PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
May 9, 2007

M I N U T E S

    The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administration 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, Rita Stevenson and Kevin Breitzke.  Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Scott McClure, Fred M. Siminski and Patricia S. Gibson.

    Mr. Burns moved to waive reading of the minutes for the April 11th Plan Commission meeting and to accept them as received in the mail.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

    Mr. Cole moved to continue approval of the minutes for the April 25th meeting.  Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

New Business:

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

    Case 07-P-8.  Petition of Stephen Pluta, 1324 N. 450 E., Chesterton, seeking primary plat approval for Pluta Park Subdivision, to be located North of CR 1300 N. and on the West side of private road 423 E. in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana.  To contain 2 lots on 23.35 acres.  Zoned RR.

    Attorney Greg Babcock stated that he, Jim Gorski and John McQuestion are representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter.  He stated that Mr. Pluta is looking to create 2 lots, one about 13.3 acres; the other, about 10 acres. The property is zoned Rural Residential.  They have been to the BZA.  When land was previously subdivided in that area, it left a 60-foot opening to service the land in the back that he still owns.  If this is approved this evening, they still must return to the BZA because they have to have a Variance on the footage requirement.  Originally this was going to be 4 lots.  Mr. Gorski has been in front of the Development Advisory Committee on a couple of occasions.  The petitioner has indicated that the first 60 feet of the drive will be 20 feet wide and be chip and seal all the way back to the cul-de-sac.  After 50 feet in, the road goes to a 16-foot wide drive to service the two lots in



the back.  On the far West side they have set-aside there for open space for use of the two property owners that will be there.

    Dennis P. Conklin, 419 E. 1300 N., had concerns about the road.  He owns the two properties to the West of the proposed road and the Andershocks own property to the East of it. The road would come by both their properties and will present traffic and safety concerns for them, their children and pets.  He voiced concern about decline in property values, dust and noise.  There is alternate access to the property via 450 E. and a farm road from Mr. Pluta’s property almost to a turnaround.  Is the rest of his property going to be developed in the future and where will access to that come from?

    Mr. Babcock stated that this is really a driveway to service two people; it might be confusing in that they give it a private road name for mail purposes.  The property owner is going to use chip and seal instead of slag to try to accommodate the neighbors and keep dust down.  When the lots along the road were subdivided on two sides there was purposely left an opening to service the back parcels.  They have taken out two lots they requested previously in an appearance before the Plan Commission, shortened the private drive and cul-de-sac to make the cul-de-sac not accessible to the parcel to the North.

    Pat Janasiak, 4121 S. Franklin, Michigan City, stated that she’s a licensed real estate agent who has the property listed under her Century 21 company.  The parcels were valued at between $90,000 and $100,000 apiece.  She has had four parties interested in the property at their full value. It’s doubtful to her that someone would pay that much for property and build a house there that was worth at least double that.  The last piece of property that her father sold, which is on the same road and faces 450 E., is now valued in excess of half a million dollars. The two new homes should increase the value of what is out there now.

    Mr. Breitzke stated that Mr. Conklin questioned how this would affect the value of his vacant lot.

    Ms. Janasiak stated that there would be records of sale on the parcels for $90,000 to $100,000 and she noticed that Mr. Conklin is not maintaining the vacant property, so the value of parcel should increase with a nice road right next to it.

    Mr. Babcock stated that the purchase price of the vacant lot in ’05 was $38,000 and they are taking 10 acres and getting roughly around $100,000 and the pricing is competitive, in terms of values, between the two. A home should be erected that is commensurate with the value of the vacant land.  Dawn Duty bought a parcel to the East and built a home with a horse barn. Regarding the noise and traffic, this should be traffic that they are used to with a private driveway. Of the 13 homes from 375 E. to John Andershock’s house eight have stone drives and 5 have asphalt drives.   Farther West of 1300 in an older section of the area he counted at least 7 homes with gravel



drives  that are substantially off  the road (600 to 800 feet).  From this location it is 2.8 miles to the Town of Chesterton and they have the East side of Graham Woods subdivision about a mile and a quarter away.   These parcels will be much larger than what is out there around it and it’s an appropriate use of the property.

    Mr. Breitzke stated that there was a question as to why this location, if there are options.

    Mr. Babcock stated that he thinks when the land along 1300 was divided there was a purpose in mind to try to service that back 40 acres by leaving that particular opening.  Mr. Pluta has chosen to use that opportunity to put the two lots in, substantially away from the back of all the homes that are there now.  If someone wanted to subdivide the back 20 acres one of the notes was that they’d be coming off of 425 because they’d have to come back here to start the replat to add to that private drive and that’s not Mr. Pluta’s intention.  If that ever does get developed in the back, it would be coming off of 425.  

    Mr. Gorski, 1107 N. 660 E., Westville, stated that Mr. Conklin’s concerns about the traffic, dust noise and safety of the children are nothing compared to what is out there with 1300; they are only going to have maybe four cars a day going in and out of the private drive.  They are not going to be doing 50 miles per hour on that drive.  

    Mr. Conklin is not so sure there will be only 4 cars a day.  People generally have more than one car and if there are teenagers that adds to the traffic, as well as deliveries, etc.   He also stated that he believes the other two lots will eventually be developed.  The road should be located off of 450 E., next to Mr. Pluta’s residence.

    The public hearing was then closed.

    Mr. Burns asked why they can’t come off of 450 E.

    Mr. Babcock stated that they could, if they chose to, but the planning in the past when the lots along the road were created was to purposely leave the 60-foot right-of-way and that opening is ready and developed and ready to go.

    Mr. Burns stated that he thinks he clarified that it’s a driveway, not a road.

    Mr. Babcock stated that they labeled it as Private Road 423 E.

    Mr. Burns asked if that is going to be on the deed.

    Mr. Babcock stated that the property owners will have an ingress/egress and road maintenance agreement as part of the parcel when they purchase.  

    


Mr. Burns stated that he’s concerned about maintenance on this long-term.

Mr. Babcock stated that you’ll have the two property owners to maintain and repair it.

Mr. Burns asked if there are no current plans for future development to the North.

Mr. Babcock stated that there are no plans now.  In the beginning, at BZA, they proposed four lots, but they removed two lots and one lot has been enlarged.  If  there would be development, it would be coming off the other route.

Mr. Detert asked why they would want to build two roads when one would suffice.

Mr. Babcock stated that it would be the preference of having two users on one and two on the other.

Mr. Detert stated that he’s not real sure that some day they might not have property owners come back here and want to break that property in parts and maybe put another house up.

Mr. Babcock stated that there is a procedure for that; they would have to come here to see if they meet the criteria.

Mr. Detert asked, would you want to put a covenant on the property that says it would not be further developed?

Mr. Babcock stated that he wouldn’t have a problem committing to that.

Mr. Hutson asked if there is a dirt road to the East of those proposed lots and what the road is used for.

Ms. Janasiak stated that it’s a lane used for farm equipment to get back to the 40 acres.

Mr. Hutson asked if it goes out to 450.

Ms. Janasiak stated that Mr. Pluta’s property is on 450 and then he has a barnyard and sheds and that lane goes through where the barns area; it goes out to 450, but through the parcel that is part of the homestead.   It was not cost-effective to develop Lots 3 and 4 because of the cost of running utilities back to them.  Those lots would have had to have mound systems, as well.

Mr. Burns asked what was approved at the BZA.

Mr. Thompson stated that originally they were looking at four lots and he erred in the staff report in saying that the Variance was



granted; it had been tabled.  The four lots were originally to have a private road; it’s now down to two lots.

Mr. Burns thought there was a statement made that there would be no further development North of this property.

Mr. Babcock stated that he wasn’t counsel at the time of the BZA appearance, so he couldn’t say.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s concerned about future development, as well.   He viewed the property and he wouldn’t say that Mr. Conklin’s vacant land is unmowed or unkempt.  Whatever is shown on the plat has to be separately recorded parcels, whether or not they have Stephen Pluta’s name on them.  They will be sold in the future to different individuals, not kept within the family. Regarding the parcel to the North, he’s thinking sometime in the future it might pass out of Mr. Pluta’s hands perhaps, but he has a hunch it will come back before the Plan Commission to be subdivided by somebody and we will have to secure easement back to that property.  He would prefer one driveway to service four lots and would like to know what happened at BZA that they made this 2 lots instead of 4.   Was the 21.5 acres included in the 4 lots?

Mr. Gorski stated that it was originally 4.

Mr. Cole asked what happened at the BZA, why it was brought to BZA.

Mr. Thompson stated that they didn’t have the proper road frontage, so, at that time, then-Attorney Karen Tallian said, by the 10-acre rule that since they were having to provide public access to these lots they must go through subdivision control, since they did not have existing frontage on a public road.

Mr. Cole stated that this is ugly subdividing and not in the nature of $500,000 valuation on property with houses.  He is afraid the 21.5 acres will become landlocked or become, once again, another ugly subdivision.

Mr. Read stated he has great difficulty voting in a situation that would result in a landlocked plat.  Somewhere along the line you would have to have a dedicated right-of-way to that 12.74 acres.  It’s not always going to be owned by Mr. Pluta.  He questioned whether the land was worth $100,000 and asked if the potential buyers were thinking of subdividing in the future.

Ms. Janasiak stated that she doesn’t know.

Mr. Read stated that they don’t meet the open space ordinance, as he reads it:  you can’t count drainage easements as part of the open space.  This is piecemeal development.  Why not make it a unified design?


Ms. Marshall stated that she thinks they are circumventing the intent of the subdivision ordinance by coming with 2 lots.  How far does the road go there?

Mr. Babcock stated, 900 to the center of the cul-de-sac

Ms. Marshall asked if it’s all there already.

Mr. Babcock stated that there is no road there.

Ms. Marshall stated that he’s not landlocked, because he owns property on the other road. Creating two lots here now is just an attempt to get something by and is not what we want in Porter County.

Commissioner Harper asked what the County’s requirements are for the road in the new ordinance.

Mr. Thompson stated that the new ordinance follows the existing one, that any subdivided lots must be on an existing County road or a road built to County specifications; that’s why they are at the BZA requesting a Variance from that.   The requirements would be, at a minimum, 24-foot-wide road with no curbs; shoulders; and roadside swales.

Commissioner Harper asked why we are talking about a driveway here.  We hear about all kind of problems about this kind of road; so, how do we get to this point where they can legally come here and talk about a driveway?

Mr. Thompson stated that they can come in and request this petition and that’s why he thinks the BZA tabled it, so that they can hear the opinions of the Plan Commission on this.

Commissioner Harper asked, if they did not get a Variance from the BZA, could they get away with a driveway there, under our ordinance?

Mr. Thompson stated that if the Plan Commission approved it tonight as a subdivision, they still have to get approval from the BZA for the Variance.

Commissioner Harper asked, if they didn’t get a Variance and the Plan Commission approved this tonight, could they build it?

Mr. Thompson stated, no, because they have to have a Variance to be able to build.

Commissioner Harper asked, a Variance for what?

Mr. Thompson stated, the road standards and the frontage.

Commissioner Harper asked, the road standards or the road frontage?  Mr. Babcock is saying the road frontage.



Mr. Babcock stated that they currently lack the road frontage necessary to have a permit to build a home.

Commissioner Harper asked, so they wouldn’t need a Variance for the road standards?

Mr. Thompson stated that, in his opinion, they would.  He stated that there was an ordinance passed a few years ago that states that all proposed lots in a subdivision must have frontage on an existing County road or on a road built to County specifications.

Commissioner Harper stated that he wants to make sure when we pass the new ordinance that that hole is closed.

Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Babcock is correct in that they don’t have the frontage on a County road, but they are also not building a road to County specifications to front these lots.

Commissioner Harper stated that he thinks we need to have proper roads in whatever we approve.

Mr. Babcock asked, if you had a built a road to county specifications, is it automatically accepted by the County to maintain it then?

Commissioner Harper stated that so many times we have people coming here that have private roads, and if they want to be private, that’s the way they get their subdivision approved, but, even if they want to be private, someday we are going to have the headache of somebody talking to us about a fire truck, snowplow or something.  He hopes that under the new ordinance we are going to require that roads be built to County standards, even if they are going to be private.

Mr. Read stated that they do not meet the open space ordinance by including the drainage easement.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they do; they have 20 percent.

Mr. Read asked what percentage they have if the dashed area is open space.  The Kemper Ditch setback is 75 feet and they would have to move the Eastern boundary back 75 feet more.  The reference to the open space ordinance is supposed to be on the drawing at primary plat and he doesn’t see it here.

Mr. Babcock stated that he’s been doing that on the final plat and he’s not been using the language that Mr. Read is used to.

Mr. Read stated that it should be on the primary plat.

Mr. Detert moved to table Case 07-P-8 and have the developer look at all the items discussed here.  Mr. Hutson seconded the motion.

Discussion:


Mr. Babcock asked if the sentiment is to go back to a 4-lot development.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he would say no, go with what you have right now.

Mr. Detert moved to table Case 07-P-8 and have the developer look at all the items discussed here.  Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on an 8-1 roll call vote, Mr. Burns dissenting.

Case 07-P-6.  Petition of Redfish Development, LLC, P.O. Box 2412, Chesterton, seeking primary plat review for The Preserve Subdivision, to be located at CR 1050 N. and CR 50 W. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana.  To contain 94 lots on 89.95 acres.  Zoned R-1.

Attorney Jim Wieser, 425 W. Lincoln Highway, Schererville, stated that he is representing and accompanied by two of the principals of Redfish Development, Paul Shinn and Mark Razik, and two representatives from their engineering firm, SEH, Rick Trevino and Andy Mix, along with John McQuestion.  He stated that this proposal has changed dramatically from what was before the Plan Commission previously because of issues raised by members.  He stated that they took a picture out of the new UDO of what represents a conservation subdivision. This is truly a conservation subdivision as it’s defined in the rules and regulations.   He referred to a drawing of their plan.  This is 90 acres with 60 percent or more to remain conservation area, wetlands area, open space, developing only 90 units on 90 acres. This plan was denied two years ago and the key issue that kept coming up was an overriding concern about drainage and storm water management.  They have addressed that issue now via the changes.  The County has employed a consultant to specifically address that problem, and that’s DLZ engineering. In re-designing the project, several other key changes occurred.   The five lots that were platted on 1050 N. have been eliminated and now are part of the open space and conservation area.  There is also a current problem with the Swanson-Lamporte Ditch and how water is carried through it.  There was a rain event recently that was the equivalent of a 100-year storm and there was water coming over the road; it’s an existing problem, and they don’t have the jurisdictional ability to go in and make improvements to a regulated drain.  However, they know there must be a restriction in there, and they are committed to assisting in solving that.  This plan will assist in reducing some of the issue, but that is an issue that’s distinct from this project, though one that they have to recognize.  They are controlling and substantially reducing the rate of flow of the storm water drainage on this parcel.  They held a meeting in March at Sunset Hill Farm to address concerns of the neighbors.  Another question that was raised at the previous Plan Commission meeting was the utilization of basements; the new plan has substantially reduced that. Primarily, they are in the South portion of the development.  Since the meeting with the neighbors, DLZ has published three drainage review reports.  They went back and



redesigned some of the storm water drainage as a result and created five water quality basins, which were not in the original plan, nor in the plan presented to the neighbors.   The basins will purify the water before it goes into the wetlands or the primary storage facilities.  It will also help store additional water, which will be released at a slower rate than in its natural state.  They believe the homes will be valued in excess of $300,000 and higher providing a quality of life that’s environmentally sound.  DLZ review #3 indicated that they are in compliance with all their requirements, but did say, prior to final plat approval and any construction, they need to submit to DLZ some additional information, which they will do. At the end of the staff report, Mr. Thompson makes reference to that and that they have to fulfill those requirements prior to final plat approval.   DLZ is saying that they have met the criteria that was set forth in the primary plat and they believe that demonstrates that they have met all criteria set forth in the subdivision control ordinance.  Sewer and water are available to this subdivision – water from Indiana American and sewer through the Town of Chesterton.

Mr. Breitzke asked if they have current letters from both utilities.

Mr. Wieser stated that he doesn’t believe they’ve updated the letters.

Mr. Breitzke stated that we want current letters from both utilities.

Alan Hewitt, 62 E. 950 N., stated that he’s a member of the Liberty Landowners’ Association which passed a resolution a month ago opposing the Preserve, citing the unsuitably of the soils for buildings and roads, drainage issues, flooding problems, small lot sizes and the ability of County roads to handle additional traffic. The letter is in the file.  He raised concerns about the soils, their fineness and high water table and the way the water moves through the soil, which is sluggishly.  He stated that this is the worst soil, as far as permeability, in the soils book. The ground is always wet at this location. At this time, Mr. Hewitt ran a tape and video presentation demonstrating the drainage problems.

Mike Shook, 1014 N. 50 W., stated that he owns property directly across the street from this and he never got a notice about the meeting at Sunset Hill Farm. He wanted an elaboration on how they have met DLZ’s requirements and what has changed since they had a chance to review the plans.  He had questions about the open space areas and if they meet the requirements.   The lot sizes aren’t anywhere close to what the new UDO requires.  He raised concerns about Chesterton sewers being able to handle the added sewage from 90 houses.  Is this the first development from these people?

Caroline Shook, 1014 N. 50 W., raised traffic concerns about the one-lane bridge.



Erma Seymour, 1030 N. Meridian, stated that the water problems started when they started to build the Toll Road.  She raised drainage concerns.

Gail Shook, 1012 N. 50 W., stated that she has lived here for 40 years.  She questioned the density with lots  that are much smaller than others along the road.  She raised drainage concerns.

Jeff McClendon, 18 W. 1050 N., stated that his property is immediately to the East.  He stated that during recent big rain events the water comes over his driveway and flowing into his yard.   He is concerned about the water problems.

J.F. Shrader, 978 Meridian, stated that he is submitting a handout to the members, one part of which is a wetlands map.  He is concerned about houses being built on wetlands. He raised concerns that the delineation done by the developer does not agree with the wetlands inventory maps.  He raised concerns about the wet soil types for building houses and drainage.  Can Chesterton handle the sewage?

Paul Huseman, 1055 N. 50 W., stated that he heard that at the meeting at Sunset Hill Farm there was talk about putting a new culvert under 1050 N. and, if that happens, that culvert backs up there and his culvert backs up when that one backs up, so, if a new, bigger culvert is installed, he would need a new culvert, as well.

Christine Livingston, 440 Louisa Lane, stated that she lives a couple miles from the proposed development site and is a watershed coordinator.  She stated that the developers asked for her input on the design of the Preserve and they have been open to suggestions for best management practices that might be appropriate for this site.   She stated that they intend to employ several best management practices, as well as to preserve important environmental features on the site and plan to encourage homeowners to use rain barrels, rain gardens and natural landscape options to preserve the integrity of the site and these will help minimize impact on water quality and environmental impacts.

Michael Hogan, 1062 Laurel Creek Drive, stated that it seems they already have problems here and maybe this development can help fix that.   He stated that Ms. Marshall made a comment in this petition’s previous appearance before the Committee that this is just not the type of development that we want in Porter County.  He stated that he thinks this IS  the type of thing we want in Porter County.   It’s an innovative development and, if we don’t do this, what are the options?  This will probably add to the property taxes for the County.

John McQuestion, Soil Solutions, 308 E. 360 N., stated that he was contacted by the Grivonivich family in 2003 and, in 2004, he completed the wetlands delineations on the property.  He stated that the delineation he did is, generally, different from the inventory that’s been published.  He stated that he’s not a big fan of the national wetlands inventory maps because he’s talked to too many



people who say, there are no wetlands on my property, according to the map.  He stated that those are general resource maps that those are areas where they might have been wetlands previously identified.  He stated that this whole parcel is listed as Delray and, if it were, there wouldn’t be a whole bunch of wetlands out there.  He stated that there are 50 acres of wetlands and he submitted his delineation to the Army Corps of Engineers.  He met the Army Corps back there and they spent a number of days in the field reviewing the delineation and he has a concurrence letter from the Army Corps  agreeing with his delineation report.   He was not to re-delineate the soils.  The soils are not all as good as Delray.  They are not going to build in Pewamo or Houghton Muck.  The Houghton Muck is generally in the pond area. They are also not building on the Milford soils.  They are fine-textured to somewhat poorly hydric soils. He is willing to concede everything that was on the soil survey.  Can they build on Delray?  They build on Delray all the time. It is more expensive to build on it. The list of hydric soils that are out there is not accurate, but those are not areas that they are putting houses on. The soil underlay is glacial till which almost has no permeability.  They are dealing with slope permeable soils; he is willing to concede that, but they are soils that have been built on before in the County.

Andy Mix, SEH, 9200 Calumet Ave., Munster, stated that they watched the tape that Mr. Hewitt produced and their attorney acknowledged at the start of the presentation that there is a problem at that corner. It is their belief that the culvert that runs North-South under 1050 is crushed at both ends.  If you go a little to the North on Mr. Huseman’s property it runs under a driveway and, in his opinion, the pipe size is small for the amount of water they are trying to drain there.   He thinks that problem could be solved pretty easily and the developers have said they are willing to work with the County to solve the problem by whatever means is necessary.   What has changed since two years ago?  The big changes are the 5 lots that were up on 1050 are gone and the addition of these water quality basins, five of them, each corresponding to a separate, sub-drainage area within the subdivision.  The purpose of the basins is twofold:  a wide spot in the road to slow the water down before it goes to the wetlands and when it slows down, any particulates will begin to drop out.  The basins act as one more storage.  There was a question about the capacity of the Chesterton wastewater treatment plant.  They have a letter from Chesterton utilities, though they have to update it.  In regard to the density of the subdivision, they believe that it’s within  the requirements as required by R-1 in the County code.  In regard to disagreements between the wetlands and the soils map, Mr. McQuestion answered that question. Mr. McQuestion was physically out there and walked all 90 acres and marked all the wetlands.  Mr. Shrader also talked about maintaining the amount of drainage through the tract and water entering and exiting as it currently does.  In his opinion, they are meeting both of those and DLZ’s review comments would have pointed that out if they did not. The Corps of Engineers has already been involved and IDEM does not get involved until the


next step of the process.  When a permit goes to the Corps of Engineers, it is copied automatically to IDEM and they review it simultaneously.  

Rick Trevino, SEH, 9200 Calumet Ave., Munster, stated that DLZ was to do the drainage review per the county’s storm water/drainage manual. They gave them all the calculations that are necessary and additional information to justify how much water will be running off from the development, where the watershed is coming from and exiting the site and compared that to what is happening on the site currently.  There are a lot of local highs and lows on the site which are caused by ground that is up a little bit higher than others, which prevents water from flowing naturally from one to the other sheet flow.  What DLZ wanted them to make sure is, if they go into those wetland areas, and, according to the IDNR, they can actually go to the wetlands areas to do any kind of grading that they might need to do as long as they restore the wetlands to that same state, they can go in there and adjust some of the elevations to ensure that all the water from 1050 and 50 goes down into the central basin, and that’s extremely important because that eliminates those local highs and lows. What they can do, by going elevation-wise, they have culverts that are designed to take in the capacity of the storm water that hits those areas.   Once that water hits the interior culverts, that water doesn’t escape – it goes out into the central pond location and that elevation is way lower than the elevation at the intersection of 1050 and 50.  DLZ also wanted them to prove that the storm water detention was per the County’s requirements, and they showed that they had enough area and enough volume of water over the entire area of the wetlands that can hold the water that they are generating from the runoff of changing impervious area to pervious.

Mr. Mix stated that DLZ did make them go through the exercise that Mr. Hewitt was talking about – the existing land versus the improved land, the entire 89.95 acres.  They went through that calculation with them and satisfied them that it would work.

Mike Shook, 1014 N. 50 W., stated that the original plans that showed a no-runoff situation, he would take it that that’s no longer the case and, if it is no longer the case, he would like to know where it is planned to run off.

Jim Shook, 1012 N. 50 W., stated that he doesn’t know if the drain was legally dug, but somebody dug a ditch out there and it was gushing on April 25th.

Mr. Shrader, 978 Meridian Rd., stated that Mr. McQuestion said that it costs more to build on Delray soil and it also costs people a lot of money to run their sump pumps seven days a week, 14 hours a day.  Prospective buyers should be warned about what they are buying.   Do they know what’s under the Delray soil?  The Chesterton sewer plant does not allow sump water to be put into sewage water.





Mr. Hewitt, 62 E. 950 N., stated that he would like to know if the developer is sticking with their water elevation increase listed here.

Caroline Shook, 1014 N. 50 W., stated that her question was not answered about the one-lane bridge on 50 W. and how it would handle additional traffic.

Michael Hogan, 1062 Laurel Creek Drive, he is assuming that they would have to do water control before any homes going in and have the streets go in first, so it seems like they would control that ahead of time.  He appreciates all the concerns that people have with the runoff, but isn’t that more of a concern for the builder.

Mike Shook stated that his question about lot sizes was whether they compare to what the new plan states.  He’s not really concerned about the water unless it comes on him.  He just thinks it’s too dense and he thinks an alternative would be to take care of the water problems and turn it into three nice, big homesites instead of 90.

Mr. Trevino stated that they still have zero discharge outlet.  They are not proposing to have any storm water release outside of the 100-year storm, which is what the County requires.  Above the 100-year storm, they do have an emergency control and that’s a culvert coming underneath here, but that’s only after certain elevations are hit, that water backs up into this drain and then slowly drains out of this site to where it goes naturally.  Naturally right now, there’s a cut in the ground that hits an elevation and drains out.  Their culvert is actually a little above that. In regard to the storm sump pump discharge, it’s not contaminated water, really.  It is true that you can’t put it into sanitary sewage. Generally what they do with sump pump drainage is either discharge it into a storm sewer or back it up onto the ground and it runs away from the lot or the building.  In regard to the coordination between the Corps of Engineers and IDEM generally occurs after a plan is in place.  You have to get preliminary approval which states that there is at least a possibility that this plan can go in before you can go and start mitigating final preparations for that land.  

Mr. McQuestion stated that there are guidelines for wetlands impact and mitigation.  He does not advise his clients to rush out and get all the permits first because plans change quite often, so, they like to get preliminary approval before they charge ahead and get state and federal approval on wetlands.   Will the impacts here warrant the permit?  Absolutely.  When the Clean Water Act was written, it gave jurisdiction to the US EPA over wetlands and the US EPA turned that control over to the Army Corps of Engineers – that’s Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  If a permit is required through Section 404, you are required through the states, through Section 401, to get a state permit. Since then, the state has written some additional wetlands regulations, but we are talking about jurisdictional wetlands, the first string being the Army Corps of



Engineers.  Should they require a permit, they will also be required to go to the state to get a permit. Below the Delray is soil with zero permeability and great strength.

Mr. Wieser stated that Mr. Hewitt had asked if they stood by the figures that they had submitted and the computations they had submitted regarding the elevations and not only do they stand by them, but they were also reviewed by DAC and by an outside consultant, who reviewed them, verified them and accepted them. The one-lane bridge is about a mile and a half away from this site and they have some obligation as a developer for certain offsite considerations and improvements, but, relative to roadways and to the extent that they are obligated to do that adjacent to and adjoining their development, they will do that, and can do that.   It’s not been his experience that someone is obligated to address an issue a mile and a half down the road, when, before you get to that bridge, there are ways to get off that road.  We are talking about 90 homes being built over a period of time, not all at once.  Those will generate approximately 175 to 180 vehicles over a period of 5 to 10 years, which is hardly going to create a major impact.

Mr. Mix stated that Mr. Shook asked about the ditch by the Toll Road, whether that was legal or not.  They haven’t started working out in the field yet; this is a managed plan, so all these little ditches have to be taken in total and the whole site will be managed as one.  Mr. Shrader asked about sump water and putting a T in instead of an elbow – he would submit that the building inspection at the time of occupancy would be able to handle that.

Paul Shinn stated that he is one of the developers and he has 10 years experience in Porter County developing subdivisions.  He stated that he built probably 35 of the homes in Tamarack.  In Dune Acres there is a sensitive parcel built in the dunes.  His experience is dealing with difficult projects here in the last several years in Porter County.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Harper stated that Mr. Shrader asked what DLZ requires and he thinks we should answer that a bit better.  They require multiple thing in multiple times and we should make a copy available to them.  They were asking for 13 different things the first time and we are on the third set.  We went down the road with DLZ to try to improve the way we are working.  DLZ hasn’t finished the final phase and this is a subdivision that is going to live or die on the drainage and we should get the final answers and get the answers to the questions that Mr. Hewitt raises.  

Mr. Breitzke stated that since we first heard this, they introduced a storm water ordinance, an erosion control ordinance, wrote the storm water control manual and, at the same time, they were working on the UDO, and he thinks something very effective was put



together and that’s why they looked at having an outside consultant examine these things.

Mr. Burns asked if the Highway Engineer looked at the Delray soils for the public streets.

Mr. Thompson stated that if there is a high water table and if Mr. Schelling should see it he can ask for underdrains to be placed under the curbs, essentially 6 inches below the compacted aggregate base to help drain that subgrade and put it into the storm system.  

Mr. Burns asked if we will see a letter on that from Mr. Schelling.

Mr. Thompson stated that we can request that.

Mr. Burns stated that Mr. McQuestion said that it’s more expensive to build on Delray soils and asked how.

Mr. McQuestion stated that the soil survey basically lays out a general premise that you’re going 7 feet below grade on a spread footing with reinforced concrete.   He thinks Mr. Shinn would have a completely different interpretation of what a basement is going to be on his site.  Soil survey is going to give the worst-case scenario.  Structural engineers will give you detailed reports on what type of footings, ratings for the road constructions – what type of base and all that.  This has the worst rating from soil survey and it just means that you have to take the soils into consideration and it will cost more money to build roads and basements and sidewalks and driveways.

Mr. Burns asked if that’s true of even the residences without basements.

Mr. McQuestion stated that he’s not a structural engineer so he would leave that to Mr. Shinn.  

Mr. Shinn stated that they have either crawl space or a basement and the basements will probably be 3 to 4 feet below grade, below the frost line, spread footings – when they dig the foundations they will have a soil scientist out there telling them how good the soil is.

Mr. Burns asked if that’s a commitment.

Mr. Shinn stated, sure.

Mr. Burns stated that on a situation like this it should be.

Mr. Detert stated that he has a question  about covenants and how this is going to be taken care of after they leave the development and what assurances they have that the County is not going to be left to pick it up.   He thinks Commissioner Harper’s suggestion that maybe



DLZ compare the data that Mr. Hewitt has supplied tonight and satisfy him that those calculations are wrong and their’s are right would be appropriate.

Mr. Hutson stated that there is one entrance to the property and asked if they are going to use an emergency access of the whole drive and asked where that is on the map.  He asked if the emergency access is going  to be built to County specifications.

Mr. Trevino stated that there is an existing drive that comes right through here.

Mr. Hutson asked if it’s actually going to be able to be used year-round.

Mr. Trevino stated that it’s accessible now.  

Mr. Hutson asked if the POA is going to maintain the emergency access.  He stated that they mentioned in letter a 501C-3 organization or hints of that – is that the POA?

Mr. Wieser stated that that would be a separate organization that’s recognized to do that.

Mr. Razik stated that they’ve had a couple conversations with property managers, environmentally friendly property managers, but haven’t cut a deal with anyone yet. The existing property owners would fund an organization to maintain the wetlands and many of the common areas.  The down side of the open space ordinance is that there are a lot of open spaces that no one is maintaining because nobody was required to maintain them at the time.  Their plan would include taking all the open space, including the wetlands and making sure with a professional organization that knows what they are doing to take care of it and that would be funded through the POA.

Mr. Hutson asked if mosquito control would be through the POA, also.

Mr. Wieser stated, to the extent that it was required.

Mr. Hutson asked if the drain near the Toll Road is going to remain and be maintained as part of the drainage plan.

Mr. Trevino stated that there is a drain that helps drain the Toll Road driveway and the property is…there is a natural ground barrier that prevents any of the storm water from going onto that property.  They are not allowed to discharge into that, so their discharge, only after it hits the 100-year storm-plus would be how it is actually now.  

Mr. McQuestion stated that basements will be based on soil scientist’s determination for each individual location, as well as the type of construction of each home.  

Mr. Breitzke stated, for clarity, the ditch that goes under the Toll Road and overflows onto the petitioner’s property…there is a berm, as it fills up, it goes Northerly, so it’s not the other way around.

Mr. Trevino stated that in a quick rain, where there is a lot of runoff in a moment’s time, they are not going to do anything to that area to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Hutson stated that he would like to see the covenants.

Mr. McQuestion stated that it’s somewhat poorly drained along the Toll Road where they show potential basement sites all the way through the hydric and up.

Mr. Hutson stated that he’s really concerned that they are putting homes out there and creating potential problems down the road.  The wetlands will fill in gradually, vegetation gradually fills in.  Regarding mosquito control, Porter County was Number 2 in West Nile cases last year, so it’s a big issue.

Ms. Stevenson asked how they decided to come up with this property on the wetlands.

Mr. Shinn stated that he and Mr. Razik were driving around one day and saw the for-sale sign and decided to buy it.  They talked about conservation development and doing it right and they think there is a market for people who want to be here.

Ms. Stevenson asked if they don’t think it’s going to end up back in the County’s lap as a serious problem even after all they do.

Mr. Shinn stated that they are going to be controlling the property – he is the builder.  They are not going to be letting four or five other builders in there, so, if there is a problem, you come to them.  There is a set of covenants that they gave to DAC – a draft – addressing those issues.  With other builders, they are going to be taking a cash deposit for any problems so they have cash to work with.

Mr. Wieser stated that the County ended up with DLZ because they needed an expert that could answer the questions and put minds at ease.   DLZ is saying that it’s not going  to end up back in the County’s lap, that it can work.

Ms. Stevenson stated that the water issue existed before they bought the property, but she’s thinking they are saying that they are going to go in there and correct a lot of the problems that have existed for years.

Mr. Shinn stated that the only issue they see right now is the water that’s going over 1050 W. and that is one issue – what was discussed earlier was the pipe under 1050 going North is clogged on both ends and they can’t do anything about  that today.  If they get


approved, they can do something about it.  They plan to improve the conditions.

Ms. Stevenson asked how the houses that they have previously built on Delray soils are now.

Mike Shook stated that he is speaking for his mother and father and they have a 15-acre pond that was dug as a borrow pit for the Toll Road which is naturally lower than their footings and footing tiles, so they have access to a natural drain that that property doesn’t.

Mr. Shinn stated that some of the ways that they build houses today use poured concrete walls and they waterproof the exterior, use drain tile inside and out, stone the interior of the whole basement floor, go into a sump pump so the water flows freely to the sump pump, so, the way houses are built today are a lot different from what they were years ago.  

Ms. Stevenson asked if the sump pumps will be running all the time.

Mr. Shinn stated that he doesn’t know.  If they do run, when water seeks its own level in the pit, the pump goes up.  They won’t run 24 hours a day.

Mr. Cole stated that if nothing is done with this property it remains as it is – wet, a problem and mosquito-ridden.  If their petition is denied, what will happen with the property?

Mr. Shinn stated that they have no plans for anything except the development.

Mr. Cole stated that, essentially, it would be abandoned.  The master plan of the town of Chesterton doesn’t recognize nearly as much wetland on that area as this does and they see the possibility of factories out here.  Chesterton has already gone on notice that they plan to protect their borders by assuring that the development that they are looking forward to occurs.  If we have the opportunity here to develop something that is probably more conducive to what the property can sustain, what is best for the area.   The area is always wet when seen from the road, but when you walk on it, there is some high ground and a house in there with a basement with no water marks in it and that’s the location they have picked for their homes.   If they abandon the property, it might be bought by someone with a less desirable plan who will request annexation to a town that would allow much denser development.   The roads were not built for the increase in traffic.  The bridge under the old B&O, now the Chessie system, is in danger of collapse and the railroad has been asked to rebuild it.  Duneland Schools has bought more acreage next to Liberty schools and intends to enlarge that school and there will be a lot more traffic, whether this subdivision goes in and not.   This is probably a better plan for the land than has been given to this Board before.




Mr. Read stated that the master plan encourages conservation development, but there’s a tradeoff – the developer is allowed to have smaller lots.  Here, there is 65 percent open space, a lot more than what the County requires.    One of the purposes is to preserve whatever natural features are there, including wetlands.  Lowering the water table would be disastrous to that.  Is it the developers’ purpose to preserve the wetlands where they now exist?

Mr. Shinn stated, yes.

Mr. Read stated that septic tanks cause problems and there can be overflows from sewers, but he prefers sewers.  Regarding the soils, are they planning on using poured concrete, reinforced foundations, footings and walls?  In Chesterton, they only have the footing in concrete, and then they have the concrete block.    He asked how they would build the houses to protect them from the wet conditions and where the water would go when the sump pump runs.

Mr. Shinn stated that customers can have rain barrels or rain gardens or pipe it a little bit away from the house and it would drain naturally overland into the water quality basins and, before it hits the wetlands, it would be pretreated and then go into the storm sewer system.

Mr. Read stated that there are already flooding issues at the site and he doesn’t think there is anyone who can say that they are 100 percent sure that there won’t be any in the future.  Do some of the houses have less than 2 feet of rise above the local high water level?

Mr. Trevino stated that IDEM and the Army Corps have stipulations for 100-year storm levels that mandate that you be 2 feet above the 100-year storm water elevation.   These aren’t that high – just local highs.  The individual local highs are areas where water ponds, because it’s a wetlands, and when it hits different elevations on different parts of  the parcel, it flows in different directions in different areas, but there will be ponding in local areas.

Mr. Read stated that increase in traffic is a problem with each new subdivision and we’d have to turn down every subdivision based on that.  Regarding the open space, there is access to it and plenty of access to the wetlands.  He would suggest putting in boardwalks on some of the wetlands, but he also wants some dry land in open space and asked if they have any.

Mr. Trevino stated that some of it is.  

Mr. Read stated that there is a paragraph that we want on the drawings regarding the open space ordinance.

Ms. Marshall stated that they need updates from the municipal utility companies regarding willingness and capacity to serve.  The



Drainage Board recommended no regulated drain and that a POA be formed to maintain the wetlands.  She doesn’t know why there would be no regulated drain when the information the members got indicated that there would be some runoff from the subdivision and yet the presentation said there would be none, so she’s confused.  In the first two DLZ reports, they say to provide evidence of approval provided by IDEM and the Army Corps for the wetlands mitigation and that approval of the subdivision should be contingent upon that.  In the last DLZ report, that is missing.

Commissioner Harper stated that he thinks it is.

Ms. Marshall stated, oh, yes.   She stated that apparently it doesn’t meet the requirements that IDEM and the Army Corps are requesting.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the operation and maintenance manual is something that he put in the storm water manual and has little to do with IDEM and the Corps.  

Ms. Marshall stated that it’s either required of everybody, or it’s not.   How many of the houses won’t be allowed to have basements?

Mr. Shinn stated, 33.

Ms. Marshall asked if they are bringing fill in to build the houses on, or are they going to lower the road and have the houses so they’re up.

Mr. Shinn stated that they will stake the lot where the house is going to go and start excavating and should they encounter suspect material, that will be removed and replaced with fill, so they don’t plan on lowering anything except the fill that goes underneath, if that’s required.

Ms. Marshall asked where they are going to get the fill.

Mr. Shinn stated that they don’t have a source today.  Most likely, it will be commercial stone, through a quarry, if it’s for the roads.

Ms. Marshall stated that the report from the Plan Commission office says that the proposal has areas of wetlands that will be filled for road purposes and that the wetlands will be mitigated.   

Mr. Shinn stated that they can remove up to 1 acre of wetlands from the site.

Ms. Marshall asked if the little water area will be useable by the public.

Mr. Razik stated that the thought was to give people access and maybe put in a little dock, picnic tables, etc.

Ms. Marshall asked if it will be exclusive to the people in the subdivision and if they will be charged an annual fee to maintain the wetlands area.

Mr. Razik stated that that’s correct, but whether it’s exclusive, he can’t answer that.  It will be maintained by the organization that maintains the wetlands.

Ms. Marshall asked if they are going to put a road across the pipeline and what pipeline is that?

Mr. Razik stated that it’s Marathon Ashland.

Ms. Marshall stated that she thinks we need updated information in regard to IDEM and the Army Corps and how that needs to be done and new letters before we can act on this petition.

Mr. Breitzke stated that if the Highway Department is out there unplugging the road, that’s one of  the lower points of the subdivision, towards the Northwest corner.   We do need an operations and maintenance manual, but he’s not sure when that comes into the picture.

Mr. Detert stated that the first time he saw this draft of the covenants is tonight and it wasn’t sent to us in a timely fashion.  He is about ready to just continue everything when we don’t get that in time.  

Commissioner Harper moved to table Case 07-P-6 for the DLZ valuation to be finished and for Mr. Thompson to discuss Mr. Hewitt’s calculations with them and to address the rest of the questions that the board members had. Ms. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on a 9-0 roll call vote.

Discussion regarding Timberland.

Commissioner Harper stated that since there is no one here for this subdivision, is there any need for discussion on it.

Mr. Breitzke stated, no.

Commissioner Harper stated that the last time they were here the question was did they have a contract with that man, and he thinks they have that now.

Mr. Breitzke stated, yes.

Commissioner Harper asked if we have a copy of it.  He was asking us for permission to proceed once he got a contract.

Commissioner Harper moved to allow them to proceed with this project. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.



At this time, Mr. Detert stated that Shirley Sanders had called him with concerns that that water is going to overflow the banks and go onto her property.   He stated that Mr. Breitzke said there is no problem now, but that there might be some long-term effects.

Commissioner Harper stated that there is a pipe that the Highway didn’t put under the road and he thinks they are going to try to get out there and try to solve that problem.

Discussion on Falling Waters subdivision.

Tony Floramo stated that he is president of Floramo Partners.  At the last Plan Commission meeting, a motion was made relative to their building permits.  He identified the eight items on that motion and their status.  Right now, the chuckholes were completed on May 1, 2007. The street signs, on April 27, 2007; he wasn’t sure on the timing.  They have a logo that was specific on the street signs.  They were ordered and delivered on May 14, 2007 and he has the paperwork that he will pass on.  The retaining walls were completed on 5-3-07.  The only retaining wall that was not completed and that was specifically excluded from the motion was the wall on the North end.   They will relocate that cul-de-sac accordingly.  The fences were completed 5-4-07.  The debris, including the concrete, was completed 5-7-07.  The fire hydrants were raised on 5-4-07.  The weeds in the lake, the first of 10 treatments was performed on 5-2-07.  It’s his understanding that the lake has seen improvements already.  The unsafe streetlights has a 6-week lead time.  They have a letter from the manufacturer with the delivery time that he will forward to the Plan Commission.  It’s his understanding that they are in production relative to the color; they are replacing all 33 of the heads and they need to make sure that the casting matches the pole.  They had a homeowners meeting on 5-3-07 and 21 deed-holders were present and 35 people.  The next meeting is 6-6-07.  They have decided that instead of the  four homeowners meetings, now they will be monthly and they are meeting at Boone Grove School.  There were discussions relative to enforcement of covenants.  Correction letters were sent out to individuals who are in non-compliance.  Of the letters that were sent out, two have been corrected already.  A resident noticed somebody having an abandoned car delivered in front of their house and notified them.  They sent a letter and two days later it was moved.  Another resident noticed that somebody was cutting down trees in a common area; they called the builder, and it was stopped.   The rear gates are open.  He’s installed concrete barriers on the four problem areas that individuals were flying up in, similar to what you would see on the interstate for traffic control.  The mattresses and the old debris have been removed.   The missing storm rims that were gone have been replaced.  He has been onsite every day but one for the last two weeks making sure his presence is seen and felt.  He placed a full-time maintenance person with his own money and that person has achieved items 1-8 and then some.  He is also maintaining some areas trying to make Falling Waters’ front entrance everything that it should be.  





Mr. Burns stated that he was out there today, and he did make a lot of improvements, but he’s still concerned about the roadways.   He knows we have Armstrong Engineering scheduled to check the roadways.

Mr. Thompson stated that they were asked to check that and possibly do about five corings to look for structural stability.

Mr. Burns stated that they may want to do more.  We have a lot of sinking around the utilities.  About 60 percent, in driving around, have dips in the roads.

Mr. Floramo stated that right now, the homeowners’ association has not been charged for any of the patching that they did for two days.

Mr. Burns asked who did that.

Mr. Floramo stated, Rieth-Reilly did.

Mr. Burns asked who was responsible for the utilities.

Mr. Floramo stated that a company out of Frankfort was the company that did that, but they had some 38-foot cuts in some of those deep sewers and when Rieth-Reilly was out there and they knew where those cuts were and they tried to do everything they could.  He would submit that the roadways went in in 2002 and he agrees that most of the problem areas occurred in some of these crossings, but, when he went to patch them, the information that he got from the individual who patched them, was hey, we did this out, what do we do.  He stated that he doesn’t want to do them again. It wasn’t a failure like the sinkhole was up on the end; it’s a dip, and their response to him was with the amount of time that’s transpired, it’s settled to the point that it's going to settle.   

Mr. Burns stated that another problem is silt fencing.  A lot of them are down and it’s a mess out there.  There are drains plugged with mud.

Mr. Floramo stated that his representative onsite has been instructed to take the silt fences that are down and get rid of them, unfabric the storm systems that have collected them.  If there is vegetation going to that, clean that out and see what’s what.   

Mr. Burns asked if  the County polices private subdivisions.

Commissioner Harper stated, yes.

Mr. Burns stated that there are current builders out there that don’t have silt fencing up.  

Mr. Thompson stated that when the building inspectors go out there, they will warn them if they are down that they need to be up.


Mr. Burns stated that there are several builders and homes under construction where the silt fences are either down or were never up.

Commissioner Harper stated that he thinks we need to get somebody out there and make the ordinance stronger, if need be.   One of the things that concerns him is the lake. Who is responsible for that and how many lakes are there?

Mr. Floramo stated, four.

Commissioner Harper asked who is responsible.

Mr. Floramo stated that it’s the conservancy district.

Commissioner Harper asked if  the conservancy district is paying for the cleaning of the lakes.

Mr. Floramo stated, no, the maintenance of the lakes,  the actual lake itself is owned by the conservancy district.  The maintenance of the lake is by the homeowners’ association.  

Commissioner Harper stated that it’s his understanding that they formed a conservancy district and they sold to that the infrastructure of the subdivision.  He asked what the infrastructure was.

Mr. Floramo stated, the water lines, sanitary lines, storm lines, ponds, etc., the wastewater treatment plant.

Commissioner Harper asked, when the conservancy district was formed and the monies were paid out, was that wastewater treatment plant functional?  

Mike Cap stated that he believes that bonds were sold in December 2005 and the wastewater treatment plant was under testing for its operation in January 2006.

Commissioner Harper stated that while they were forming the conservancy district it was decided that the conservancy district would buy 100 acres of  the subdivision, correct?

Mr. Floramo stated, yes.

Commissioner Harper stated that he understands that they went and got some appraisals and then were looking at how much something in Chesterton was costing, and finally decided to pay himself $16,000 for the ponds and wetlands and so forth an acre, is that about right?

Mr. Floramo stated that he thinks that’s reflected in the literature.

Commissioner Harper stated that in addition to the money they got for the infrastructure, they also got a $1.6 million for the land that they couldn’t sell in lots out of the subdivision.

Mr. Floramo stated that he wouldn’t phrase it that way.  One of the nine components of the conservancy district was to maintain the environmental quality of the lakes, so one of the specific uses of the districts was to handle the lakes, and part of the lakes also got into the very elaborate storm water system, so it wasn’t land they couldn’t use; it was something that the district planned – a couple of judges and IDEM, DNR and a lot of individuals reviewed.   It was a process that went through not only the scrutiny of many attorneys and many judges – they had to submit all this data – the appraisals, the amounts and whatnot.  

Commissioner Harper asked, how many homeowners in this subdivision were involved in this process, that were aware that they sold 100 acres of wetlands and ponds to the conservancy district for $1.6 million.  Did homeowners come to the hearings and heard that?  

Mr. Floramo stated that what concerns him, in the disclosure…

Commissioner Harper stated that one thing that’s missing from this letter – he thinks – is that when the appraisals were done – by the way, didn’t one of the appraisers sue the conservancy district?

Mr. Floramo stated that he tried to charge him three times for the same appraisal.

Commissioner Harper asked if Rieth-Reilly sued them also.

Mr. Floramo stated, yes.  Rieth-Reilly wouldn’t perform their warranty work.  They performed the sub-structure and what not and we had problems with the roads.

Commissioner Harper stated that one of the things that’s required is that they provide a builder’s affidavit of how much money they put in the infrastructure so far, and he doesn’t think that’s in the packet.  He stated that he would like that.

Mr. Floramo stated that that was to further the validity of the affidavit.  All payouts for Falling Waters went through a title company.

Commissioner Harper stated that here’s what concerns him right now:  Right now, what we have is a subdivision being sold in Porter County where the conservancy district has bought all of these wetlands and open spaces – 100 acres for $1.6 million, and it appears to him that the conservancy district doesn’t have much money left after they had to set aside so much money to get the lots sold to make payments on the bonds, and they’ve got about $8.5 million to $9 million out of it, right?  So there’s not a lot of money left in the conservancy district, so they’ve got all these people driving in here, looking at these ponds and wetlands and stuff they are supposed to be getting.  He’s real concerned about whether they are going to buy something that is going to be kept up, because the conservancy district doesn’t have enough money for it, we’ve got a $10 million bond that needs to be



paid back, and that $10 million bond – how many homes are in the subdivision right now that are unoccupied?

Mr. Floramo stated that the $10 million bond affects all the lots.  

Commissioner Harper asked if the bond is paid per lot or in real estate taxes based on appraised value.

Mr. Floramo stated that he wants to defer that to their financial advisor who put this together.  His understanding is that there’s an assessed valuation on everything that is out to Falling Waters.  It is per hundred on an evaluation as a conservancy district charge.

Commissioner Harper stated that what he sees is that each lot, if they were all sold, is going to have to pay $15,000 plus whatever the interest and so forth is on the bond, so, over the years, if you divide $10 million by…so each lot is going to have to pay $15,000, plus whatever the interest and so forth is on a yearly basis until the bond is retired.  He sees this coming together, and this isn’t spread over a township – it’s spread over one subdivision.

Mr. Floramo stated that he has the lion’s share – 264 lots, so the majority of this money…

Commissioner Harper stated that he’s just telling him, that if everything goes alright, but he’s just looking at this thing and there isn’t even the money left in the conservancy district right now to take care of the bonds and everything.

Mr. Floramo stated that that’s not true.  He stated that he had  to give, right now – which is indicated in Mr. Hollenbeck’s letter – a million dollar bond, but it’s not a bond – it’s a letter of credit; there’s a big difference. If the bond-holders – all they care about is their money – whatever their payment structure is, so, if the tax revenue that does not come in from Porter County or whatever, they will draw off this letter of credit.

Commissioner Harper stated that he saw title work on that policy on that property and it showed like several loans – one was $13 million, one was $10 million – he doesn’t know if they’re still there or not.

Mr. Floramo stated that with the amount of money that is out there, the title policies right now, there is one primary lender that is handling his debt, $13 million, $12 million and all that other stuff has been paid off and paid down through the refinancing.  He can’t have $40 million in debt on $20 in real estate.

Commissioner Harper stated that one thing that concerns him is…you’ve got how many lots left to sell?

Mr. Floramo stated, 260-ish.

Commissioner Harper stated that he thinks it’s important that when people drive in there and buy a lot to understand that they are going to pay for the infrastructure, they’re going to pay for the ponds, they’re going to pay for the open spaces, and how much a lot they are going to pay for, and it’s in the advertising?

Mr. Floramo stated that it’s in his contract.

Commissioner Harper stated that he would like to see it.

Mr. Floramo stated, absolutely.

Commissioner Harper stated that this doesn’t say anything.

Mr. Floramo stated that here is another document, which is also in Mr. Hollenbeck’s voluminous piece, that individuals sign a waiver acknowledging (inaudible).

Commissioner Harper stated that he’s just telling him that he’s looked at two of these papers so far, and neither one of them – he doesn’t question that they’re legally sufficient.  What he is saying is if he were buying a lot from him and was looking over all these documents, it would not register with him that he was paying for everything that was being advertised here.  There is nothing there that says Mr. Consumer, you are going to pay for these ponds, these open spaces and the water/sewer plant – you’re going to pay that in the lot – there is nothing here that says that.  It says:  “Further discloses that once the conservancy district is established, it shall serve Falling Waters subdivision and shall have the authority, flood information control, improving drainage, providing for irrigation”…sure, but where does it say we’re going to pay the developer $1.6 million for 100 acres in here?

Mr. Floramo stated that it was the thought process requirement through Mr. Hollenbeck that through other conservancy districts located in Porter County, specifically identified in this letter – you have Aberdeen, which has Nature Works – they did exactly what we did.

Commissioner Harper stated that that’s a shame, if it happened this way.  He stated that he’s not saying there’s anything illegal about it. He’s saying that it’s a shame because he would have driven in there and bought a lot and wouldn’t have a clue that he was paying for the open space and infrastructure and everything else and what’s really a shame is that this thing isn’t all sold out right now and if he was sitting there, one of the few lots sold, I’d be thinking, holy cow, what happens if something goes wrong here – there’s a $10 million bond on this place and, further he’s thinking, because he’s seen some letters he’s sent, and sometimes people say, I’ve got a problem with this lot, and you say, you don’t talk to me – you talk to the homeowners’ association.   And then he’ll see another letter – don’t talk to me – talk to the conservancy district – and he’s right.  If he’s got a problem with the bond right now he should be talking to the conservancy district.  As a Plan Commission we’ve got to do something to protect the consumer.


Mr. Floramo stated that he’s not disagreeing with him, and he acknowledges a marketing issue on this.  Part of the problem on the initial, which he doesn’t have now, is the district is established and it’s on the street, when he sees lots are built and the builder constructs a home, whether it’s a spec home or whatever it is – let’s use the sample of a spec home – that builder then markets that house and sells it.  He doesn’t know the communication between that builder and then that consumer because they had the homeowners’ meeting the other night and he didn’t know a lot of the people that were there, because they didn’t buy a lot from him – they bought homes from individuals who were building houses.

Commissioner Harper stated that this subdivision is supposed to have carriage lanes, correct?  What is a carriage lane?

Mr. Cap stated that a carriage walk is a narrower sidewalk – 4.5 feet wide – immediately back of the curb on one side of the street.

Commissioner Harper stated that he sees it advertised, so, if he buys a lot in there, it makes him think he’s going to be able to walk around the subdivision, right?  That’s the idea, that his kids are going to have a sidewalk and so forth, but several of the lots don’t have that.

Mr. Floramo stated that they are in violation.

Commissioner Harper asked how many are in violation.

Mr. Floramo stated that he doesn’t know – enough to make it that he sent a letter to that individual that is a homeowner.   He is instructing that individual that they have X amount of time to put in the carriage walk.

Commissioner Harper stated that some of them have landscaping and all kinds of stuff on it.

Mr. Floramo stated that they put in their landscaping not in compliance with the submitted site plan that they submitted.

Commissioner Harper asked, who built most of those homes?

Mr. Floramo stated that he didn’t build any of those homes.

Commissioner Harper asked, if we look at the homes that don’t have the carriage lanes, most of them were the first homes that were built by Mr. Jones, isn’t that true?

Mr. Floramo stated that there are a couple Mr. Joneses who are builders.

Commissioner Harper stated that he’s talking about Mr. Jones the father, the Mr. Jones that’s here now.  He stated that if you want to take the time to go out and look at the homes without the carriage



lanes and see who built them, aren’t most of the homes without the carriage lanes the first homes that were put in there?  So, he’s telling him that he sat and watched these people, on the first homes that are going in in the subdivision, put them in by Bill Jones, who he’s worked with for years – is that not true?

Mr. Floramo stated, yes.

Commissioner Harper stated, and he didn’t put the carriage lanes in, and now you’re sending them letters because they’re in violation, which they are.    

Mr. Floramo stated, well, Bill Jones, to answer your question…

Commissioner Harper stated, let’s forget Bill Jones; let’s think about you driving around the subdivision and seeing that these houses are going in without the carriage lanes – your first 10 houses or so in the subdivision.

Mr. Floramo stated that, trying to go backward with excuses – he knows why it happened.

Commissioner Harper asked, why did it happen?

Mr. Floramo stated, because they had a parade of homes that had 20,000 and 8,000 people going through it.  They had landscapers set up because they had  people that needed to go through, they put in their landscaping and said, oh, they’ll come back and put in this carriage walk – I can’t get the concrete in, but I can get the sod in.

Commissioner Harper stated, irregardless, they’re now being sent letters.  The first homes built in your subdivision are now being violated for not having carriage lanes.  Do you recognize that home?

Mr. Floramo stated, I do.

Commissioner Harper asked, is that a lakefront home?

Mr. Floramo stated, yes.

Commissioner Harper asked, does it have access to the lake?

Mr. Floramo stated that there is a buffer, but it abuts the lake.

Commissioner Harper asked, who owns the lake?

Mr. Floramo stated that that lake is a multiple-owned lake.

Commissioner Harper asked, does the farmer own some of that lake?  These boundaries are whose?  Last time we were talking, and I think Mr. Cole thought that these no trespassing signs were about the neighbors.  What are these no trespassing signs about?

Mr. Floramo stated that what Mr. Cole is referring to, there is a no trespassing sign by Lot 222 or 226.  He believes a Mr. Harris or Harrison lives on the other side of the lake.

Commissioner Harper asked, who owns some of the lake frontage on your side, correct?

Mr. Floramo stated, no.

Commissioner Harper asked, he owns none of the land…

Mr. Floramo stated, I don’t know about that.  He stated that Mr. Sturgill owns…which I have an option on that land for another eight years or whatever the time frame is, so, in that option that I have with him I also have rights to that lake.

Commissioner Harper asked, isn’t this guy put this up because some people are being sold homes that said lakefront and their property doesn’t actually go up to the waterfront?

Mr. Floramo stated, absolutely not, because nobody touches the waterfront.  We have a conservation easement that the property line stops short of the water.

Commissioner Harper stated that you’re telling me that this guy is putting these signs up and he doesn’t have the right to keep people off that lake and that land.

Mr. Floramo stated that he has the right to keep people off of his land – some of those signs are on the land.  He does not have the right to put a no trespassing sign on a lake that is multiple owned.  There are no boundaries…

Commissioner Harper stated that he’s talking about the land between a few of these houses.

Mr. Floramo stated that there is a buffer  -- if you look at the map, there is a buffer on the bottom that shows a walkway that anybody can walk in the back of these lots that adjoin the water.  That way he can keep individuals from placing…Mr. Rakowski owns this lot; he was here last week.

Mr. Cap stated that one of these signs is in the water.  The property line across this particular lake goes through the middle of the lake.  

Commissioner Harper stated that the last thing he wants to pass on is a saga of what these people went through to try to get a telephone and you had a fight…

Mr. Floramo stated that I didn’t do that last week.  There were a few individuals that I had a fight with.  I will not be extorted.  He attempted to charge me.  I went downstate to form my own telephone



company, Falling Waters Telecom, which is specific to this area.  A few individuals who were my first individuals in my subdivision because of life safety and what not, I gave them free telephone lines.  I ran lines from Division, 2 miles, 3 miles, to these individuals’ houses, tied it in for them, did not charge them any usage, anything, for the time that they used my business line.  I have the records. I have the amount of money – they made their personal calls.  I felt obligated to give these individuals cell phones because I was being not told the truth relative to  the phone system.  The phone system, as of right now, NITCO and I have made amends.  NITCO has been in the subdivision since November of ’05. Any individual in my subdivision can call NITCO tomorrow and have a hard line connected to their house.

Commissioner Harper stated that he’s not denying that, but it was a nightmare.

Mr. Floramo stated that it was a nightmare for him, too.  He tried to do what he thought was the right thing to do, giving them phone lines, and he gave them to them for free.

Commissioner Harper stated that if anyone here has any comments on what has been said here tonight, he thinks we should give the residents the right to…for us to allow people to drive in there, to not take some steps now to protect the consumer…he just doesn’t know.  

Ms. Marshall stated that she has a communication from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and she asked for the monitoring because she is concerned about the quality of the outfall.  She asked when they said this plant became operational.

Mr. Floramo stated that he did not write the exact date.

Mr. Cap stated that they were operating it in a test mode from January, February, March of ’06, but because of the capacity in the treatment chambers, they didn’t have a discharge,  formal discharge, until April of ’06.  They were in contact with IDEM, as well, he thinks officially, he believes that their first formal operating report was filed in May of ’06 for the month of April of ’06.

Ms. Marshall stated that as long as the plant has been operational, there have been three submittals to IDEM and there was a violation of  the outfall, so there’s only been three up to this time, and they were in June, July and September of ’06; there have been no other submittals to IDEM for this permit that they have.  She is just making them aware of it, because she thinks that whoever is operator of the plant needs to be getting his data filed, because the outfall, they claim goes in a ditch, which is, they call it a tributary of Deep River and so she’s just making  them aware that she has that report here.

Mr. Cap stated that he spoke with a representative from IDEM last week on another matter and she acknowledged that they had all their monthly operating reports filed.

Dr. Peter Gutierez, 729 Cirque Court, stated that he bought the first lot that was sold to a non-builder in Falling Waters.  At the closing, Mr. Floramo was there with Mr. Cap and he would agree that they said nothing to him to inform him that he was going to have to pay for the sewage plant, for the wastewater treatment plant, and for the city water that he supposedly paid for when he bought the property and paid cash for it. They were never informed of it, they were never informed of  the bond hearing.   It is true  that Mr. Floramo finally provided a Valparaiso line for him, but he couldn’t make any long distance calls, and the number of people he knows in Valparaiso is minimal.  He also did not have Comcast, which was told to him…he was told when he bought the lot that all utilities were in.  He also submitted, before they built the house and submitted the plans to him, and the coach sidewalk was never mentioned.  He had very nice landscaping, which Mr. Floramo came over and admired it and it was a very professional job.  Their home appears on many of the circulars.  He has not been asked to put the walk in because, he thinks, they know that he will fight it because he spent a lot of money putting the landscaping in and to make him go back and take it out and put a sidewalk in now, when every step of the way, they had it approved would be criminal.  He thinks it was wrong of them not to tell them about the bond issue.  They were never given an opportunity to remonstrate against it or to do anything.  Also, when he bought the land, he bought what was considered lakefront and he owned down to the lake.  He was never informed that their property had an area that wasn’t technically theirs.

Joan Kenevan, 87 Levano Dr., Crown Point, stated that her biggest concern is this conservancy district, because conservancy district sounds fancy, but it’s the waste treatment facility. Two weeks ago, Mr. Floramo didn’t even know who the operator was, let alone anything else, so he doesn’t know who collects the samples, sends them to the lab, and then that’s sent to the state, so she’s seriously concerned about this because it’s a big health issue. She’s also seriously concerned about that they don’t know the name of the company, the guy calls Mr. Detert out of the blue and says that the lights are going to be in in six weeks.  June 13th would be the next Plan Commission meeting, where the streetlights should be in by June 6th, from what they’ve said, so, on June 13th, she thinks that Mr. Floramo should come back and we should see whether he’s actually installed the street lights.  Mr. Hutson was talking about mosquito control – is there a mosquito spraying in Four Seasons, Mr. Detert?

Mr. Detert stated, no.

Ms. Kenevan stated that you talk about West Nile virus, but somebody’s going to be the next victim of West Nile virus, and there’s no mosquito spraying.   She stated that she would like to submit for the record, the Governor’s Award  recipients. Her submission is in the file.  In order to get the conservancy district, they had to get somebody else, and that’s David Hollenbeck, who’s not here tonight.  In his literature that’s on the internet, it says, “today, David Hollenbeck devotes a substantial portion of his practice to



representing local governments and agencies”.  That is an understatement.  Mr. Hollenbeck represents conservancies districts…at one time he represented the Porter Township fire department and the trustee, too.  Then it goes on, “conservancy districts – this is his literature – “our attorneys also provide legal counsel to nearly 20 conservancy districts in six counties”.  So this is his expertise.  “Established by Indiana law, these districts allow residents not served by municipal sewer and water utilities to form a district for obtaining services.  In addition to providing an environmentally positive alternative to outdated leaching septic fields, conservancy districts offer property developers better tools for land development, and allow property owners more direct input into development and management of their own utility services”.  Well, I’m telling you – that’s not the case.  Here is Exhibit D – this is something that’s handed out at the gatehouse and falls in with this conservancy district:  “Purchasers acknowledge and accept the creation and/or formation of Falling Waters conservancy district, which will operate and maintain various infrastructure within the development, including the wastewater treatment facility”.  

Mr. Florama stated that at the homeowners’ meeting on May 3rd, a report from OTM, who is our testing service for the wastewater, we provided a copy of that report to Ms. Kenevan.

Ms. Kenevan stated, you did not.   Ohhhh.  

Mr. Floramo stated that we provided what that was and she reviewed it with Mr. Cap.

Ms. Kenevan stated that it was from August 6, 2006 – he showed me a copy.  This is May of 2007.  That’s the latest sample they have?

Jackie Gutierez, 729 Cirque Ct., Crown Point, stated, one, I’d like to know what the four lakes are; two, we were the first people who moved into Falling Waters.  Never once were we presented with cell phones. As many of you can understand, my husband is a physician.  It’s imperative that he has a phone.  We used our own cell phones.  We begged – and I do mean begged – for phones.  At one given moment, I spoke with Mr. Floramo’s uncle, who told me when I was crying and upset that we did not have a phone, he told me that Marco Sowa was, as we speak, pulling the line through.  I immediately went down to the gatehouse, which is where Marco was, not pulling a line.  This has gone on so long that we have been told that the members of Falling Waters cannot use that lake where the no trespassing sign is.   You may look at it, but you cannot use it, that it belongs to the gentleman across the way, but yet it’s advertised as part of Falling Waters.

Robert William Jones, 74 Marina Terrace, Crown Point, stated that I want to say thank you to the commission for hearing our concerns and I know  that a lot of them shouldn’t be concerns of yours, but I appreciate the help that you’ve been giving us and I also wanted to



put my input into what I’ve been seeing in the subdivision.  The bulk of complaints and safety issues that I’d seen and the potholes, the weeds, the lakes, the fences – I see a presence here from Mr. Floramo.  He has been more present in the subdivision, and I want it known that I do appreciate that.  He does have an employee – I’ve met him and he seems like a very approachable man.  He is working on a lot of the things that Mr. Floramo said. Again, I think the fences are better, I think the potholes are better, the garbage has been picked up, the refuse has been picked up, and I’m sure there’s still some small concerns of mine.  I’m concerned about the conservancy district, but 90 percent of what I think we’ve been complaining about and what you’ve heard complaints about have been, at least, addressed.  I do realize as a builder that this is a subdivision that’s in what I consider its infancy stages and we’re going to have growing pains.  It’s not going to be rectified and fixed and altered overnight. I appreciate the fact that the developer has made a presence out there and is trying to at least work with the homeowners.  I believe that Mr. Floramo is more approachable and it’s benefiting our subdivision.  We did have a meeting and I’m just asking that you consider lifting  the ban on building permits, because, in my opinion, things are much better and they’re closer to what we expected as homeowners when we first moved out there.

Commissioner Harper asked, do you have your silt fences up?

Mr. Jones stated, yessir.

Pete Kovachick, 758 Medwin Way, Crown Point, stated that there’s been a big improvement that we’ve seen over the past couple of weeks and I appreciate everything that you folks have done.  I think the stance that you have taken, it seems to, at least, at this point, have gotten the message through to Mr. Floramo that there needs to be a presence and some of the things that make a nice subdivision nice need to be done, and we’ve seen that. As the first house in the neighborhood with a carriage walk, I can tell you how much we enjoy having that.  We’ve got small kids and it’s nice to be able to have them take their bikes and things like that and be able to travel down a sidewalk.  I would ask the commission, in the future, when a neighborhood comes in, don’t have them just put a carriage walk on one side of the street – have it on both so you’ve got some continuity and you can make it all the way around the block. The way ours are set up, it’s on the opposite side of the water line, and, so, you’ll make it halfway down our street and then you’ve got to cross to get onto the carriage walk on the other side and then cross back over so you can work your way down.  When you have little kids, it’s kind of scary to think they have to cross the street to stay on the carriage walk.  There have been some nice changes in the neighborhood.  People that have come over to my house have already noticed the difference and it makes me proud to tell people to come on by because it looks respectable.





Don Plumb, 784 Cirque Drive, stated that I ditto what Pete said about improvements to the neighborhood.  There have been a lot of visible things taking place.  My biggest concern is that a ban on building permits will start to have a negative effect on our property values, if it’s left in place too long.  I think that you’ve gotten Mr. Floramo’s attention, and, at the last property owners’ meeting he actually said that he was sorry, which is the first time I’ve ever heard him have any remorse about anything that he’s done or not done out there, and I really appreciate it.  I think he’s turning over a new leaf and time will tell whether this is going to last or not. We’ve only been in there two years, so we haven’t suffered some of the things that some of the people who’ve been here longer, but, at this point, I think if the ban is not lifted, I think it’s going to start to have a negative effect on construction in the subdivision, which, we’ve already got a bad name in the market.  I’d like to see that reversed, so I would request that you vote to reinstate the building permits.

Ms. Gutierrez, 729 Cirque Court, stated that with regard to the maintenance of the lakes, I spoke with a young man as he was treating our lake, the lake we are on, and I asked him if he was the same one that has done it for the past few years, and he said, the firm is, I’m a different person, but our firm is the same.  I said last year we just got treatment in June and my neighbors and myself and several other members were applauding as he came through and tried to treat the lake, so I said to him, why did we only get one treatment in June. He said, well, Mr. Floramo didn’t want to pay any more, so we had one treatment.  This year, since we have met here, I have been told that we are set for eight to 10 treatments.  My only concern with this is I don’t want to be lulled into a false sense of security, I don’t want a pat on my head saying everything’s going to be fine and then, in a distance, it’s going to change again and that’s my major concern.

Cheryl Labetic, 66 Morena Terrace, stated that I, too, will have to acknowledge the fact that over the past couple weeks I’ve seen considerable change in the subdivision, and I will have to thank all of you, as well, for that for your support in getting those things done, because, after several years of trying to get those things done on our own, without success, we have come to you for that.  My concern is shared with what was just mentioned, that we did get an apology from Tony and we do see progress, but progress is it progress that wanted to be made by Tony, or is it progress that’s being put on him by having all of you kind of breathing down his neck and then letting him know of your presence, so, the concern to me is that if we all walk away and don’t continue to support the subdivision and don’t continue to follow through with this that we may lose that.  I don’t want to discredit Mr. Floramo, but, again, after doing something for so long you kind of get a little wise and you learn who to trust and sometimes you choose and learn who not to trust.  I want to put that trust back out there, but, my concern again is just having to step away from it. My other concern, still, is with the conservancy district.  I have to agree with the Commissioner. During the closing



of my lot, papers were being shifted around.  At no time was I aware that I was signing to pay $15,000 to $20,000 additional coverage in my home.  I do recall a meeting that I was asked to come to and it was…there were a few homeowners who lived in  the subdivision at the time.  It was a meeting that Tony or whoever called to have it.  One of the current residents who was already living in the subdivision’s home.  We met there and we were presented with this form and it was a form in regards to the conservancy district and the $10 million and whatnot.  We were all asked to sign it at that gathering, and I chose not to.  I had a lot of concerns from our attorney before we even bought into the subdivision and he had always told us, before you do anything in this subdivision, you need to come to me first.  We took the form home with us.  We chose not to sign that after speaking with our attorney.  I dated it, timed it, do not sign per Jerry, and I’ve kept that.  Now when I’m being told that we signed something for this, I’ve got to argue, because I have this form that I chose not to sign with our attorney’s advice.  I spoke with my attorney yesterday in regards to a separate matter.  I mentioned it to him – he recalled the situation – and I still have that form. I guess my question would be, why was there an additional form put out there if, supposedly, I had signed that at the time of my closing?  I was told by a resident, who, at the time, was working closely with Tony, that we better sign this form because you really don’t want Tony on your bad side because he will make your life in this subdivision miserable.  I kind of took that as a threat, but, just knowing the person that had mentioned it to me, we let that go and never held that directly against Tony because this was heresay coming from a outside body.  That person actually came into my house during construction to inform us that we really need to sign that form, at which time we indicated that we had chosen not to by what we were being advised, so, I guess my question is, why was I represented with this form if it was something that supposedly we had already signed at the time of our closing.

Commissioner Harper stated that I have these forms that he’s given me.  In my opinion, none of these forms bring it home to you that you are going to pay $15,000 or more a lot and that you are buying the open space, you’re paying for the open space and the ponds and the lakes and so forth.   My thought is, do we owe some responsibility to those that are going to buy the rest of these lots?  I don’t know.

Mr. Floramo stated, if you would present me and my legal counsel language that you would like to see entered into the contract form, a different matter of disclosure of this, I’d be more than happy to review that.

Commissioner Harper stated that it’s going to have to not just go to the builders that you sell the lot to, but it’s going to have to be a requirement that the builders go to whoever they sell the lot to, but it’s going to have to be a requirement that the builders go to whoever they sell the lot to.





Mr. Floramo stated that that’s difficult for me to control in that I close the lots to either a builder or somebody building a house through a specific builder or somebody holding a lot for future development.

Mr. Breitzke stated, how about if I suggest that you record the document and that’s referred to in the title insurance.

Mr. Floramo stated that it is already on the title.

Mr. Breitzke stated, well, I mean, beyond that, is the amount is what he’s talking about.

Commissioner Harper stated that he’s talking about the amount and what you’re buying.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that will carry with the title. Someone sells a house, it goes forward, and then there’s that information that’s…

Commissioner Harper stated, let’s just think about this for a second, what’s happened here, and he knows that, because he tells that when it serves his purpose.  He really has no further responsibility towards the water company and he really has no further responsibility towards the lake.  He has shifted that whole thing, so, not only are they buying that amount of money per lot and the interest that it’s going to cost to pay off the bond, they are also buying the responsibility for all these things and it’s not like in Flint Lake where I lived did it, where it shows for existing people and homeowners and everybody that was involved in forming the district, you know, if you wanted in or you wanted out, so people need to be aware of what they’re getting into.  I can see myself walking right into this, signing the papers, signing what this is, and not having a clue.  When I see advertising material that says…you know…think about this:  You’re going to have city water and sewers and ponds and streams and fields.  It doesn’t say, and you’re going to pay for it and here’s how much it is a lot –- $15,000.  Maybe we live in this kind of society where we just sort of people walk into that, but I’ve got a problem with it.

Mr. Breitzke asked, what ideas do you have?

Commissioner Harper stated that somehow it’s got to be brought home to people what they’re paying for here, I would think.  I think we need to change our whole ordinance in regard to this thing, but that doesn’t help these people.

Mr. Burns stated that right now, I would have a difficult time to move for approval of any kind of subdivision (inaudible) after this.





Mr. Detert stated that we talked a little bit about that.  I don’t know if I ever want to approve another private road because we’re getting the problems back.

Commissioner Harper stated that he came here and made it sound like we insisted that he have private roads.

Mr. Detert stated, well, he asked for private roads.

Commissioner Harper stated, oh, I know.

Mr. Detert stated, I’m just saying, I don’t think we ought to approve any more because when something happens and the people come to us looking for relief…

Commissioner Harper stated that we want to make sure that they don’t get involved in this anymore, but I just hate to see anybody else walk in there and buy a lot, and I understand that doesn’t help the people that are here, but I hate to see anybody else walk in there and buy a lot and not know that they are buying $15,000 upfront, interest money in keeping the bond going, and somehow they’re responsible for all this infrastructure, because they are.

Mr. Detert asked, can a flier be made up that would satisfy that?

Commissioner Harper stated, that’s what I’m asking.

Mr. Detert stated, in the gatehouse where all these fliers…

Commissioner Harper stated, I think we have to do several things.

Mr. Detert stated, he’s got a problem if he don’t close it he can’t give it to them at that time, but put it in the gatehouse and put it in the packet.

Commissioner Harper stated that I think we also have to have responsibility for him, when he sells it to the developer and some responsibility at closing.  We can have our attorney think about it and get something put together.

Mr. Breitzke stated, that’s why I suggested that a chain of title, if we had a recorded document that’s attached and makes reference specifically to those obligations…

Commissioner Harper stated, I received this today, some of the conservancy district records.  I’m going to have our print shop make five or 10 copies of them, which will be available at the commissioners’ office by Monday.

Mr. Floramo stated that when the first tax bill comes out with a line item on the conservancy districts that is also with…that’s kind of been suggested with Mr. Hollenbeck, there’s 20 conservancy districts and they all have line items on their tax bill.  When the



tax bill is out it will be identified with the dollar amount that is per year as a fee, so, once, if it’s my understanding that now…that the 2006 assessed valuations that tax bill will be issued and there will be an amount on that conservancy district line item so that now individuals, when they do a title search, they do the review, do whatever, they will have a copy of that tax bill on that specific house that is transferred, on that vacant lot that I am transferring or whatever, it’s identified, so it’s another means of communication.

Commissioner Harper stated, I believe that we need to get something right up front so the remainder of these lots are sold. Let our attorney think about it, so that when the remainder of these lots are sold, people know what they are walking into.  We owe that to the rest of the people that buy into this subdivision.

Mr. Cole asked, did we have a similar situation with other conservancy districts?

Commissioner Harper stated, I don’t know.  this is the first time…I asked for these documents and I read today and I realized that these people had bought 100 acres of open space in that subdivision and you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Mr. Breitzke stated that we probably do.  The VLACD, which you belong to, really didn’t own any infrastructure.  They have offices and employees and that was a different circumstance where you’ve paying extra for the bond for the City of Valparaiso to expand its plant.

Commissioner Harper stated that we also had citizens involved. This was formed by the developer.

Mr. Breitzke stated that VLACD isn’t too much larger and I think it had between eight and 10 board members.  What does the board want to do about the moratorium?

Mr. Burns asked, can we have like a tier system:  The current lots that the builders have and paid for, can we have something like that, lift the restriction on that, but the current lots that Tony has or whatever he cannot sell until he gets his documentations in place with our attorney?

Mr. Breitzke stated that Mr. Thompson has sorted out  the lots Mr. Floramo owned and we discussed that a couple meetings ago as a possibility.

Mr. Thompson stated that I think Mr. McClure is going to have to answer that one.

Mr. McClure stated that from the first meeting, my position’s been that I think this is something that’s either on or off; it’s not



a partial-type situation. Based upon safety, infrastructure, things that we’ve outlined, I don’t see how we can make a decision based upon current sales or current sold lots that would be somehow logically connected to our moratorium.

Mr. Burns moved to continue the restriction until the developer gets the paperwork in order, the advertisement or recording the deed or whatever, and that should be completed in two weeks or thereabouts.  Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that I  would like to see assigned a couple Plan Commission members to make two rounds a week through that place to make sure that we keep the pressure on keeping it clean.  I don’t know that Mr. Thompson has the staff to keep the pressure on to run through the place constantly.  I was thinking about Mr. Burns and Mr. Cole as being two of the guys that would keep the pressure on about cleaning…keeping the place clean.  If they see something, they should report it to Mr. Thompson and I would give Mr. Thompson and the Building Commissioner the right to put the moratorium back on if the place isn’t kept clean and kept up-to-date and the lakes treated, etc.   He stated that this would be letting the moratorium up, because he’s made the effort, but keeping  the heat on by having people inspect it twice a week.

Mr. Burns stated, but, if he sells a lot tomorrow, what happens?

Mr. Detert stated, they could go ahead.

Commissioner Harper stated, somebody can walk in there tomorrow and buy a lot and not realize what they’re taking on.

Mr. Detert stated, we can hold off until the paperwork’s complete.  It was just a suggestion.

Commissioner Harper stated that I think it’s a good suggestion, but I think we should do it after two weeks, after we get the paperwork in place, and make sure that the people understand what they’re buying into here, because its’ just wrong that they don’t.

Mr. Detert stated that I think it’s real important to keep going what we’ve got going.

Commissioner Harper stated, and, in two weeks, we can have a committee and keep the pressure on.  I agree with you.  But I think we got to have some safety valve here.

Mr.  Breitzke stated that we still need to vote on the first and second, as it stands.  The other issue is that we held these people all evening; I don’t want to do that again.  If we are going to do this, we’ll hear Falling Waters either at the beginning of the meeting, or we’ll have a special meeting.

Mr. Floramo stated that there is more than my subdivision in Porter County that has a conservancy district, so, is this building moratorium that you are levying on me specific to me?  Question two is, am I able to, through Mr. Hollenbeck and Mr. McClure, identify this language that will be a part of my marketing data before the next Plan Commission meeting.  If so, is that acceptable on the release of the building permits, or is there another two-week window.  Right now, you’re heading into Memorial Day.  If individuals aren’t looking right now…the market is today…so, it could affect the entire season, and I want everybody to know the seriousness of that decision.   Is my Falling Waters the only conservancy district in Porter County that is going to be required to have this documentation?

Commissioner Harper stated that I don’t think we have to answer that question today.  We’re dealing with your subdivision tonight.  I want you to understand what I consider the seriousness of somebody coming in and buying  a lot and not understanding clearly that they are taking on a $15,000 obligation, plus the interest and so forth to pay that, plus the dues to maintain that infrastructure that they’re paying the $15,000, plus the interest for; that is very serious, to me.

Mr. Floramo stated, but you understand that the dues also pay for the sewer usage.

Commissioner Harper stated, I understand, but, in the end, they are going to pay for the lakes and the upkeep of the lakes, the upkeep of the wetlands and the mowing and everything else.  I’m not saying it’s illegal – I’m saying that people that buy the lot need to know it, and any attempt to get around that is inexcusable.

Mr. Floramo stated that I’m not trying to get around that.  My statement to Mr. McClure was  for me to contact Mr. Hollenbeck tomorrow, have this document drafted tomorrow, that is acceptable to Mr. McClure.

Commissioner Harper stated that it’s not going to be just one document.  It’s going to be a whole series of things – the flier and the document and the thing that’s going to have to be at closing. People are going to have  to be informed of this.

Mr. Breitzke stated that I think we need to have the drafts coming back and forth and it’s probably going to take more than a few days.  

Mr. Floramo stated that Mr. Hollenbeck will get it done quickly.

Mr. Breitzke stated that I’d like to appoint three people – Mr. Burns, Mr. Detert and Mr. Hutson.

Mr. McClure stated that I think Commissioner Harper is getting at that we’re not drafting a pure legal document – we’re drafting something that the lay person, buying a home, can read, understand,



digest and make a decision based upon that additional information on buying a lot.

Ms. Marshall stated that I object to it, because the rest of the Plan Commission isn’t  involved.  You always appoint and the rest of us never see it, so, we get the whole round of the blame here.  I think it has to come before all of us.  I object to having a little sub-committee.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the final documents will all come to you prior to, and you can still comment on it.

Mr. Breitzke stated that all this will be taken up at a special meeting of the Plan Commission, specific to Falling Waters, at 5:30 p.m. May 16th in this room.

Mr. Read stated that I would think that the proper way to sell building sites, I would assume that the price of  the lot, given to the potential buyer, includes all of the costs direct to them, so that, when they buy something, that’s what they’re paying.

Mr. Breitzke stated, that’s what we are doing.  

Mr. Burns moved to continue the restriction until the developer gets the paperwork in order, the advertisement or recording the deed or whatever, and that should be completed in two weeks or thereabouts; that a couple of Plan Commission members be appointed to regularly inspect the subdivision to ensure that things are being kept clean; and that there be a special meeting of the Plan Commission, specific to Falling Waters, to be held in this room at 5:30 p.m. May 16h.  Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a 9-0 roll call vote.

At this time, Mr. Thompson stated that he has applications in for the Planner I position and he was hoping that a committee could meet next week to make recommendations to the board regarding this.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at midnight.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S\ Kevin Breitzke, President


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