subdivision that kind of puts beauty through Yellowstone Subdivision that is there. The homes that I would be building would be in the high $200,000 to the low $300,000 range. It would have covenants and restrictions.

Mr. Babcock stated Bruce has indicated to me that should we moved forward as the developer and owner we would be making a commitment that this buffer area, roughly 14 acres stays in that location in the front of the property.

Dave Montozzi, 472 S. 600 W. I am against this rezoning. I am also concerned about the drainage and the number of septics that would be put on this property. I am concerned about the traffic.

Jason Pullins, 454 S. 600 W. I agree with everything the Dave said.

Lori Montozzi, 472 S. 600 W. I am in opposition to this petition. I am concerned about the drainage and the traffic.

Rick Albaugh, 444 S. 600 W. I agree with Dave and I am concerned about drainage and the pollution of the wells.

Karen Albaugh, 444 S. 600 W. I agree with what has been said.

Elizabeth Ludington-Pullins, 454 S. 600 W. I agree with what has been said. I am concerned about the ditches handling the extra water.

Neil Palmer, 8210 Ruttledge, Merrillville, Indiana. I am concerned about the watershed from this parcel. I am concerned about Cornell Ditch.

Bill Rensberger stated this is a preliminary sketch plat. The soil and terrain will dictate what happens out here. I don’t think we will get 30 one-acre usable lots here. As far as the drainage, the water flow will be slowed down by the grass and by the pond that I create, or ponds, and then it will be released out at a slow rate into the Cornell Ditch, which will tremendously help any flooding that you have out there.

Mr. Babcock stated there is change and activity from the 1959 zoning to the present. People want to come to this area and that is why we brought this petition forward.

Mr. Albaugh stated CR 600 W. can not handle any more traffic.

Mr. Montozzi stated as far as the soil up there and there are actually areas where water just leaches out of the ground and comes down the hill.

Mr. Pullins stated you can’t put a septic in a farm field.

Mr. Rensberger stated the question about the storm water, what I was saying was that I can take a fast rainfall amount and slow it down to a slower release rate so it would help the flooding that might be existing at this time.

At this time, the public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burge stated the points that have been brought up from the folks that live down hill do concern me. The septics do concern me.

Mr. Rackouski stated that most of the septic systems go buy attrition rather than percolation. At this time, Mr. Rackouski explained how the septic systems work.

Mr. Burns asked did you say the property was already checked for percolation and drainage.

Mr. Rackouski stated the drainage is taken care of by the engineer.

Mr. Rensberger stated there are some good septic soils on this site.

Mr. Burns stated my concern is if there is an issue then maybe we should be checking this.

Mr. Detert stated there are a lot of problems with the Cornell Ditch down and around Yellowstone that weren’t there before. He stated I am not sure if it was exactly the subdivision that was built there. I would like to see a lot of work done on the drainage before I would approve the subdivision.

Mr. Hutson asked Mr. Montozzi do you have livestock down there.

Mr. Montozzi stated I have horses, chickens, dogs, cats, rabbits.

Mr. Hutson asked Mr. Palmer do you farm the property south of this proposed area.

Mr. Palmer stated no, I farm the property straight east.

Mr. Hutson asked what type of slopes are we talking about here.

Mr. Rensberger stated it is quite a bit of slope. We won’t design any septics over 15%.


Mr. Hutson asked what is the percentage of slopes out there.

Mr. Rensberger stated 10%.

Mr. Cole asked is this good farm ground?

Mr. Palmer stated pretty good.

Mr. Cole asked what kind of yield do you get?

Mr. Palmer stated we get 125 to 130 bushel.

Mr. Cole stated it is a bad intersection on SR 2 and CR 600 W. is a hilly road. I am torn with this one. You have Yellowstone there and an opportunity to get another entrance into Yellowstone. If this were kept to about 30 lots with some good planning I could probably see it. So at this point I am really not completely decided. I would have to see a little bit information before I rezone something that would be permanent. On the other hand we need agriculture.

Mr. Read stated I think that the current objectors to this rezoning could certainly not be accused of not exercising due diligence and relying upon the zoning that was there. I would like to refer to the map that is on the back of our staff report. That particular map shows the surrounding area. You said this is five miles from the Town of Hebron. We have turned down subdivisions three miles from a town. Yellowstone is the only subdivision that you are relying upon to justify another subdivision. I think that this might be a little premature here.

Mrs. Marshall asked have you ever developed a subdivision in Porter County?

Mr. Rackouski stated no. I have developed down in Florida and in New Lenox, Illinois.

Mrs. Marshall asked how long have you owned this property?

Mr. Rackouski stated about a year, a year and a half.

Mrs. Marshall stated my feeling is that this is a subdivision that is before its time.

Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 06-Z-11 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion.



Discussion:

Mr. Breitzke stated we have just done the Cornell Ditch assessment so we are actually doing work on it.

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

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

This case will be heard by the Commissioners on January 9, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.

Case 06-M-3. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Storm Water Control Ordinance.

Mr. Thompson stated this is to allow an independent engineer review for subdivisions, industrial and commercial type developments.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Leeth stated I support this amendment and encourage you to adopt it. I think that this is a good amendment. I would ask that you amend the language in two respects. Number one it refers to independent engineer. We have many different kinds of engineers. Let’s make sure that we are talking about a licensed civil or professional engineer.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is Indiana State licensed professional engineer.

Mr. Leeth stated to also make sure it is an Indiana State licensed engineer.

Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 06-M-3 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation and for the language to read “Indiana State professional licensed engineer.” Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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





Other Business:

Drainage report on Walnut Ridge.

Mr. Detert stated we met several times. We interviewed staff and staff sat in on a couple of the meetings. We interviewed the developer and the builder of the complaints home. We were satisfied from the input from the drainage engineers. The tile that they had installed and it wasn’t 100% complete but it was installed in a manner that would serve this property. We believe that this drainage is going to work. There are three inlets that at the end of the lot of this particular property and not on that property but off of it. There are a couple other drainage inlets to the side of this property and we do feel that this is going to handle the drainage issues. One thing that we would recommend that the home owner do and it has been offered by the builder of the house and the developer, to regrade the lot and make sure that all the grading is to those inlets. The developer has offered to connect up the downspouts and the sump pump to that drainage line but neither one will go on the property because they feel that they may get the Sheriff called on them. They need some kind of written permission to go out there to do this work and they are willing to do that work. As far as the elevation of the home, we don’t feel that there is anything in the ordinance that would give us the authority to change any elevations on the home and that would be strictly up to the home owner, I assume, to look for civil litigation if he feels that is incorrect. We don’t think we could make that call because we don’t have the backup for the ordinance. Since all of that transpired and what has just transpired in the last few days is that the builder of the complainant’s home has sent a letter to their attorney certified mail offering to buy the house back with a specified amount to be provided by him for appreciation of the home. To my knowledge they don’t have a response to that yet. But he has offered money as well as buying the home back. I don’t know how much fairer the builder could be with that. We are confident that this thing should resolve.

Mr. Detert stated the Sanders property that you inquired about we found that there has not been any water in the barn. We do feel that it needs some watching from the Timberland Subdivision. As far as the Gray property we have not had a chance to look at that yet.

Michele Talmage stated I would like to start by telling you that they offered to bury our drains and our sump pump is a complete fabrication. Nobody has ever approached us with that.

Mr. Detert stated I have a letter…


Mrs. Talmage stated it says they will bury our neighbors.

Mr. Detert stated at our meeting they told us that he offered that. I will go back to him and have him put it in writing.

Mr. Thompson stated we were told too that Mr. Talmage told them that if he enters their property that you would call the Sheriff and have them removed and that was his response to bury the sump pump lines and also to take the roof tile drainage.

Mrs. Talmage stated that is what he is telling you. He wanted to pull from the low spot and bring that dirt up to the high spot, which makes the low spot even lower. We are in negotiations with them to solve this. We have been getting quotes from landscaping companies and it is not anywhere near what it is going to take to fix it. I would like to know whose job is it to make sure what goes on the plats.

Mr. Detert stated we don’t see anything in the ordinance that gives us the possibility of forcing anybody to change the elevation of your house.

Mr. Talmage asked who enforces the numbers on the plats.

Mr. Read asked does reality of these floor levels differ from what is shown on the developers drawing.

Mr. Talmage stated yes.

Mr. Read asked by how many inches.

Mr. Talmage stated 22 inches.

Mr. Thompson stated we have no ordinance…this was additional information that was given by the developer at the time this subdivision was approved. I have no ordinance that requires elevations to be given with an Improvement Location Permit. We have told the Talmage’s before that this is information that they can take to their attorney and file a civil lawsuit against their builder. I have nothing that will allow me to go in and enforce any of this and the ability to enforce any of this within that subdivision.

Mr. Read stated since the developer didn’t put the elevations on the drawing…

Mr. Thompson stated they are on the drawing.



Mr. Read asked why don’t you have the ability to double-check it.

Mr. Thompson stated number one I don’t have the equipment and I don’t have the staff. We don’t have a professional land surveyor on staff at the Plan Commission to be able to do this. We don’t have the people. We also don’t have the ordinance to go in there and enforce this and that is the biggest thing. We told the Talmages that because that information is on these plats that they have the ability to go and hire an attorney and file a civil lawsuit against the people who built the house.

Mr. Talmage stated I would also like to say that our yard is still staying wet.

Mrs. Talmage asked what are you going to do to ensure that this isn’t going to happen to somebody else.

Mr. Breitzke stated first of all I want to make it clear that we don’t have an ordinance that establishes elevations.

Commissioner Harper stated we have to get Bob some more help. That is one of the first things we need to do. I am ready to go to the County for this.

Commissioner Harper stated we need to make sure this doesn’t happen again. We have to think at the end of these meetings what have we learned at this meeting that we could do better in the future.

Mr. Talmage stated I thought you said that the Plan Commission didn’t have a surveyor.

Mr. Breitzke stated not on Mr. Thompson’s staff.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.

Porter County
Plan Commission


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP