Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer - Regular Meeting

In favor or against any of the hearings we're having tonight, there's a sign-in sheet right over the top. The petitioners don't have to sign it. Anybody from the public will speak for or against. You're on.

No, no, no. some people plan a drone program.

And then the state person was like, oh, wait, though, I don't think I'll be there both days. You know, who's going to come back today?

Well, I'll go. And I didn't have a drone. I was like, wait, I have some bad experience. I'm going to have to keep those cameras on the block. Anybody else? Yes.

Okay, good evening, folks. I'd like to call the meeting to order. The first item is the pledge. I'll stand up and take the pledge, please.

Next item is roll call. Roll call. Here. Here.

Here.

Here. Here. Here. Here.

Okay, thank you. Okay, correspondent, I understand we have minutes of January 28th, 2026 that has to be amended.

Okay.

Okay, this, some of you remember the good oil company that came to us back in March.

Excuse me, sir. Sir, sir, we're having a meeting.

Thank you. So the March 31st meeting, I think it was, we all met. And by 7 to 1, you forwarded a recommendation, favorable recommendation of the commissioner since passed. However, at both meetings in the minutes, it was not recorded certain commitments on permitted uses of the property. And we do have the agreement for commitments that we've sent off to the property owner, which embodies those commitments you said, those permitted uses. I think it would be appropriate that we amend the meeting minutes for that date, which I believe was March 31st. I'll have to double check. What did I say? March 28th. March 28th meeting.

I got January 28th, but it was meeting prior to that, right? What I was reading here, it was, let's see. January 28th minutes.

Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. January 28th. The commissioners did it at the end of March, the first reading. Okay. My apologies. So if we can get a motion to amend said minutes for that date to include these commitments, I think that would be proper.

So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Motion is second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? All right. Let's pass. Any other correspondence at this time?

Just as you know that Arvid Merkner now is officially on the Board of Zoning Appeals. His first test will be tomorrow night. The commissioners at their May 19th meeting announced that they'll be taking applications for the vacant position on this board and be appointed by the commissioners. And with any luck, they will make their appointment at their June 2nd meeting, which will be next Tuesday.

Okay. Thank you.

Then lastly, training opportunity. I sent you the email. KK Gerhardt-Fritz has done training for us in the past. I have communicated with her. She's going to be retiring at the end of the summer, early fall. But she said she would come up one last time to train the good people of Porter County. I was curious if you might have an interest in that.

I recommend that training. She is very, very good. I've been a couple of her sessions.

And it will be a joint meeting with the BZA and the Planning Commission like last. So I'll go ahead and make that happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, the first case, MJ-2026-3, applicant is Ronald Connery, Teemas Landscape and Survey, Inc. Project is where? Major subdivision, location 603 East, 400 South, Upraisal, Morgan Township. Result is A1, general acreage. Acreage is 10.22. We apply approval for the proposed one lot summary. Okay, sir.

Good evening. David Tiemans from Tiemans Land Stream, 223rd Court, DeMont, Indiana. Ron O'Connor. Ron O'Connor, O'Connor Builders from 36 South Segar Road, Valpo. Okay. He is the father-in-law of the actual owner of the property. As you, if you recall, we were here March 25th to ask for a number of design waivers, which you granted. Since then, we have been to, we went through the planning and surveying for, we had conformance on the plat. And on April 14th, we went through the engineering department and received conformance for the engineering of this one lot subdivision since then we also have been to the erc on april 23rd for just a review and as you we are here now for the primary flat approval as you mentioned all the particulars the property and if you recall this was originally an 80 acre parcel that was surveyed out through an auction service, and that's why it kind of ended up that way, and that's why it's required to come before you to do a major subdivision because of the way it was split out. So it was 80 acres, and it divided up into three parcels, around 60 acres being... continue to be farm ground. Five acres has all the farm buildings that represent on it. And then the remaining 10.22 is what we're here for today. So with that, I'll get back to you.

Okay, thank you. Staff, do you have any comments?

You've seen this case before. You said they came before you.

March 25th.

For design waivers, which you approved at your March 25th, 2026 meeting. So I think this is just proper and staff recommends approval.

Okay. The public hearing. Anybody want to speak in favor?

I want to read the... Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

conduct of hearings at a public hearing before the commission the petitioner proponents shall first present the facts and arguments in support of the case those who oppose the petitioner shall follow the petitioner shall have rebuttal rebuttal it shall be within the discretion of the commission to impose any time limitation either the petitioner or the respondent and to limit public comment to those determined by state statute to be interested parties written remonstrator remonstrances shall be accepted by the commission but need not be read into the commission's record this then concludes the public hearing to maintain orderly procedure each side shall proceed without interruption by the other in presentation of a case the burden shall be upon the petitioner to supply all information necessary for a clear understanding of the problem The Commission may continue the hearing when, in its judgment, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence on which to make a determination. Every person appearing before the Commission shall abide by the order and direction of the President. Discourteous, disorderly, or contemptuous conduct shall be regarded as a breach of the privileges of the Commission and shall be dealt with as the Commission directs.

Thank you. Okay. It's a public hearing. Anybody want to speak in favor of this motion? In favor? Seeing none, anybody want to speak against or have any questions on this case? Seeing none, I'm going to call it a public hearing. I'll turn it over to the board. Kevin?

Have the soil borings been done and you've got a septic system that will be approved?

Correct. Yeah. Dan addressed that at the first meeting.

Excellent. I just wanted to bring it on again because as we're grading a person, we also want to make sure it's functional. Yep. I see no other issues with it. Actually, I see no issues with it. Okay. Nikki?

I'm good.

Yeah. Fine. Great.

I'm good.

Yeah. I mean, it's for a single home . I'm fine with it. Okay. Do we have a motion?

Motion. Motion that we.

Second.

Motion.

Okay.

Well, that's just approve where .

We got motion, second.

Valid votes?

One pass. Oh, they're right in front of me. It blends in really well there. There we go, Pam. I was wondering why you said my name. I'm trying to wake you up. Thank you. I have a couple.

Blanks. I think they're being nice. See how you go.

In the matter of case MJ2026-3, the votes are as follows. Kevin Brightsky, yes. Bob Iuliana, yes. Craig Kenworthy, yes. Pamela Mishler-Fish, yes. Ed Morales, yes. Nikki Witkowski, yes. Rick Burns, yes. Motion passes 7-0. Good to go.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

You're welcome. Next case is DW-2025-34, applicant is John Hall, trustee, William Friedrich, ESQ. Project is Hall Farm, major subdivision, location 12 South, 500 West, Valparaiso, quarter township, zone is one, low-density single-family residential district, acreage is 9.3 plus. Request design waivers approval for the proposed Five major solutions to vary from. First is a UDO section 6.03 common area, a waiver section 6.03 of the UDO section. not require a minimum of 50 feet common area between lots, arterial, and collective streets. Second, UDL section 6.03, common area, a waiver of section 6.03 of the UDO to not require a minimum of 30 feet common area between lots and other parallel tracks. 3 is UD section 6.03, tree plot width. A waiver of section 6.03 UDL does not require a minimum of a minimum tree plot width of five feet. Fourth, UDL section 7.16 B1, public street and frontage on interior streets. A waiver of section 7.16 B1 of the UDL to not have frontage on public street built to the ported county standards. A petitioner recognizes that the Planning Commission approvals for primary plot is contingent upon the installation of public roads in border-related states, commonly known as Alexandria Road, and no building permits may be issued in a hall for a major subdivision unless and until Alexandria Road is installed in accordance with Porter County. Porter County standards and the plot for border-related states. A rate commitment and restriction shall be recorded with Porter County, setting forth such contingencies. Sixth, UDO Section 7.16 , corner lots rounded. A waiver of Section 7.16 of the UDO to not require corner lots to have rounded property line corners. 7 UDO section 7.20 C4 open space, a waiver of section 7.20 C4 of the UDO to not have open space in a subdivision accessible to residents. UDL Section 7.23c, external pedestrian network, a waiver of Section 7.23c of UDL do not require an external pedestrian network.

Well, thanks. It's your turn now. Thank you for doing all that. For the record, my name is Bill Ferngren, 570 Bell Park Road, Valparaiso, Indiana.

I got Kevin Coros, McManus, 252 South State Road, Valparaiso, Indiana.

And we have Mr. John Hall on the property. And thank you, Rick, for doing all that. As you indicated, this is case DW-2025-34. We're here tonight just for a request on the design waivers that you just read through. This is not approval of the plan. That's later on in the process. But we need to go through these design waiver requests first. This is a public hearing. I sent out the certified letters, publication occurred in the paper, and I delivered the affidavit of notice to staff as required under your ordinance. As Mr. Burns indicated, The property consists of about 9.18 acres. It's zoned R1, located on the north side of 100 south. All zoned R1, as I indicated, the ultimate proposal is for five single family lots on this property. All of the lots meet Uh, the requirements as far as size square footage, is there all in excess of an acre that you served by? Well, in septic, we've gone through the exercise of, uh, proving up that those systems will work. Once we get to that point, we can, we'll talk more about that plan commission to prove that to you. But where we are today, there are a handful of these design waivers we're looking for. And looking through them, we thought they all made sense. Obviously, otherwise, we wouldn't be here. The property is pretty rural in nature, as you can imagine. If you had an opportunity to drive by, there's not much development there. And like the case before you, your ordinance... ends up directing property owners to go through a major subdivision versus a minor. And it really doesn't have anything to do with the size of the parcel. It's just the process and how many splits have done previously on the property. In this instance, this is kind of the end of the road for this parent tract. This 9.1 acres is really all that was left. And so after looking at the property, Mr. Kouros laid out a design. We looked at that. And when we did end on... these waivers that are before you today. Ms. Hale, Susan Hale from the planning, we submitted it to her. She worked with us and generated this list and that's how we got here this evening. I guess one thing I did fail to mention, we did go to the Development Review Committee on December 28th of last year, and they asked us to come forward with the team to present these to you this evening. So the waivers, if we can get to those, and I'm going to go to the roadway waiver, if you will, to the last part. That probably takes a little bit more explanation. But if we're just simply, you know, the theme really is it's a rural subdivision. There's room out there and some of these things just don't make sense in the location we're at so for example the first and with regard to common area we could probably design something and create some sort of an open space out there that really wouldn't be for the benefit of anybody it's just there's five flat owners out there their parcels are all very large And the open space concept, in our opinion, would just be another part of land that these property owners would have to all of a sudden start to agree to how they're going to take care of it. So common area in this location didn't make a lot of sense for us. The tree plot width, again, these are very large parcels. The frontage of each of these is around 170 feet. So to, you know, install trees in that, at that rate for that length of property didn't really make sense to us either. And again, keep in mind these are single family home sites. So someone's going to build a house and one of the first things they're going to do is start planting trees and bushes and things of that nature around the property. That would be our second request. The rounded corners, and I guess we don't have the drawing up as the computer might not be working. Typically, when you're designing a subdivision, the lots that are on a corner would have a rounded corner to accommodate the curve or the rounded edge to the corner. Vehicular access, and they just don't exist here by the layout of the property. These road, these lines will all directly at a 90 degree angle, but into the roadway and they're not or they're not any really corner lots on streets. So the rounded corners to us also didn't make sense because there will be the 90 degree connection to the roadway. Um, the next would be the pedestrian network again, going back to the proximity of this property, a pedestrian network on 9 acres. There's no connectivity. There never likely will be any connectivity to this parcel. And so we're asking for a waiver again, rural, very large lots and we just don't see any connection going forward to this property. And then finally, the public roadway, I wish we had drawing up on the screen at this time. We kind of started out with this as a design waiver and really it's changed a little bit from what you read initially, Mr. Burns, because we talked about building permits at that time and we've actually moved to not get that far into the process. We're saying we can't record the secondary plat until the adjoining roadway is installed. I don't know. Do you have a copy of the drawing? You should have them. Do you have them? okay so if when you look at the at the drawing for the subdivision there's um there's a public roadway called alexander road that's on the west side of the property that's being built by the adjoining subdivision and what we're doing is we're going to actually all of our lots front onto that public road so today we don't have frontage on a public road but we will Alexander Road is going to be constructed as part of the completion of Boulder Lake Estates. And then these lots will all have frontage on that public right of way. So we will have the public frontage, but we just don't have it today. And what we were trying to do is to advance our project as far as we could, recognizing that we still have to go through planning. We know that we can't record plants until that public roadway. We felt comfortable coming before you now, knowing what we know about the roadway that's under construction. There's a bond in place for that road to be completed. So we're comfortable that we're taking the right steps at this time. And we'll commit that we will not record any secondary plat without that public roadway being installed, inspected by the county, and as part of their ordinary course accepted for public use. So that's changed just a little from how it was read initially. That's it? That's all. Thank you.

Maybe to add some further clarity to what Attorney Ferngren presented, the road next to him, yes, the county holds a bond if the owner fails to install the road as promised. The county can call in the bond and complete the road and enter it and fix it or construct it and put it into our inventory. One thing to keep in mind to kind of paint a bigger picture, there's more property where this road you see goes to the north. There's a gentleman from Lake Eliza Conservancy. They have their lagoons up there. This road will go up there. There is an easement so Lake Eliza can access their lagoons through the hall property. What we would like to see in the future, they would use the public road to get back to their property and get right there. right up against your property line also it should be noted there's more property to the north where alexander road goes north of the neighboring property so this road could extend itself further north to more of a future development further to the north which isn't a subject to tonight's conversation but just to paint a clarity what this road eventually will become Since publication of this consultation with legal staff, Scott, we feel that the waiver for the internal access road should not be part of tonight's motion. And here's why. This is just one step of a few steps they got to go before they can even build a building, pull a building permit. Tonight is just simply getting the waiver.

Say that again.

Tonight is just one step in many steps. They're going to come back to you again when they go subdivision. Okay? So they're going to appear again. Tonight is just simply the design waivers.

That's correct.

So when they come back again for subdivision, then we can talk things like the easement to the Conservancy District. We can talk about whether or not you're going to get my primary plaid if the roads in or not or make it a condition that conversation will happen at that time. Not, not tonight.

Yeah, we're simply trying to, we would be stuck. in the conversation without having this conversation about moving the plat forward, being able to even accept review of the plat. But we're willing to say we're committed to how that roadway, how that's going to come in. We know we can't record the plat. We know we can't get final approval for that certain permit until that road's in because we're relying on that ultimately happening as well.

But the point is that conversation doesn't occur until they file for subdivision. That's correct.

So, can I just point a clarification? So, number four about that UDO 16, I'm sorry, 7-16, we can scratch that off.

After consulting with legal counsel, I would recommend you scratch that from tonight.

Oh, okay. So, we would be part of the motion to either not include that or, like, I know sometimes we read them off. You either don't read that one off or, say, scratch it from what was read.

I think less words would be better than the latter, yes.

Okay. Okay.

I think that would make it cleaner because you've got to remember design standard or design variances or development standard variances and design waivers, once approved, they run with the land forever no matter what they do. They come resubdivide, do whatever. So if you approve these design waivers, they go with the land forever. They could wait 10, 20 years to come in, in theory, and come back in. Those design waivers would still be with the land. So what you're proving tonight are any future considerations on how they develop their land as you see it tonight.

But that's still in the context of having a five-lot subdivision, isn't it?

That's a good legal question. Yeah. Change their representations? Would that change the design waiver?

If the design waiver is approved tonight with these conditions, then as those conditions can't change based upon what the approval was, is that not what we're saying?

If the design waivers are passed tonight with the understanding it's a five lot subdivision, does that hold true? Like if they were to come back in 20 years and say it's a 20 lot subdivision, does that change your design waiver approvals?

Yeah, they would have to come back and attempt to go back through some process to do that under some scenario that would allow it to occur. But tonight, if you approve that design waiver based upon conditions, those conditions hold and if they don't, then the design waiver doesn't hold.

And just so we're clear, none of this is to avoid having lots that are not on the public street. We just want to be able to move forward through this process while another project is being worked on. So we're committed to the things that Mr. Jaybo has indicated as well.

Okay. Well, let me turn over. It's a public hearing. Does anybody want to speak in favor of this case? Seeing none. Sir, you have a question? Yeah. Come up to the mic. State your name and address, please.

It's about the drainage. Come on.

State your name and address, please. Yeah. State your name and address. Yes, state your name and address for the record.

My name's Steven Sandberg. I live in 28 South Fortis. And they've come to the Conservancy District meeting and asked us about five lots. I've seen the sign over by the farmhouse, so I was thinking it was going to be over there where this other subdivision is to the north going in right now. Our concern for the district is we got these subdivisions coming in. This one, no problem, because they're on the discharge side of the lake. So drainage is an issue and we have four board members that voted for us to keep the drainage money. I was not one of them four, but I'm the one that deals with the drainage more than anybody else. And stuff to the north of us, like this new subdivision coming in and it all comes through us. We have pipes that I've been trying to work with the county highway department. and i've come to the upstairs to the planning commission and someone was supposed to get a hold of me and i'll be honest i'm struggling with it this part is not a concern at all i'm sorry i just i came because i seen the sign and i thought it was going to be a subdivision off of 500 so there's a problem there because the drainage runs through and we have a 36 inch which is on the north side of division there's also one on the south side which is all drainage now i have a paper that says that pipe that runs to our subdivision um was put in 60 years ago and the paper i got was printed in 86. so that pipe's well almost 100 years old and it's failing i know it's failing i see these pipes along the south side of 500 and the north side of 500 that are underground running parallel with the road And I'm trying to work with the county right now to see who they belong to, you know, because it all hooks to this pipe that runs diagonally through Marion Acres and then goes down to the lake. My biggest concern is this new subdivision because that 36-inch that's on the north side is there. And I know this don't really have – I'm just basically here because I don't know who to talk to. And I hear when I want to put, like – drainage easement in because I have drawings that was proposed in 86 and that's what I've been working off of and for instance a roadblock I've come to is the discharge channel which is part of Levington ditch okay from the lake to 100 my bad thought it was part of Lake Elijah Conservancy but when I went to the drainage upstairs a couple weeks ago they brought out a thing and we're like blocked out green except for the discharge channel and it says it's exempt well we've removed beaver stuff from there I'll be honest I've dredged that at a bad because we're trying to keep the water going in the lake and there's what they call a control structure there that our Corps of Engineers went in and the beavers will go build on the back side of that on the discharge side of it and it ends up raising over and then it raises and causes problems for the houses that are low lying around the lake. But then my biggest concerns is when we get all these sudden rains because that's what was told the drainage tax was four. And we had early this spring, then we have all the flooding, but it goes down right away. And I'm just trying to work on this and working off of the drawing I got. I was hoping maybe I could find out tonight who could help me with that.

You know, and you need to know where to go. I do. Mike. Okay.

Okay. The only thing we've come up in our meeting was, and I don't know if you guys look at this, but our ponds are treatment ponds. You know, there's something about wells. We've got a guy on our board that does wells, and his concern was wells for the property being within 700 feet of that drainage of the treatment ponds. I know it probably has nothing to do with what we're talking about tonight, but we made that aware of, I believe, when you came to our meeting. I think it was Brandon that made it aware of, but that's all I got.

Okay. Well, thank you for coming. Anybody else like to speak? I don't see any. Anybody else? So I'm gonna close the public hearing. Kevin?

Yeah, I don't have any real issues with it. I defer you to the stormwater department. Michael runs that out of his office. We've done substantial work as a county throughout Lake Eliza through the years, especially at Marion Acres, and there were some undocumented piles that I actually grew up back in the late 90s, 2000, and that's probably the reference they have. I don't know what the 86 stuff was, but we made effort as a county to help the Marion Acre neighborhood. So that's an issue that's totally unrelated to what we're doing today. And back to this, I don't see any issue with the waivers except for the street waiver that's been discussed already.

And just to be, oh, sorry.

Mm-hmm.

If you're 100, go dirt off that high, 80 years old. So it's not recorded. It's put in by agent.

By way of explanation, John is one of the Fitzgerald family. Fell up Lake Eliza.

And just to be clear, we did receive a review letter from David Champion March 24th, and we have had discussions with them. We're going to be resubmitting after this approval for both departments.

And all the letter basically says you're largely in compliance with our board. Correct. Yes.

Correct. We'll go step by step. Yep.

As your attorney's trying to correct. Correct. Yep.

Okay.

Nikki? I am good so far with all the suggestions like the removal of number four and things like that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Pam?

Do you have a timeline for this project? Anticipated timeline? Yeah.

Well, we've kind of been leisurely working through this, waiting for the road to be built. So it's really depending on that, the road next to us, because the planning we can't do until that road's in. So if that road goes in in the fall, you know, I would think we could probably be back here sometime later in the summer with primary plat kind of gearing up for that sort of timeline.

Okay.

That's it?

That's it.

Great. I know you have to go through drainage review and all that because I'm old enough to know when that bottom of that hill used to flood when we'd have a big rain. Okay. So I'm hoping the drainage will be right. I know that. My biggest concern, you guys are not doing the road. Somebody else is doing the road. Is that?

That's correct.

That's correct. Yes. My concern with the road right now is it's a road to nowhere. And if somebody goes down that road and I'm going to go down the first responder game thing, How are we going to turn fire engines? I mean, that's...

There is a T-turnaround designed as part of the original Boulder Estates primary, so that T-turnaround will be built as part of the roadway improvement.

Okay, it's just not on the picture.

Not on this one because it goes further north.

Okay. If you look at that, you can see the heaviest dark line. That will be a new public road. Okay. And built to county standards. And that extends further north than this parcel we're talking about today.

Now, I'm just trying to get my bearings on this. I'm good with this, so, you know, without too much. Where is that? How far east of the old railroad bed is this road at?

The railroad bed?

There's an old railroad bed that runs through there.

Yeah, it goes kind of southeasterly to northwesterly. It's probably less than a quarter mile west of the property and south. Some change I see.

How about the silo? The silo's still there, isn't it? What's that? The silo's still on 100, isn't it? How far west of the silo?

How far west of the silo? Mike can probably tell you in a second. I'm just curious. So it's the southerly line of Boulder Lake Estates is the railroad bed itself, and Boulder Lake Estates is the subdivision directly to the west of us.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may, it was... I kind of urged the developer to talk to McMahon because they did Boulder Bay Estates, and they had their issue, and I thought this would be a good marriage to try to resolve these issues.

So the silo is just to the southeast of the pond there.

Yeah.

From the intersection of Broadway.

Okay, all right. So you...

Is that the white? Okay, I got it. I know. You're on the entry. Okay, I know where it is now. The service road, the existing service road, basically.

Correct. The existing service road is on the property.

Okay, that's, I got it now. I was kind of convoluted. Thank you.

That's all I need. Okay.

Good. Bob? I think I'm good with these. You're not meshing them?

I got to tell you, I really don't know what I'm looking at here. I mean, so we got a road that's not built, but it's going to be built. It's with a bond, understand? So the road is bonded to be built, but it's just not built yet.

Correct.

Who has the bond?

We have the bond.

So we're building the road?

No, we hold the bond in case the property owner to their west fails to build the road.

Is there a timeline for this road to be built? Well, the road, the bond?

It's in the report as November 11th. They have to be complete, 100%. Of this year? Of this year.

The road is partially built right now. And that's the same road that I would imagine, as I'm looking here, you would share with the Urban Judiciary back there? Or is there a second road?

Actually, Mike alluded to that earlier, that ultimately this roadway, the new roadway, would hopefully be used by the Conservancy District also to access their lagoons that you see at the north end of the parcel. There is an easement across Mr. Hall's property to get there today that they're using, but this new road When it's installed, it will be a public road, fully built to your standards, that all of these lots will run down. The homes in Boulder Lakes will be there as well. And the idea would be opposite side, right? That's correct.

You're going to have homes over here and homes over here with that single road going through. That's right. What is the width on the county wide, on the county road? It'll be, what's the width?

County standards, 32, 34 feet.

And then if you go back here, What's the north property that could be available to be built further on down the road? All this up here. Is that the property they're talking about?

Well, that's a potential. This thing dead ends on this, and I don't have the parcels on. Okay, I thought it would look somewhere else.

And if you look at that, as Mike just scrolled, kind of the darker green south of the lagoons there, that's the property we're talking about tonight.

And then you're asking for this... not to require a minimum of 50 foot common area between lots. So that would be the common area between these lots here, right? Is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, the areas between the homes and otherwise on the parcel. Our thought was that these are all acre plus lots.

And so they're- If they're acre plus, that wouldn't be a real- That's correct.

To there.

And if we pass these, what happens with this road issue if it never does get built? Even if, you know, I mean, come back to us, we could build it. But what if there's some type of logjam and this doesn't happen?

We can't.

We can't come back and say, well, this is only contingent that if this development happens as it's presented on the,

Right now, our safe gap is the fact that it has to have these lots enabled to be able to proceed through the process. These lots are going to have to have access to a county road. So until that road is put in, those lots, no matter what this planning commission does, is not going to be able to be built. Now, from the developer, I believe, to the west of this parcel, we are waiting on to build the road that is bonded with the county and that is coming to fruition at the end of this year and that the county at that time could make the decision to call the bond and put the road in with those available funds. And we do believe that bond is in timeline that that would work. or the individual could come in and try to extend again with the bond, but that is where that road would be. And until that road is put in, our ordinance requires that they front onto a county road. Otherwise, there has to be some sort of exception for like the private road type of situation.

And we're not asking for that sort of thing. We're fully expecting these to be on that public road.

And so the other wave would be for sidewalks. You don't believe there should be sidewalks there.

That's correct.

The only concern I have about that is what if this does, what if this road does extend to the north and these properties are developed? Will we be required to connect to that road? I mean, I've seen this in other developments and that comes back as a big surprise later down the road and then the sidewalks aren't there and, you know, somebody has to pick up that cost. I mean, if this road was to end, sure, you get a residential north like we've had over there by Tuscany. Does something say that you have to have another way? I mean, would they?

I think the commissioner's question is, would the county, if the county were to give this design waiver and hypothetically to the north, a residential development was put in that had sidewalks, would we, the county, be then responsible for getting this sidewalk?

But if this county road extends to that development, then what?

I don't believe we have a requirement at that point to put the sidewalk in.

I don't think that a possibility that that could, this county road could be extended to the next development.

Most definitely. Okay. Most definitely.

How far is it?

So it could go all the way up to here.

That's where that other older farm is at.

It would go up to there.

It could go up to the community.

Right. And that borders 500 and what is that, 100? Or division, I believe, that property?

That's division.

Right.

That's your horse farm. Mm-hmm.

You got Delgado on the other side of this building, right? I mean, that's the one that's building on the other side.

So Commissioner, you're asking, should we keep the sidewalks? Is that what you're saying?

Well, I'm looking at this as a whole, as a thing. And, you know, we've got these ordinances and these requirements that we put in. And it seems to me that when it comes to the, I understand with a one-house subdivision or a one-house 10-acre thing, okay, it goes to nowhere. But when we've had some of these developments come in front of us and even past developments, where, you know, they ask for these things to be left out. I mean, these were the rules that we put in front. I see this becoming something bigger down the road. And my question is, is what happens then? You know, so, you know, I think it's a good question. Is it a matter of, you know, we have all these and there's some of them I do agree with. I do agree with, you know, the common space. There's no really place for a common space. I get that. But looking on forward, it's hard for me to believe that that road's not going to extend and that's not going to be a development in the near future on that corner between 500 and Division there. And so I'm just looking further down the road because when I think of these things, you know, we had, again, it was the other one, the same situation with Tuscan. They wanted that same exemption. And then these exemptions go on, and then five years later, maybe this would be a different case, but Felt Brazel connects their sidewalks, and who's going to pick up that? My real issue is when we have a lot of these, and people are asking for exemptions on this big thing, some of them make common sense, but some of them don't in a longer-term scheme. And, you know, especially like the sidewalks, that's become a real problem in some of these developments, especially in Chesterton, the way they're connecting things. So that's my question to the board. You know, what happens then? Because I see the vision of this extended at some point. And that could be a real issue. You know, that's one of my concerns.

I know we run into that in the past, you know, where maybe we should deny that one.

Well, I guess there's certainly, I mean, there's room. So we can obviously keep land available. Keep in mind that the roadway actually isn't on this parcel either. So I don't know what improvements are contemplated fully for Alexander Road. But if there was some alternatives, if that road, if it does get connected, then sidewalks would be required at a later date, I guess is what I'm thinking might be a middle road compromise.

Yes. Is it possible to consider the existing access road back to the lagoons and just keep that as a trail?

Yeah, I mean, that would... Well, that's going to cut... Why wouldn't you have to move the houses back off the head track?

No, that's already accommodated. All of the home sites are all set back from the existing easement.

A trail's not concrete sidewalk. Right.

It's really the pedestrian network. I mean, the land is there. I guess what we are hoping not to do is just to install sidewalks that are just going to be out there that no one's ever going to use. I'm not trying to, but the commissioner makes a great point. You know, someday it could happen. And we'd say when that happens, I suppose it makes sense to address that issue at that time. We could record a commitment against the property indicating if and when those sidewalks go in, that could happen.

How many lots are proposed on this other side? Do you know that offhand? No, that's not.

It's four lots plus. Four lots plus. If you go to the last page of the report, it does show four lots.

Have they came before us yet?

They came in two.

Oh, okay.

There's the sheet that's on the other side. The last page. One more. Nope. Nope. Keep going. There you go. This one here? Yes, sir.

This road, when they came in and proposed this road originally, which I'm assuming they have gone through the steps to put this road in.

That is correct. Yes. Before my time, but yes.

Oh, this is before your time. This is that old, that road? Is that old?

Just over two and a half years.

So at that time, did they get a waiver not to put sidewalks in?

That's a good question. I'd have to look into it.

I mean, I'm just asking. I mean, if it's been done.

Yeah, look it up.

I mean, I agree with the commissioner. I believe I'm the one who jumped all over the connection.

It's just we're running into that more and more. You know, it just it seems to be an issue. And then, you know, normally the developer has sold a lot of you know, they're gone. And then it's left on the homeowners. The homeowners can't pay for it. So then it falls back on us the same thing with these, you know, property owners associations. You know, they're a good idea. They never seem to really materialize for a long period of time before they go defunct and then become our problem.

So typically those are subdivisions that have smaller frontage, less than 100 feet, maybe closer to 60 feet. These lots being more rural lots are going to be a couple hundred feet, 172 from the front door.

Is that what you're saying? Pardon?

Is that what you're saying? They'll be 172 feet wide. 172 feet wide. That's very atypical to have sidewalks running in something like that. Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like we did waiver sidewalks in Alderman.

So to answer that question, it wasn't my project at the time, but yes, I do believe that design waivers were done. The developer at that time had taken on the agreement with Porter County to construct the roadway on their own to get to where it is today, so we weren't involved in that portion of it. But yes, to get that subdivision done, recorded, and approved, I do believe that that design waiver was done with that.

Susan's looking that up as we sweep it in. The primary plat for the property next door was approved February 22, 2017, so we're looking up the plat.

That was some time ago.

Yes. And they extended a few times. Again, I was going to bring it up in context. There's technically five lots to the west side. One's the very large lot. I'll look at your screens. I'll kind of. show that there's a big lot and it goes around and wraps around the west and the north. And then these four individual lots are all across the street. And I think the other, if you're going to entertain such a motion, would it also be applied to Alexander as well as County Road 100 South? Because technically this butts up to 100 South as well.

And just to be clear too, lot one itself is 350 feet long, you know, of which half of it is.

So it's going to be stormwater improvement.

Yeah.

That's where the pond, you're talking about the pond here in the front? Correct. Yeah, the only, and I get the 100 south part that you're talking about, my demeanor's never going to be a reason to put sidewalks on hard south. I mean, maybe if it becomes a bigger situation down the road. My only concern with the sidewalks is that when you go further north, that road then adjoins to another development, and we could be you know, left holding the bag on that down the road or not, you know, when you sell them, we're not going to put sidewalks in or, but it's hard for me to be looking at some of these developments the way they're always cut through that. You're not going to extend that road all the way to that next development, all the way to 500 or to division road at some point.

I would also like to bring up the point too that with Alexander Road, the approval for the drainage stormwater on that project included a swale on the east side of that road between the right-of-way limits and the edge of the pavement to direct stormwater north and south to its appropriate culverts. So if a sidewalk was determined to be required, it would have to be located inside of these properties somehow because they're with the stormwater that was approved for alexander road it cannot fit in that space so it would be closer to the houses it would be closer to the houses and then that would also in turn uh refunction the storm water that we have planned for that side of the road as well to direct that stormwater north and south to its appropriate spots.

I suggested the access route because typically with those county roads, we'd have side road squales or ditches. Typically the sidewalk would be within the right of way itself. Correct. And storm sewers would be built and then it's

But even at access road you would have your ditch or swale between the paint road and that access road, correct?

There is storm. We'd have to see where it can be. If you look at C2.0, the plans that you probably have, there is drainage improvements very near that access road that would have to be altered, including the pond. There's also a small pond on the north side to hold back water for the release rates that are required by the county. So there will be

there will be some redesign for sure that would have to be included in part of that you you mentioned i've heard this wrong you've already made contention for the access road going up through there is that true the access road drawn on here yes is it going was the intention for it to stay

No, I'll let the attorney answer that.

Ultimately, the goal is to have the Conservancy District use the public roadway. And we're not altering their easement. If they choose to stay where that access road is today, they get to because they have that right. What we've suggested to them is that it probably would be better to use the road right away. On a paved road rather than that. And we can accommodate their access to their lagoons on the northwest corner of our property. So ultimately, we'd like to see that the gravel removed there. Yeah. But we can't control whether they do or they don't. All right.

When we discussed with them early on this process of going this way, we did make it clear because, again, that's a downstream activity. They're going to have to turn in design plans. They're going to have to go for subdivision control. Subdivision control is going to show that they got an easement dedicated to the Conservancy district. We're going to ask that that be removed. And that they use the Conservancy can now use public ways to get to in and out of their property. Well, you can protect it with the easement. We just don't want anybody driving there because we don't want that many drives that close together out on 100 South. So if they've got an easement in there for the utility, yes, that can stay. But access to 100 South, we've got to limit it. We can't have two right next to each other.

And that's why we abutted these lots directly onto Alexander Road for that reason, just to have the one access point.

And I think the gentleman here, did you want to? It's up to the president to allow you to speak again. Go ahead.

To the mic. State your name and address again, please.

What we use as our access road right now, which we talked about then at the meeting, we keep that. But where our road is and the new road, the proposed road, where the yellow line is, our main runs down right there between the yellow line and the new road is where it comes out of Prairie Landings. My question is on the sidewalk things got me confused because what happened like Prairie Landings, they don't have sidewalks. I'm not lost on the sidewalk thing.

That's something that's new or something. That's the commissioner's point, I think. But it was 25 years ago, I think, that we did that.

Yeah, I don't know how that, I wasn't part of that, but I know going forward in some of these developments, you have subdivisions that are built that have sidewalks and then you have one adjacent to the property that always ends up being connected to it somehow. And, you know, there's always design waivers for no sidewalks, but yet you've got people flowing through or kids flowing through. And so that's just something I think that's happened with these newer developments that happened the last several years, you know. I mean, look, these locks are big enough. I mean, it's not. If it stood as it stands now, it would really have an issue. But back to your point with there's not going to be any open space. These locks are pretty good on their own as far as public space or common space for them. And if that was to end this year with some type of roundabout issue, I mean, there really would be no need. But my concern with it is if it goes through, you know, what happens then? But that's just, you know, that's just my point. I've seen some of the other developments that we've had.

I don't have any further questions. Okay. Do we have a motion, Kevin, or anything?

Yeah, I'll make a motion that we approve the requested waivers except number four for the public street frontage on Interior Street.

Okay, do we have a second? We have a motion. Do we have a second? We do not have a second.

I will second it because I know we can also do a no vote.

Okay, we do have a motion and a second. Okay, ballot vote. And a motion is to remove number four. Is that correct, Kevin?

Correct.

Okay. That's UDL Section 7.16. Okay.

Oh, you get the extras.

No. I don't. Thank you.

For case number DW 2025-34, the votes are as follows. Kevin Brightsky, yes. Bob Gilliana, yes. Craig Kenworthy, no. Pamela Mishler-Fish, yes. Ed Morales, yes. Nikki Witkowski, yes. Rick Burns, yes. Passes 6-1.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? Any other questions?

Go ahead. Got just too much stuff. All right. Take that.

So a little updates on the UD or the comp plan update. As we reported last time, we had some really good meetings, the last stakeholder meeting and a few of the others. We had it with some other interested groups, the joint session of this commission with the commissioners and the redevelopment commission. I have a draft 1.0. I just got delivered late last week, so I and staff will be reviewing and making our initial comments, sending it back to them. You guys will probably see draft 2.0 or 3.0. We'll send it your way so you can make comments. I did ask all of you, and I asked the commissioners and the RDC people as well, remember the question, the what and the where, as far as you want to see commercial, industrial, residential development, whatever the case may be. I also forwarded you the slideshow that the economic development consultant did, which was kind of some telling information, if you all recollect. So I will still be taking comments for next week if you guys want any input as far as those questions, the what and the where, I still find to be something we need to answer. So I appreciate any comments that any of you might have. Uh, the subcommittee to the playing commission, we've had 2 meetings this year already. I just like to summarize some of the things we've been talking about our last meeting earlier this last month this month. We're talking about proposed UDO amendments. 1 is the height of accessory structures. I know Rick sitting as the hearing officer, your cases about. changing the height, and unless it's a really obscene height, you've pretty much been granting all of them. So we've had a good discussion about that. We talked about planned unit development. We're looking to change that in the UDO. There'll be more on that later. We didn't come up with any final discussion. It was an initial conversation. So there'll be more on that. Matter of fact, tonight I have a short presentation on what a planned unit development is. Case studies, we're looking at these storage boxes or connexes or shipping containers. I think we're leaning toward approving them as accessory structures, and they've got to meet all the criteria of an accessory structure, plus some additional criteria because of their bulk foundation and being airtight. with will be working on drafting some bring the committee one final time to see what they think that then bring that before you I'm Subdivision control, that's a very deep subject. You know, you've got the administrative, the minor, and the major subdivision. We're looking at can we streamline that process a little bit more. So that'll be a long discussion we'll have over multiple meetings because it's quite a heavy lift to take a look at that and do it right. So the committee has been very engaged. I appreciate everybody that's attending on that. We really like your input on that, and thank you for participating. So to wrap up tonight, I have a short little slideshow. It's called Plan Unit Developments, and you've heard them called PUDs. And, you know, it's a tool that we have in our toolbox. I think of it this way. PUD is you create an ordinance of your own kind of zoning. And you can also think about it, it changes what your UDO says. It says if UDO applies, accept where it's changed here with the PUD. Now, why do we use these a lot? A lot of them are for mixed use and flexible zoning. We don't see a lot of that in the county, but Aberdeen is a good example in today's world. That was what they called a PRD, if I remember back in the time, because it does have commercial and it does have various mixes of residential uses. In today's lingo, it would be a PUD and follow the rules that we'd have in our UDO, and that's how a development like that would occur. There is a very much public approval process, and that's a little bit more robust than we're accustomed to seeing in some places. And then it's got commitments, because we can do things like amenities, parks, trails, et cetera, can all be rolled into this PUD when you get in, especially these residential-type units. So in other words, it's just a flexible zoning tool, but it does have its downside, too. So what is a PUD? Well, there's a professional definition if you want to get into Euclidean zoning and what all that means. But in layman's terms, you know, it started back in the 20s. It became popular in the 60s and the 70s. And generally, it was used for mixed uses, cluster development, which preserved open space and allowed negotiating flexibility. Think of it almost like a contract between the county and the developer. This is what you're allowed to be doing. Here's the rules. And we agree upon those mutually, and then they get to develop according to those rules. So what is it? It's a zoning technique. Permits mixed uses. You get to negotiate with the developer. And then it trades the regulatory flexibility for other benefits that you can get. So in other words, you can ask for things above and beyond what's in the UDO in those cases. How they're approved, this is kind of the process. In our process, an optional element is the neighborhood meeting. When we had the data center, that was one of the first things we asked them before they even came before and made a submittal to you. Unfortunately, that didn't unfold that way, but we told them we wanted them to have the neighborhood meeting, go meet the neighbors. talk about your project, then come back to us and talk. So right now that's an optional task. Then you have your other project flow to get to your development agreement, and then there's more work after the development agreement. But this is what pretty much produces your PUD document, which is a form of an ordinance. Think of it as zone. It's a special zone, all of its own zone, zoning district, with all its own particular rules specifically for that location. And there are some advantages. We've kind of touched on some of those. Mixed-use flexibility, open and green space infrastructure. You can add a lot of those features to it to make better quality of life. You can have custom design standards. If someone's got a better mousetrap you want to try in there and it makes sense, it fits with the land, you can approve those. The community amenities such as parks, sidewalks, plazas, and other shared facilities can be included. Then you can have long-term binding commitments. And if you do it right, you've got a higher assessed value for the property that you're dealing with. Now you can see the advantages and disadvantages. We talked about all the advantages, but the considerations, you know, to think staff does not take PUDs lightly because they are a lot of work. Matter of fact, I don't think we charge enough fee for that, for the effort that's being plowed into that to make that happen. Fortunately, we haven't had a lot of them, but we're reevaluating them. A lot of work because each PUD is unique and they're all different. And you've got to be careful. You know, if you get into spot zoning, you do use them too liberally. I'm not a believer of doing it. Conventional is always the first test, but if it proves difficult, then PUD can be looked at. And then any commitments, it's a historical thing. Jeez, how many years did it take to develop Aberdeen, and how many 20 phases or something like that? I think it was incredible. And then we have questions today. We've got to go dig through all the information, find out what were the rules that were prevailing at the time, because there's some infill developing occurring right now. And then you can't use it to circumvent the intent of the underlying zoning. That's why you've got to make a hard decision whether or not you're going to venture into a PUD. Does it make sense for the county? Does it protect the residents and everything else like that? Not as a convenience. And then you're looking, here's an example of a PUD versus conventional. A standard approach, you've got your specific rules in your UDO and all that. You have limited flexibility. Otherwise, they come in for a lot of design waivers and variances, development standard variances. Whereas a PUD can encapsulate all that and you create your own model. rules that you know no normal process you come up with variances or waivers but man if you got 50 60 of them maybe a PUD makes more sense I'm being kind of extreme but just to illustrate the point so you got to really think heavy and hard before you decide to do a PUD I think we should reserve it for those special cases you go into some communities Chesserton is pretty pretty I don't want to say liberal, but they have a lot of PUD turf, especially the south side and the east side of the town. If you look at a zoning map on that, that is a big chunk of their property over the last few decades is PUD development in those areas. So that in a nutshell is the PUD. There'll be more coming up as we talk about it in subcommittee. And we hope to make maybe a more streamlined approach. I think ours needs a little fine tuning, make it a little more clear. So we'll be working on that and hope to present that to you over the next few months. Any questions?

Yeah, PUD seems to be a good fit for a more urbanized area. Because Chesterton, for example, although you're kind of lasting a little bit, That brought in the Joel Osco and Urschel development and a variety, a mixture of all sorts of businesses that are a little bit more difficult for us in the county to deal with.

But around the urban fringes, you're going to get these developers that, you know, they've got a different model they want to do. They want to take this 20, 25, 40, 50, 60, 80 acres, and they want different mixes of different types of housing units. And on the frontage of some main road, they want to put some commercial, like a neighborhood shop or something like you would see in a small village or something. That is a very popular thing that happens from time to time, especially around the urban areas. They're not in the...

city or town they're in the county so we got to be prepared to deal with that when it occurs and they're selling them because ideally they'll perform real estate taxes which brings me to the next thing i wanted to ask you about i forgot about it but during the meeting there was something brought up about impact fees prior to the previous comprehensive plan We had, or the commissioners had a study done. Can you find out if that's still in the office someplace?

Was that road impact fees? Pardon? Was that road or development impact fees?

All impact fees because the parks, we couldn't justify the impact fees because we just didn't have the density to justify doing a park impact fee. At that time, the roads, it was left up to the highway engineer and he stipulated the highway width and that kind of took us out of the loop for the impact the equation. So that was an internal decision and road design, I think that affected them, but that was for the impact piece.

We'll take a look for it.

Please.

Anybody else? We have a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

So moved. Second.

Second. I got to feed my dog.

Okay. All in favor, it's adjourned. Aye.

Aye. So it's a pleasure. Thank you. Good luck down there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.