 |
PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION Special Meeting March 7, 2007 M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke, President. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Breitzke stated that this meeting is being held tonight because the cases that are on the agenda were originally to have been heard on February 14, 2007, at which time the building was closed due to inclement weather. Mr. Breitzke then read the rules of conduct for a public hearing. New Business: Case 07-P-2. Petition of DBL Development, LLC, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, Indiana, seeking primary plat review for Arborview Industrial Park, to be located on the East side of CR 325 E., approximately .31 miles north of Evans Road, in Washington Township, Porter county, Indiana. (To contain 26 lots on 41.13 acres. Property is zoned I-2.) Attorney Steve Hardin, 600 E. 96th St., Indianapolis, stated that he is representing the petitioner and that he is accompanied by Larry Bucher of DBL; John Sturgill and Randy Peterson from McMahon Associates; and the soil scientist, John McQuestion. He stated that this is for approximately 41 acres and is for a business park in I-2 zoning. He stated that this has gone through technical and staff review and they have submitted the required primary plat and supporting materials. He stated that they would request approval and would be happy to answer any questions, but they believe that the materials that have been submitted demonstrate compliance with all the requirements of the subdivision control ordinance. Tammy Evans, 345 Long Bow Ct., Valparaiso. She stated she speaks for several people in the subdivision. She stated that she wanted to know if this is just for the plat, not for specific buildings going in. Mr. Breitzke stated that’s correct. Ms. Evans’ concerns revolved around traffic and the adequacy of the roads to handle it, as well as maintenance of the roads. She was concerned about parking, landscaping and its timeline for implementation, drainage and the kinds of businesses that would be going in the industrial park and whether or not they would add additional noise. Mr. Hardin stated he can answer a lot of the questions, but some of them are not germane to whether the plat complies with the standards of the subdivision control ordinance. He stated that the rule under Indiana law is that if the plat complies with the standards of the subdivision control ordinance then the plat must be approved. He stated that this development will comply with all state statutes and ordinances regarding traffic and vehicle weights; it’s a matter of law. He stated that there are accel and decel lanes. He stated that parking will comply with all ordinances at the appropriate point in time. He stated that the plat before you complies with all the County’s ordinances, and there are no requirements for landscaping along the perimeter, but the developers plan to go above and beyond the requirements and will have an earthen berm with plantings along 325 and along the North, where this borders residences. He stated since these are not required, they are not here tonight to negotiate commitments or have conditions attached to the plat application that are beyond what’s required by subdivision control. Mr. Breitzke stated that screening is required, but he appreciates the effort to go above and beyond. Mr. Hardin stated that lighting complies with all regulations at the time of building permits. Regarding drainage, he will defer to Mr. Sturgill for answers. Mr. Sturgill stated that drainage will be collected in curb and gutter in the roadways, as well as a network of storm sewers directing the water to a detention basin with a forebay ahead of it. Storm water will be collected in the Northeast corner and there are two easements adjacent to Lots 16 and 17. Discharge is coordinated with Augustine. There will be a pipe discharge that will run through Augustine and tie into their storm sewer. Mr. Bucher is one of Augustine’s developers and anticipated this. It will flow through and is bypassed out through their pond for discharge. There will be no impacts for anything West of the berm on the site at 325. All storm water will be captured and taken to the pond. Mr. Hardin stated that the internal road will be public. Hours of operation will comply with what the County dictates. Covenants and restrictions are proposed to maintain and enhance the value within the development. Again, he stated, these are above and beyond what’s required for plat approval. These will protect the investment of the businesses there. Regarding noise, that is governed by County ordinances and will be complied with. Uses involved will comply with the zoning ordinances and its table of permitted uses. The covenants and restrictions also exclude certain businesses, like kennels, adult uses and auto repair. Mr. Breitzke stated that there is an outstanding issue of outside storage. Mr. Hardin stated, again, they are here for primary plat and the uses are not an issue at this time. Any ordinances that the County has will be complied with, and the covenants prohibit outside storage behind the building line for those lots. Commissioner Harper stated he doesn’t think anything should be shared with us unless they are committing to it. Mr. Breitzke stated that in the Brooks Development, the industrial park ordinance really isn’t existent; at that time, development plans were not brought for public hearing. That policy has changed and more review is now required. Ms. Evans asked if the detention pond is going to be next to Augustine and if it’s not going to be touching the school property. She would like to see fencing along its edge to protect children. She wanted to know who will maintain the road. Mr. Breitzke stated that they intend to give it to the County upon our acceptance. Mr. Sturgill stated that the pond will be in the Northeast corner and will front on the school property, as well as this new subdivision. Augustine had allocated about 60 feet of property that was not included in a lot to facilitate the discharge pipe that will run through and tie into their storm sewer system in the roadway. The pond will be a dry basin and will fill up during a storm event and then drain out completely. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns asked if the drainage that will flow through Augustine will impose a hardship on them. Mr. Hardin stated that Augustine had calculated and accounted for the runoff from this site in their storm sewer system. Mr. Sturgill stated that they are capturing it before it hits Augustine, detaining it, and releasing it at the same rate that they designed their system for. It enters into their system at the same rate that it would pre-development. Mr. Burns asked if they are not willing to make commitments regarding outside storage now or regarding the types of businesses or noise levels. Mr. Hardin stated this is not a discretionary hearing; they are here to see if they comply with the terms of the subdivision control ordinance. He stated that they are planning to have no outside storage allowed behind the rear building lines on the lots along 325, and that will be in the covenants and restrictions. It’s not appropriate to have a condition attached to approval because that’s above and beyond the purview of the board here for primary plat. This is what they are planning to do, but they are not making a legally binding commitment for that. Mr. Sturgill stated that there are two other covenant items that address outside storage. One says that all materials stored outside would be fenced or stored in containers; the other says that any outside storage that is viewable from a public road must be landscaped. All materials stored outside must also be rotated every 90 days. Mr. Burns asked about the noise level. Mr. Hardin stated that that says that they will comply with the local regulations. Mr. Sturgill stated that there is an item that says there will be no outside loudspeakers or devices of any type to be installed or used on the property. Commissioner Harper stated that they are not committing to any of this. He stated that he thought they were going to commit to these things; that would make it go a lot smoother. He stated that if they are not committed to, they are nothing. Mr. Hardin stated that he thinks it is a commitment of the covenant. Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s a commitment to the people within the development. Commissioner Harper stated that their attorney is saying that they are not even committing to the covenants to the people in the development, if he understands them correctly. Mr. Hardin stated that he’s trying to be clear because these types of meetings can get off track if the Plan Commission is asking developers to make commitments to things that are outside the scope of the subdivision control ordinance. He stated that, in good faith, they’ve heard what’s been requested and they’ve included a lot of those things in their covenants and restrictions and they are saying that that’s their plan. Commissioner Harper stated that that’s not the commitment to the people in the subdivision here tonight, so it’s nothing. He stated that we appreciate the lecture on law, but, getting down to the nitty-gritty, they are not committing to anything here tonight. Mr. Detert stated that he agrees with Commissioner Harper that covenants don’t mean anything if you are not committing. The people in the subdivision want to know what you are going to do, so he thinks it’s appropriate for you to say that you are going to commit to the covenants at this point. He’s not happy that you are taking the approach you are taking. Mr. Hardin stated that the property was zoned I-2 long before any residences were ever built there. Mr. Detert stated that he doesn’t care about that; he cares about what the plan is and what they are committing to. Mr. Hardin stated that that’s what they are concerned about. The question before the board is does this plat comply with the ordinance. To ask them to make commitments that are above and beyond that is not appropriate. They have shared what they plan to do. Mr. Detert stated that he thinks it is appropriate; the people that live there want to know and they want to know now. Mr. Hutson stated that the development has 26 lots and asked if they are going to have 26 buildings. Mr. Hardin stated that they don’t know how many buildings there will be. There may be some uses that will require more than one property. Mr. Hutson asked if there will be parking right along the streetway. Mr. Hardin stated it will be a function of what the square footage is of the property and meeting the parking ordinance requirements, as well as special needs above and beyond the ordinance. Mr. Hutson asked if they are not committing to any restrictive covenants that was given to them previously at all. Mr. Hardin stated that they are providing those and they are trying to be very precise so that they don’t leave a record that is clear. Mr. Bucher is willing to tell you that that is his commitment, that he is going to record these covenants. They want to be real clear that that’s not something that is appropriate as a condition of approval. If you are wanting to know whether he is committing and making that representation to you that that is what he is going to do, the answer is yes. He stated that they are just trying to be real clear, because Plan Commission meetings can get off track and someone might ask what is the use that they are going to put there or commit to not having certain uses and what does the petitioner do in that situation. DBL does commit that those are the covenants that they plan to be recorded, subject to technical review. Commissioner Harper asked if they want it understood that they don’t have to agree to these things, but they are at least agreeing to those that they presented to us in that plan. Mr. Hardin stated, that’s correct. Commissioner Harper stated that he thinks he’s saying that he wants us to understand that he didn’t have to, but he’s going to commit to those things that he presented to us, if he understands that correctly. Mr. Hardin stated, if I understand that that’s what the Commission is asking us to do, the answer is yes. Mr. Cole stated that he has a problem in that this has been industrial for a long time and it’s been a farm field for a long time, during which time the area has become residential. He realizes the law is on DBL’s side in many instances, but DBL has, itself, made part of that area residential. He’s asked DBL to come up with a plan that will be amenable to the community and he sees a bunch of dense lots, not really creatively laid out. There’s a community out there and this must fit into that community. It’s I-2 when it becomes I-2; right now it’s agricultural in use. Quality means exceeding standards. If DBL wants to continue calling this a quality development it is up to them, but we need to hear that tonight. Mr. Read stated that he has a revision dated December 29, 2006 and asked if that is the drawings that we are talking about. Mr. Sturgill stated, yes. Mr. Read stated the issue is whether or not the petitioner has taken proper precautions to protect the residential areas bordering this and when we had the public hearing on this, the petitioner pledged to do just that. Mr. Hardin stated that he’s not aware of a public hearing on this. Mr. Read stated that this has come before us on previous occasions. He doesn’t know if it was technically a public hearing. Commissioner Harper stated that that was on the rezone. Mr. Read stated that, as he recalls, there was a pledge by the developers to protect the residential areas. They show a berm on the plan that says 4 feet high. What is the base of that berm? Mr. Sturgill stated he believes it’s 15 feet. Mr. Read asked if that’s in writing – it scales about 10 feet. Mr. Sturgill stated that the detail on Sheet 11 shows a maximum side slope of 31, which would be 12 feet out from the centerline in either direction for the base of the berm. He stated that that would be a full width of 24; he misspoke before. Mr. Read stated that on the West they are bounded by the roadway and that’s a residential area. To the North, is a residential area, Augustine. On the East side, part of it is school property, which is zoned industrial, and part is residential. He asked where the division is. Can he point out to him the approximate Northern boundary of the school property? Mr. Sturgill stated that he can’t do that definitively. Mr. Read stated that he’s seen maps of the zoning of adjacent properties. At least a portion of the East boundary is zoned residential. Mr. Bucher stated that he thinks it’s all residential, except for maybe just the bottom corner. Mr. Read asked who owns that property. Mr. Bucher stated, the East Porter County School Corporation. Mr. Read asked if he owns any of the property on the East boundary. Mr. Bucher stated, no. Mr. Read asked why we don’t have a berm on that side. Mr. Sturgill stated that there is an existing easement along that property and they were willing to change the wording of that to include a buffer easement, screening easement, along that portion of the property abutting residential zoning. Mr. Read asked if they are committing to placing a berm along the East boundary where there is residentially zoned area. Mr. Hardin asked if he is asking them to do something above what the ordinance requires. Mr. Read stated, no, he’s asking them whether the ordinance requires it or not whether the petitioner will fulfill an earlier pledge to protect surrounding residential areas with a vegetative berm. Mr. Breitzke stated that when they were at the previous hearing they made commitments and the first one was that they agreed to construct a green screen of trees and evergreens per the directions of Plan Commission staff to best buffer the businesses in the proposed area. They also agreed to construct a berm using topsoil with alternating rows of evergreens. Mr. Bucher stated that they offered to do that in hopes of you withdrawing the rezoning case. The school property is undeveloped, so when they are talking about residential property, that’s property where there are houses. Mr. Read stated that he doesn’t recall that that was their answer. The drawings here identify the area to the East as future residential. Mr. Breitzke stated that if it’s RR, you’re required to have screening and it’s along the school property, as well. Mr. Hardin stated that DBL does agree to make the commitment to do what was said at that hearing. Mr. Read stated that he’s including, besides the East boundary, the North end of the detention basin for a vegetative berm. Are they committing to revising these plans to put in a vegetative berm North of the detention basin that abuts Augustine, and, along the East boundary, at least the portion that is zoned residential? Mr. Sturgill stated that the only thing they are concerned about is placing the landscaped berm adjacent to the detention basin. Because of the storm water ordinance and design manual and the spillway design, they need to accommodate the spillway plan, shown on Sheet 3, that’s 50 foot wide that they need to maintain, so they would ask that they be able to maintain that property through the spillway to allow the water to discharge from the pond in an emergency. A landscaped berm there would hinder that. Mr. Read stated, unless they move the detention basin to the West and reduce the size of some lots. Mr. Sturgill stated that it doesn’t matter; the spillway still has to discharge somewhere along the North line. Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks they could accomplish it through the berm and just have a spillway. Mr. Read asked if they want to preserve the idea of a spillway going North onto some future residential owner’s property. Mr. Sturgill stated that it’s an outlot in Augustine that was dedicated from the beginning to carry storm water flow from this site. Mr. Read asked if we have the commitment, except for this Northern outlet. He asked if this is a commitment or not. Mr. Hardin stated that he believes earlier that they made that a commitment. Commissioner Harper stated that the attorney is saying that he’s going to stand by those earlier commitments. Ms. Marshall asked if it’s correct that none of the lots that face on 325 E. will outlet onto the road, except the one entrance into the subdivision. Mr. Sturgill stated, yes. Ms. Marshall asked if she thinks that one ingress-egress is enough in an industrial subdivision; is that adequate for businesses that may have semis and other similar vehicles? In any development in Porter County, they strive to have at least two points of ingress and egress. Mr. Sturgill stated that they’ve done a couple of things to make ingress-egress easier at the request of the Highway engineer: They’ve widened the roadway to 30 feet, back to back, 3 feet wider than the Highway standard for the County. They’ve also added emergency access adjacent to the East Porter County property on the East. At the Southerly cul-de-sac, they’ve got an emergency access easement of 30 feet. The emergency access, at this point, would probably be nothing more than a grass creek type with reinforced soil to allow vehicles to pass over it. Mr. Bucher stated that the school asked for that. He stated that they granted that easement so that if they ever develop that property they would have access through there for emergency vehicles, or, to get their buses out. Ms. Marshall asked what the radii is on the cul-de-sac. Can a fire truck turn around? Mr. Sturgill stated that it’s 50 feet to the back of curb and 5 feet more to the back of right-of-way. Mr. Thompson stated that that meets Highway engineering standards, 100 foot diameter and 50 foot radius. Ms. Marshall asked if the spillway is always going to be wet bottom. Mr. Sturgill stated that the pond itself will be a dry bottom detention basin. The spillway is a means of accentuating emergency overflow of the pond, if needed ever. Ms. Marshall asked if they are going to direct all the drainage from the subdivision down to that in roadside ditches. Mr. Sturgill stated, no, it’s all in storm sewer. Ms. Marshall asked if it’s going to be fenced in. Mr. Sturgill stated, no. Ms. Marshall asked if a POA will take care of its maintenance. Mr. Sturgill stated, yes. Ms. Marshall stated that she’s concerned about the one ingress-egress. If we had some kind of event at the corner of 325 E. and Long Prairie Court and we had industrial occupants there who may or may not have hazardous material that they work with, how are they going to get around that? Mr. Sturgill stated that they’ve widened both the entrance and roads and provided emergency access easement for the school. In terms of an accident that might happen at the intersection of 325 E. and Long Prairie Court, outside of using the emergency access easement, that’s the only provisions they’ve made. Ms. Marshall asked where the entrance is to Lot 1 off 325 because you have to be so many feet back from the road. Will there be an architectural committee that reviews – will there be a theme? Mr. Bucher stated that there will be an architectural committee and there will be a theme. He stated that it’s cut up into lots of lots to provide flexibility. He hopes that Lot 1 will be combined with Lot 2 to provide more flexibility on where the drive can be. That will come back to the Plan Commission when the businesses come for site review. Ms. Marshall stated that the entrance to Lots 22 through 26 is going to be through Arborview Drive and the back yard of those lots will be on 325 and often undesirable things happen in back yards. How will those lots have the opportunity to add outside storage? Mr. Bucher stated that the lots along 325 can’t store things behind the building and lights will be shielded. They are also doing berming and landscaping to protect that. Ms. Marshall stated that the classification of 325 limits what they can bring into this subdivision. Mr. Bucher stated that he thinks that should give the Plan Commission great comfort to know that there won’t be businesses with heavy trucks. Ms. Marshall stated that the Highway Department could grant exception to use the road. Commissioner Harper stated that the way he understands this that although they don’t have to, they are submitting to these covenants as part of the approval of this plan and the statements they made at the other hearing and that makes him feel better. Do we have all the required drainage calculations? Mr. Breitzke stated, yes. Commissioner Harper asked if we need an easement from the subdivision allowing… Mr. Breitzke stated that they committed to that at Drainage Board. They also needed permission to release into the ditch that goes through the middle of Augustine. Commissioner Harper asked what the lighting commitments are. Mr. Hardin stated that those are addressed in Paragraph 16. Mr. Burns asked if there are any other original commitments. Mr. Breitzke stated that some of them addressed the issue of signage for the businesses with frontage along 325 E. They also limited noise to not overspill their property lines and said they would design streets to provide the school with emergency exit through the park. (The commitments are contained in minutes from a previous meeting.) He tried to get the developers and the school together to look at an access onto 2. It’s important to have two accesses. Mr. Burns asked if they are going to agree to their original commitments. Mr. Breitzke stated that they said they would. Mr. Read stated that we have some wording that has to be run past the legal counsel to make sure that the berm and vegetation remain there at least as long as the subdivision is there and we want to make sure there is a commitment to that effect and that the berm can’t be used for any other purposes. Mr. Hardin stated that they are saying that they will stand by the representations and commitments that were made at the hearing and they will work with the Plan Commission attorney to make sure those are in a written form that everyone is satisfied with. He stated that he doesn’t know how to answer restricting the use of the berm. Mr. Read stated that he’s asking that it be maintained and not removed and the attorney has said that a note to that effect has to go on the plot plan, not just in the covenants. Mr. Breitzke stated that we want another note on the plat saying what uses will be excluded. Mr. Detert stated that in Item 22 of the covenants it says that the enforcing party will be entitled to recover from any person etc. etc. What is the definition of the enforcing party? Mr. Hardin stated that the covenants are binding on all the property owners and there will be an owners’ association that will enforce the covenants and they will be the enforcing party. Mr. Detert asked if the people running it fail to do something and one party or more inside the subdivision wants another party inside the subdivision to adhere to the covenants, then are they the enforcing party? Mr. Hardin stated that he doesn’t know the answer to that, but the bylaws would address that. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-P-2 until they get all the changes that were requested. Mr. Read seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Breitzke stated that the exit is to be built for the school buses. Mr. Hardin stated that some of the things talked about are outside what the ordinance calls for – is there anything that needs to be redocumented as to the additional commitments? Mr. Breitzke stated that there is a motion on the floor. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-P-2 to the March 28th meeting to get all the changes that were requested, including providing an exit for school buses. Mr. Read seconded the motion, which carried on an 8-0 roll call vote. Discussion: Mr. Detert stated that this board can ask any questions they want. It’s up to a judge to tell us if they are appropriate or not, not the petitioner. Mr. Hardin stated that they have counsel, as well. Case 07-P-1. Petition of Cherry Hill Development, LLC, 356 N. 250 W., Valparaiso, seeking primary plat approval for Cherry Hill Subdivision, to be located at 356 N. 250 W., in Union and Center townships, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 232 lots on 161.28 acres. Property is zoned R-1.) Attorney Bill Ferngren stated that he and Gary Radtke, the engineer for the project, and Bill Weigand, the consulting designer for the project, are representing Vaughan and Sharlyn Staab in this matter. The property is about 161 acres and is zoned R-1, located on the West side of 250 W., between SR 130 and Joliet Road. About a year ago they filed a rezone petition from I-2 and RR to R-1. They got an unfavorable recommendation from the Plan Commission for that rezone, but, after the motion was made, the board said they just didn’t like the sizes of the lots that were shown and that they would feel more comfortable with larger lots. There was a public hearing before the County Commissioners on June 20th and there was another meeting after that on the rezone, resulting in Ordinance 06-08, which rezoned the property to R-1. There were commitments made at that time that took into account the comments of the Plan Commission members and the County Commissioners, in particular, and attached to the ordinance rezoning the property, that provided that no lot shall be less than 11,000 square feet; there shall be no more than 252 lots for residential development; and that they shall incorporate a vegetative swale and rain gardens in the storm water management plan. That all took effect and they incorporated all the written commitments that were made at that time into this plan. It’s 161 acres and 238 single-family residential lots, 14 fewer than what they were permitted to have. One of the lots is an existing home, so there would be 237 new developed lots and they are all at least 11,000 square feet or greater. There are no Variances as part of the petition tonight. There are two entrances for the development, both on 250 W. The North entrance would be Cherry Hill Lane. It’s been improved to provide 55 mile an hour visibility in both directions, as requested by the Highway Department. The South entrance is Apple Grove Lane and it’s improved to County standards and it exceeds 55 mile an hour visibility. On each, there are two lanes heading out. Heading into the subdivision it’s a turn-in only lane. All the interior streets are public and designed to County standards. There is a roundabout in the project around the middle of the Southern boundary, which will provide for the free flow of traffic there. They worked with the Highway Department to work out that plan and they are comfortable with it. The interior of that would be decorative landscaping and that sort of thing. The street names have all been approved. The thoroughfare plan generally asks that roads be located on Section lines, but that doesn’t always work out. He stated that it’s heavily wooded and doesn’t really need a road in that location, so they are moving the road to the North and ask that that portion of that thoroughfare road not be required as part of this plan. He stated that he believes that the Development Advisory Committee supports that. He stated that they have shown the dedicated right-of-way for the extension of SR 149 on the drawings, whether or not that road will ever be there. They have shown extensions from the proposed roads to allow for extensions of roads in the future. He stated that if 149 never happens, it may be appropriate to extend those roads. They would like to consider some sort of revisionary interest in that if the 149 right-of-way is ultimately abandoned, that that property would then revert back to the owners. There are sidewalks throughout and all the lots are in compliance with lot requirements. Wetlands are all shown on Sheet 6. Flood plains and watersheds have been shown; they are in the Salt Creek watershed area. Traffic control signs are identified on the plans. Topographic survey is all in place; the site has some dramatic changes in slope, particularly towards the Salt Creek corridor. It will have Valparaiso City water and sewer. There will be a POA to maintain all the open space and control the development. Covenants have been submitted. There is a great deal of open space – they have provided 61 acres out of the 161 acres for open space, approximately 38 percent. The lots along the entrance along 250 W. have been pulled back to provide a buffer between the homes and the County roads. One of the open space areas is the former motocross area that’s been abandoned since the R-1 zoning. This area is about 11.5 acres, with wetlands and ponds. This area has an amazing stand of trees and they incorporate a trail system in there. The Salt Creek area has about 36 acres of woods, wetlands and trail area and is very pristine. Because of the proximity to Salt Creek, there is a very unique opportunity for drainage. Mr. Radtke stated that they were directed by their client to develop an environmentally friendly subdivision. They are working with vegetative swales, rain gardens, dry ponds and wet ponds. All this area will go into this dry pond, and then into the wet pond and then they will go to pond 3 and that will eliminate any water going off the property into the regulated drain. They then direct it into wet pond 5. Each will have a forebay. It will then go into the wetlands and then into Salt Creek. The normal 100-year storm event produces around 1 cubic foot a second of flow. The discharge for the whole subdivision is going to be .01 cubic feet per second. Right now about 91 cfs can get into Salt Creek, either by existing pipe or just drainage; they are going to be controlling that. They will also be cleaning and treating the water with the vegetative ponds and the rain gardens, forebays and dry ponds. Mr. Ferngren stated that the plan conforms to the ordinance and also contains all the things they agreed to do as part of the written commitments and they would request approval for the plan. Neal Molengraft, 322 N. 250 W., stated that he requests to speak last. Ms. Marshall stated that she has a copy of the Feb. 12, 2007 Drainage Board minutes and Cherry Hill was reviewed then. In the minutes, Mr. Pumroy stated that it’s the consensus of the Board to approve the concept prepared by Cherry Hill, subject to the details on vacation, regulated drains etc. She asked if this has been approved by Drainage Board. Mr. Breitzke stated they have done all that’s required. Ms. Marshall asked if they have presented plans to the Drainage Board. Mr. Breitzke stated that they have. Ms. Marshall asked what happened. Mr. Breitzke stated that they just want to see more. They are asking to vacate a regulated drain, which is not usual. There is also the issue of setting assessments. They also asked the developers to dedicate that portion of Salt Creek in their land holdings to be part of a regulated drain, although it’s disconnected; the regulated drain stops way to the South on William Tanke’s farm, about 300 feet West of 250 W. Commissioner Harper stated that he felt really good about what they did a week ago on that subdivision where they had DLZ review. Why did they have them do that? It seemed those people had their plans together. Mr. Thompson stated that he requested that of the petitioner, although the application was in prior to the ordinance. Mr. Ferngren took it back and said that they did not want to do it. Commissioner Harper stated that his point is that when they got to that hearing, they had specific, concrete information they could ask questions about and deal with the drainage plans. We are just shooting in the dark here. Mr. Ferngren stated that he doesn’t think we are. He is aware of the other subdivision and they have different drainage issues. This site doesn’t have drainage problems and the plan is extremely comprehensive and accommodates all opportunities to vacate the regulated drain, thus taking a burden off the County because that section of the drain is not functioning properly. This will get it to function through installation of new storm sewer. They don’t feel like the DLZ report is necessary here. Mr. Breitzke stated that they can get back to this later. They are entitled to be here and the public is entitled to hear the case. Ms. Marshall stated that it says they will be back to the Drainage Board for another meeting. Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s not unusual. Commissioner Harper stated that he didn’t say they’d go back to Drainage Board before this meeting. Mr. Breitzke stated that they don’t need to be back before this meeting. Commissioner Harper stated that what he’s been hearing, that we’ve been doing the same thing that DLZ is doing, is baloney. Jim Szentesy, 323 N. 250 W., stated that his concerns revolve around traffic on 250 and the additional burden a new subdivision would add to the traffic already there. Kay Vitoux, 327 N. 250 W., stated that they are concerned about the traffic and density and the safety of young children, and they are opposed. Howard Vitoux, 327 N. 250 W., stated that he agrees with his wife. Bonnie Vitoux, 309 N. 250 W., stated that her concerns revolve around traffic. Virgil Vitoux, 309 N. 250 W., stated that he is concerned about the traffic. Richard Vitoux, 307 N. 250 W., stated that he lives right beside Salt Creek at a low section of the road and that he is concerned about additional traffic. Darryl Vitoux, 329 N. 250 W., stated that he’s concerned about traffic. He’s also concerned about the impact City utilities would have on well and septic. Stephanie Wicke, 171 W. 700 N., stated that she thinks there is a code that requires prior approval by the Drainage Board before hearing on the primary plat. Is there a confirmation letter from Valparaiso guaranteeing that they will put water and sewer out there, and at what cost to the neighbors; does one have to get annexed in order to get City utilities, and how does that affect the neighbors? There is concern about the density. She also had concerns about drainage increase into Salt Creek. Jeff Gustke, 326 N. 250 W., stated that he stated that he has an easement across the Southern end of this subdivision and he is concerned that all the buffering should be North of that easement, as it’s his only legal access. He is concerned about improvements that could be built along that easement, such as fences. There were concerns about traffic and speed on 250 W. He also wanted to know if he would have access to the sewer. John Goetz, 331 N. 250 W., stated that there needs to be some vision of the future. He had concerns about the traffic and speed on the road and the safety of his children. Ben Gast, 254 N. 250 W., stated that he is concerned about the safety of children with the traffic. Kim Goetz, 331 N. 250 W., stated that she wants to know where the kids in the subdivision would be going to school – Hayes-Leonard is packed. Neal Molengraft, 322 N. 250 W., stated that he is concerned about changing the relatively quiet rural residential character of what was once a farming area. The density of this subdivision will provide noise pollution, light pollution and roadside trash. There are concerns about chemical aspects of the density – fertilizer and pesticides affecting water quality. There are health issues in regard to the high tension towers. There are drainage concerns. He is concerned about the sewer and water systems and crossing the wetlands with the utilities. He questioned the capacity of the sewage treatment plant to accept this and who will pay for the connection. There were issues with sewage pollution of Salt Creek. This will add to the load for already overburdened fire fighters and law enforcement personnel. He questioned the ability of the road to handle the increased traffic. Mr. Ferngren stated that most of the questions deal with traffic. He stated that they are anticipating the number of cars that the lady said earlier, but what they are doing from their entrances and exits is improving the visibility on this road. They’ve worked hard through the Development Advisory Committee to eliminate some of the vertical nature that Mr. Molengraft has talked about by providing fill in some areas, reducing the elevation at others to provide a safer viewing distance for the traveling public. The visibility is in excess of 55 miles an hour. There are going to be more cars; there’s no denying that, but they’ve worked very hard to provide all the safety measures that the Highway Engineer has asked them to do. There will be a POA to enforce subdivision rules through the court system. Regarding density, ultimately, the County Commissioners voted to change the property from General Industry to R-1 and there was discussion that they would like to see bigger lots. At that time, they had 7,000 and 8,000 square foot lots and ranged up from there. They said they would comply with the R-1 zoning classification, instead of going for the smaller lots allowed under the intensity bonus, and would make 11,000 square foot lots. Sixty acres of the site, almost 40 percent, is being set aside and not developed. This will provide space for the residents for recreation and enjoyment. This is good planning and looking to the future and an appropriate development here. The Valparaiso Utility Board, on April 25th (sic) unanimously approved extension of water and sewer to this site and all of their engineering requirements are part of this plan. The low pressure system for sewers is a system that the City is comfortable with and that they’ve worked with on design that Mr. Radtke’s engineering firm has designed and Mr. Weigand has installed and that’s the system that they want. Regarding annexation, the City does ask that you give them a petition for annexation. This does not meet their criteria for annexation. You have to have one-eighth of your external boundaries contiguous with the existing boundaries of the municipality in order to be annexed. There are no boundaries here contiguous with any part of the City and they don’t believe that there will be any contiguous, even if Brigadoon is ultimately annexed. They did, however, have to give them a petition saying that they would annex if they ever get there. The drainage report has been prepared by licensed engineers and the engineers on the Development Advisory Committee have all spent a lot of time reviewing this document and no one has raised concerns. They can’t control where the township lines are drawn regarding the schools; some of the children will go to Valparaiso Schools and some will go to Union Township and that’s a state law. The upfront cost to make all this happen is to be borne by the developer. The road alignment has been taken care of. The fire department has these plans, and they have met with city officials and no one, to this point, has made mention that the fire department is understaffed or that they somehow reject these plans. Mr. Radtke stated that there is a comment saying that they are emptying more water more rapidly and that’s not the case; they are decreasing the rate of flow tremendously by controlling it through the ponds etc. They are going to decrease it so that flooding is less of a problem. Mr. Ferngren stated that there is access to utilities provided to Mr. Gustke’s property, as well. Mr. Molengraft asked what the capacity of the ponds will be. Mr. Radtke stated that the discharge will be .81 cubic feet per second of the final pond. Mr. Breitzke stated that the question is how much storage they have. Mr. Molengraft stated that that was his key question, and then who is going to be responsible for sediment removal. When they did the calculations, did they take into account that almost all the lots would be on almost totally impervious surface? He reiterated concerns about density. How does this figure into the long-term growth plan of Valparaiso? He stated that the city management policy requires that anyone requesting access to current utilities must petition for annexation first and the city then determines if it should be annexed immediately or at a later date, but the state law is clear on requiring a certain percentage of the property to be contiguous to the city boundaries. He questioned the smaller lots when they are not sure if they are going to get City utilities. There were concerns about increased taxes if this is annexed. Ms. Wicke stated that she was not talking about the rate of the flow, but the volume of the flow of water that increases when you build houses. She is concerned about pollution to the wells from chemical application to the grass. Mr. Ferngren stated that the berm will be located outside of Mr. Gustke’s easement. POA will do maintenance here. Drainage calculations are in compliance with the ordinance and consider all the factors. The property is zoned R-1, and they can go up to 252 lots by the commitments they made. He doesn’t know what effect this will have on taxes. The developers and engineers have met several times with the Highway Department regarding improvements to 250 W. and they’ve done all that was asked of them. Regarding chemicals, he thinks some people will probably fertilize their lawns, but right now this property is farmed and farmers apply chemicals that are every bit as hazardous as anything anyone would put on their lawn, but the water doesn’t leave the site. It works its way through a series of forebays and cleansing mechanisms before it enters any area where it might get to somebody else’s property, so the quality of the storm water is far better than it is currently. Mr. Radtke stated that regarding the question on the volume of the ponds, it’s 12.267 acre feet and it was designed for 166 acres, instead of 161. Mr. Molengraft stated that they didn’t answer his question about what guarantee they will have that they have set up prior to tiling out the development areas. Mr. Ferngren stated that Mr. Weigand indicated that the drainage work would be the first work done here and in Rule 5 it also requires that that be done, as well. Mr. Molengraft stated that the letter of commitment from the City was referred to over and over; if you read that letter, it also states that you can do this if you meet certain requirements, including annexation into the City. Mr. Ferngren stated that they’ve spoken with people in the City and they are more than willing to allow them to extend utilities to this parcel. The public hearing was then closed. Commissioner Harper stated that somebody brought up the sections of the County code regarding drainage. Mr. Breitzke stated that the way the motion was stated was somewhat clumsy, but he felt the board felt that they would make this a regulated drain. The bigger issue is the vacation of a portion of the drain. Commissioner Harper asked what the provision of the code says that the person in the audience referred to. Mr. McClure stated that it indicates that the Plan Commission should have a letter from the Drainage Board indicating that it was approved as a regulated drain or not. Commissioner Harper asked what the ordinance says about us having a completed drainage plan in front of us. Mr. Breitzke stated that the current one doesn’t; the new one requires it. Mr. Burns stated that he agrees with Commissioner Harper that he wishes we had a DLZ report. He still doesn’t understand the policy about annexation and connection to City utilities. Mr. Ferngren stated that the City’s policy is that generally they want annexation, but they recognize that it isn’t always practical, but good planning would dictate that they have utilities to use and sometimes they would deviate from the policy that requires annexation before in order to allow the appropriate growth of the utilities. They are not requiring them to be annexed before they get utilities; they are simply saying that they are not going to object to being annexed. Mr. Burns stated that he is concerned about traffic being backed up because of the trains. Mr. Ferngren stated that he thinks that if the cars can’t get out of the subdivision they will not get out until the trains have passed, so they shouldn’t make the condition worse. Mr. Detert stated that he’s concerned about the traffic and he would like to know what they are going to do about leveling the hills. Mr. Ferngren stated that on Sheets 16 and 17 in the packet, there are some details on that. Mr. Radtke stated that on the Northern entrance, on that whole section they are cutting down about 3.5 foot so the people will be able to see the railroad tracks from way back. On the South entrance, there was a concern about the hill over here. They are going to fill in about 3.8 feet around where the NIPSCO entrance is and that will allow them to have 55 mile an hour sight distance. They are also lengthening the accel and decel lanes so that there will be a three-lane road from the railroad tracks almost all the way to the end of the subdivision. Mr. Detert stated that on Sheet 12 where they show Apple Grove Lane going across the 149 bypass, if that ever happens, whose responsibility is that to build that road? Mr. Ferngren stated if that was ever developed, it would be whoever developed it. Mr. Detert stated that the problem he sees is if 149 is ever built and that road not be run across there, how are they going to access that other open space? Mr. Ferngren stated that the future extension road would never happen if the bypass is put in. Mr. Radtke stated that they are trying to get the walk path. There is going to be a bridge over Salt Creek and they are trying to get a walkway under the bridge and the road will be on top the bridge. Mr. Detert asked if they are committing to that now. Mr. Radtke stated that if they can get them to build the bridge so they can get the walkway in, yes. Mr. Detert stated that the open space is useless if there is no access to it, so he would like to see some commitment that they will find a way to access it if 149 goes through. Mr. Ferngren stated that Mr. Radtke thinks that that’s doable. Mr. Detert stated that if it goes in, it will probably be a high-speed road. Mr. Breitzke stated that it would also be limited access. If they commit to building a walk at this time that preserves the right to use it. Mr. Detert stated that his whole point is that he wants to see some access to that if 149 gets built. Mr. Ferngren stated that they would provide that. Mr. Radtke stated that the commitment would be that if 149 goes through there would be a walkway so people can get to the other side. Mr. Hutson stated that he’s concerned about traffic safety on 250 W. with the increased vehicle load. On the 40 percent open space, much of that is poorly drained area. How much can you actually walk on? Mr. Ferngren stated that not every part of the open space has to be dedicated; some of it can be passive, natural area, but there are places for access. Mr. Hutson asked how much is actually ponds and wetlands. Mr. Radtke stated that he really doesn’t know. Of the 61 acres, 32 is in that area. Mr. Ferngren stated that there are trails throughout and, if there needs to be support to cross certain areas, that will be installed. Mr. Hutson asked if anyone is living in the home in the Southeast corner. Mr. Ferngren stated that it would be Mr. Farmer. Mr. Radtke stated that they are going to relocate his driveway and he is also deeding 20 feet to the County for roadway purposes and it will be going out to the South entrance. Mr. Hutson asked why wouldn’t they go to the City planning department if they are going to annex this. Mr. Ferngren stated that someday maybe they will, but, right now, they can’t. The City has been involved in a lot of the discussions about this though – roadway design, engineering design, etc. Mr. Cole stated he thinks it’s an excellent plan for the subdivision and a strong effort to preserve the environment. They have decreased the density to a point and that’s somewhat acceptable if they go to sewer and water. The County road will be improved and regraded to improve the sight lines. They will be preserving an inordinate amount of open space. He would think there was a mill pond in here at one time. Mr. Staab stated that there was just to the West of Salt Creek at 250 W., a grist mill. Mr. Cole stated that he bets the whole area is rich with artifacts and the County does not require an archaeological study done before any excavation is done for a subdivision and that’s a sad note. This development will improve the quality of runoff into Salt Creek, the Plan Commission has been told. He would like to hear more about how the ponds are draining into each other. He stated that in some parts he thinks the developers are trying to accommodate the neighbors by talking with them and trying to work with them. This is all about neighborhoods and the entire residential area along 250 W. between the two major roads, 130 and Joliet. They can’t annex because there is no one-eighth contiguity, however, once this is platted, there will be 238 petitions that say they won’t remonstrate and there will be contiguity at that time. Yes, taxes are going to go up. This will change the rural nature of this area. He would like to see a report from DLZ on the drainage and some complete accord on the part of the Drainage Board in place before a decision is made. He would like to see the drainage between the ponds addressed, how it’s going to be accomplished. Mr. Radtke stated that water starting here will get into vegetative swales and then go into a rain garden and then be picked up by a storm sewer and then into the dry pond. The dry pond overflows into the wet pond, and there is a discharge pipe from the wet pond into the right-of-way through here. Pond 3 is another wet pond and it overflows. There are forebays in the wet ponds and then it travels through here and into this forebay and wet pond #5 and then is discharged into the wetlands and, eventually, into Salt Creek. Water in this area will travel into this dry pond which empties into a series of dry ponds and then into wet pond #5 and through the wetlands. Mr. Cole asked if it’s only tubed where there are lots and no room for a swale. Mr. Radtke stated, yes. Swales are needed for back yard drainage. There are final elevations for every lot corner on the construction plans and house grades established. Mr. Cole asked if there is a pipeline here. Mr. Staab stated that there is a gas line on the East side of the street. Mr. Radtke stated that in the latest plans they got an easement on the West side of 250 so they will not be having any pipe on the East side of 250. They will be bypassing the wetlands and got an easement from this property owner to have sewer and water go through here. Mr. Read stated that he has mixed feelings. The revised plan is much better than the one they looked at before. It does a better job of preserving the open space and greenery and he appreciates the movement of Crooked Oak Drive to the North, which will save a lot of trees. If this property is not developed before annexation Valparaiso doesn’t have any requirements for open space, as far as he knows, or at least not as stringent as the County’s. The reason why he voted against this first time around is that he almost got nailed trying to come out on the road just North of the NIPSCO property. They have addressed this to some extent with reconstruction of portions of 250 W. There is still a high point at the 250 mark, which would obstruct vision, even after the fill has been taken care of. He commends them for addressing a very serious problem, but it’s hard to say how well this will work. The smaller lot size is predicated on getting sewer and water; is there a commitment or is there not and does it depend upon annexation? Can DLZ be engaged to double-check the drainage calculations? Mr. Breitzke stated that the ordinance was not in effect when this application was made, therefore, it’s not clear who would pay for it. Mr. Read stated that he thinks the neighbors are entitled to some double-checking of the figures. We can’t totally deny a property owner of the use of his property; that would be a legal taking. The only way we can possibly ask for 1-acre lots is if we had gone to RR or AG. He would like the high-water mark on the ponds. For manmade water features it is required to have a minimum 25-foot walking area around it. Mr. Radtke stated that they do have. Mr. Read stated that he doesn’t see it on there, so they need to show it. The higher density is not in keeping with the area around it. They are putting a road where a regulated drain is, so, it would seem that they’d have to have approval from the Drainage Board to vacate that regulated drain, and where is the water going from the regulated drain. He questioned the amount of slope on some lots in the Southwest and Northeast corners. Ms. Marshall asked if they are expecting some of the adjoining property owners to give right-of-way so that this subdivision might be built. Mr. Radtke stated that they are looking at Mr. Farmer, one of the houses on the West, who has agreed to the 20-foot additional right-of-way and also NIPSCO, an additional 20 feet. Ms. Marshall asked if they have had a meeting out there with the Highway Department and adjoiners. Mr. Radtke stated, no, because the final plans aren’t done. Ms. Marshall asked if any adjoiners have to give easements. Mr. Radtke stated that they will be looking at two construction easements where they are doing the 3.5-foot cut, Mr. Gustke’s and Tim’s property, because it will affect their driveways. Ms. Marshall stated that the subdivision primary plat checklist states that the application shall not be accepted unless there are letters of acceptance from the Highway Engineer and the County Surveyor regarding engineering and drainage. She sees no such letters. Commissioner Harper stated that we weigh expectations. When this was up for rezoning, he voted against it. Things won’t change until we as a people say we’ve had it – we don’t want plans passed without all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed, but it can’t just be said on a neighborhood plan. There are places in this country where the I’s ARE dotted and the T’s crossed, and, until we start worrying about things other than just the place down the road from us, nothing will happen. There are three railroad tracks right North of this subdivision and traffic piles up now because of that. It’s going to be a traffic mess out here because of this subdivision. Mr. Breitzke stated that one of the hopes of a former County Commissioner is the extension of 149. It’s becoming less expensive and probably more important to consider as time goes on and traffic is only going to get worse without it. The sight lines on the road are dangerous and improvements have to be made to change that. Blueways and greenways are becoming more important and he thinks the County is ahead of the rest of the state in rules regarding them. Mr. Read stated that there must be wording regarding the preservation of the open space on the final plat. Mr. Detert asked if we can ask the developer to have DLZ take a look at the drainage. Mr. Ferngren asked what the time frame is on that. Mr. Thompson stated that it could be two weeks and there is a base cost of $250 and then they look at a per lot versus a per acreage cost, whichever is greater, is what they charge; he does not have those numbers down here. Mr. Ferngren stated that if it’s that sort of turnaround, they are okay with that. Mr. Breitzke asked if they are willing to do it. Mr. Ferngren stated, yes. Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 07-P-1 for five weeks, to the April 11, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on an 8-0 roll call vote. Case 07-Z-1. Petition of Elias Rosario, Fusion Development Group, LLC, 85 N. Freedom Lake Ct., Valparaiso, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone 71.5 acres of land from RR, Rural Residential to R-1, Single-Family Residential for a proposed subdivision, to be located at 341 N. 475 W., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. Elias Rosario stated that he’s the partner of Fusion Development, which is the owner and developer of the land, which is proposed to be called Nature’s Edge. He stated that he’s presenting a concept plan for the purpose of rezoning the land from RR to R-1. He is accompanied by his engineer, Glen Borin, from Plumb Tuckett, and his construction manager, Mark Neville, and also Brad Boyer from Clear Water Solutions, the engineer designing the waste treatment system. They are proposing 78 lots intended to bring out the natural beauty of the land. They’ve kept a lot of trees, enhanced the entrance way, using a natural entrance with trees and rolling hills. Mr. Borin stated that he’s a land surveyor for Plumb Tuckett. It’s a concept plan that is malleable. They tried to preserve a lot of the natural features of the land. He tried to cut down on the amount of pavement and tried to accentuate some of the hills in the back by bringing a cul-de-sac off to the back end, incorporating a lot of walkout lots. They tried to preserve a lot of the old-growth trees. There is an existing spring-fed pond in the middle of the parcel that they hope to enhance and make larger. They’ve provided some greenspace, about 20 percent on the 72-acre parcel. He wasn’t up on the new ordinance when this plan was designed and so the lots are 14,000 minimum, which was the minimum at that time. Some of these lots will have to increase to meet the new ordinance and that will reduce the number of lots. Mr. Rosario stated that some of what they tried to do to create a quality subdivision included adding a clubhouse and pool and volleyball. They are looking at including things like a soccer field to create a community feel. They will be using a community septic system. Mr. Boyer stated that one of the concepts that’s prevalent throughout the rest of the country is to try to take advantage of greenspace with new communities, and to create a neighborhood feel. One of the ways to do this is through smaller lots and do a private utility or conservancy district and put a pump station on each lot, which would pump to a common area within the subdivision to treat the sewage, much like a small plant on the property which goes into a common disposal field. This would have regulatory oversight by a governmental agency. Mr. Rosario stated that covenants would override and manage the subdivision, as well as an architectural review committee and a POA. John Holmgren, 353 N. 475 W., stated that he’s directly South. He wondered what they are going to do about drinking water. He asked if they are aware that there is sand mining in the area. There were concerns about his future land value.
Ed Todosejevich, 355 N. 475 W., stated that he’s the property just North of it. There is a septic field near his pond and he wonders how that would affect it. He questioned the density in a rural area. Alan Hewitt, 62 E. 950 N., Chesterton, stated that the rezone would make no sense were it not for the community sewer that they propose – if you had individual septics this could be done under RR as easily as R-1. State approval for a community septic does not protect you. Neil Molengraft, 322 N. 250 W., stated that he’s concerned about the property along Long Lane and how they could protect the rights of that property owner and he’s opposed to spot zoning to achieve higher density. John Hunter, Superintendent of Schools for Union Township School Corp., 599 W. 300 N., stated that they would like to have consideration for the reformation of the Northeastern cul-de-sac. The way they propose it would be very difficult to get buses turned around in that kind of formation. They would ask that they limit cars parking in the cul-de-sacs for the same reason. Jack Runion, 362 N. 475 W., stated that with the septic system, it’s all sand there, and it might leach into the well water. He’s concerned about where fire hydrants might be placed and how they are going to supply water to that many houses. Sand mining will be done right up to the South fence. Mr. Rosario stated that regarding the water system, they are proposing private wells for each home. The only fire hydrants would be dry hydrants. Mr. Borin stated that regarding the reformation of the cul-de-sac, that’s something they can do down the line, as well as limiting the parking to accommodate the schools. Fox Chase Farms was mentioned a couple of times, and he would like Mr. Boyer to address that. Mr. Boyer stated that Fox Chase Farms is a subdivision with a private utility that is truly a debacle. Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks the questions were more related to the community septic system, how it works, its efficiency. Mr. Boyer stated that a community septic system, from a homeowner’s perspective, is going to function just like city sewers. When you flush the toilet, it’s going to use a pump to pump off the individual lot to a location still on the property. At a common location on the property, there will be a treatment unit, which will be designed and sized and built in a manner that the quality of effluent that comes out of it will have minimal contaminants in it. It will be back into the soil and the soil will finish polishing the effluent before it’s returned to the aquifer. One concern with systems that go into sand is that the effluent that comes out of a house without any type of additional treatment, other than a septic tank, goes into what someone would consider a leach field, goes down through the soil so fast that it’s returned to the aquifer with contaminants still in the waste water and then is pulled into the wells and you can have contaminants, specifically a lot of nitrates, in the drinking water. One of the reasons that you try to look at some type of community system is to try to minimize the risks of having 78 individual septic systems or however many…it’s just not the best way to do it. Even if they were larger lots, he would say the viable path would still be to do a community system. Mr. Rosario stated that he thinks there was reference to their ability to build as many lots just using the standard septic system, but part of what also determines lot sizes and shapes are elevation changes, and there are quite a bit of elevation changes along the back and front ends of this, along with a lot of wetland areas, that would certainly impede the use of septic system designs, private systems. Mr. Boyer stated that regarding the sand mining, they are within their rights to do that. There are some safety concerns, but all they can do is to make people aware of it. Mr. Todosejevich stated that he’s concerned about the privacy of his property. He’s concerned about water coming onto his property; there is a detention pond right next to his property. The septic system is all sand and he’s concerned that there is no way to stop that from running onto his property. Ms. Wicke stated that where the lots are is all potential wetland; they are required to preserve them. Traffic will increase and the road is in bad shape already. It would be dangerous to the children. Mr. Todosejevich stated that with the schools, you can’t get out of the property in the morning. Mr. Rosario stated that the wetlands are on the other side of the property, so there really isn’t one on the back end – it’s in the center. Regarding security, they might be willing to do something like a berm on the front end to protect his entranceway. He stated that the waste system is a drip irrigation field and there is primary treatment in front of the house and it’s forced in a 2-inch pipe to a drip irrigation field with filters to possibly clean it even further. It’s better than a typical septic field. Mr. Boyer stated that there was some question about runoff from the system in the Northwest corner. Everything is introduced into the ground, subsurfacely, so it’s not deposited on the surface. There is no runoff. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated that this is spot zoning – it’s out of character for the area and he’s against it. It’s too dense. Mr. Detert stated that he agrees with Mr. Burns. Mr. Detert moved to send Case 07-Z-1 to the Commissioners with a recommendation for denial. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Hutson stated that this is spot zoning. Mr. Cole stated that the sand mine is spoiling any possibility of this being a beautiful area. Who knows what they are going to fill it with? A developer might come along and buy it and try to put housing in there later. It’s spot zoning, and the sand mining would ruin the subdivision. Mr. Read stated that he believes that when it comes to rezoning, the burden of proof is on the petitioner. The master plan encourages development adjacent to existing urban areas and discourages areas like this way out in the boonies. It’s out of character with the surrounding areas. There are traffic concerns. He’s not sure that they understand the open space ordinance. If they wanted to come back and develop under the existing zoning, they should confer with Mr. Thompson regarding the open space requirements and the storm water ordinance. Ms. Marshall asked if the septic system is regulated by the Indiana Regulatory Commission. Mr. Boyer stated that it depends on if you choose to be private or regulated by the IRC. If it’s a conservancy district, it’s regulated by the County Commissioners.
Motion to forward Case 07-Z-1 to the Commissioners with a recommendation for denial carried on the following ballot vote: Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes Marshall –Yes Read - Yes Stevenson- Yes Breitzke- Yes Mr. Thompson stated that he believes this will be heard at the April 3rd meeting of the County Commissioners at 6 p.m. Commissioner Harper stated that there will be a special public hearing meeting on the UDO tomorrow night and suggested that comment be limited to 3 minutes. There will be another public hearing before the County Commissioners on it. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
|
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
March 7, 2007