By VICKI URBANIK

In a 5-3 vote Wednesday, the Porter County Plan Commission rejected plans for The Preserve, a proposed 99-lot subdivision surrounded by wetlands at C.R. 1050N and 50W in Liberty Township.

The decision clearly was a difficult one for some of the plan commission members, who, after holding a one-hour long public hearing, questioned and debated the proposal for nearly two more hours before taking a vote.

The case was reminiscent of the debate that occurred earlier this year over a subdivision planned farther east on 1050N in Jackson Township. One the one hand, the development met and even exceeded the county’s open space requirements and came with the likelihood of sanitary sewer and water, as the county planners favor. But other characteristics of the property ended up outweighing those positives.

The Preserve developers pledged to protect 51 acres of existing wetlands on site and an additional 10 acres of open space, while leaving the remaining 29 acres for the housing.

They also called for educating homeowners on the environmental sensitivity of the land, partnering with a non-profit group to manage the wetlands, and employing “best management practices,” such as the use of vegetative filter strips to slow water and rain barrels to collect water.

As plan commission member Herb Read argued in support of The Preserve, the development protects sensitive wetlands at a time when wetlands rules are weakening. “We can’t expect much help at the federal or state level,” he said.

But for other planners, the fact that the property contains abundant wetlands, standing water, and soils unsuitable for basements was reason to give pause. If Read was one of the most vocal supporters, then Robert Detert was one of the most vocal opponents, questioning if Porter County is so “hard up” that it now has to build in risky areas.

“We’re going to manage rain water with rain barrels and rain gardens? This is ridiculous,” Detert said. Added planner Rich Burns: “It appears to be a high-risk development.”

The developers, Redfish Development of Chesterton, now have to wait one year if they want to re-submit the plans. However, if they substantially alter their plans, they could try again before then, said County Plan Commission Executive Director Robert Thompson.

Voting to deny the primary plat were members Detert, Burns, Robert Harper, Elizabeth Marshall and Dan Whitten. Voting to approve the plat were Read, Kevin Breitzke and Tim Cole. Member Eric Biddinger was absent.

No Ordinary Subdivision

The materials presented Wednesday touted The Preserve as “catering to environmentally aware people” and “working with the land.”

Redfish attorney Greg Babcock said the goal is to preserve the wetlands and work with the property so that the homes are in harmony with their natural surroundings. Road and building construction would impact 0.8 acre of wetlands, which would be mitigated 3-1 elsewhere on site.

Developer and builder Paul Shinn said he envisions single-family homes, likely two-story structures to save land space, averaging about 1,800 to 2,200 square feet.

Redfish representatives presented computerized graphics showing how the existing wetlands would expand and fill with water in a 100-year rainstorm. The proposal called for a zero-discharge development, meaning that all water would be retained on site and not drain onto surrounding properties.

Babcock said the developers have been in contact with Chesterton Utilities about the sewer hook-on; at Chesterton officials’ suggestion, he said, Redfish opted not to propose one large lift station on site, but an alternative system known as the E-One Sanitary Sewage System, which was described as a sort of a mini lift station for individual homeowners, grinding up the waste solids before pumping them to a force main.

Builders and homeowners alike would be required to participate in educational sessions regarding the land’s ecology. Convenants would be in place regulating use of pesticides and other practices that could harm the wetlands.

Developer Mark Radzik said homeowners would have signs in their back yards reminding them of their sensitive surroundings. If homeowners don’t like such restrictions, he said, then The Preserve isn’t the place for them to live, and they’d be better off at Sand Creek or Coffee Creek. Added Shinn: “The Preserve is truly a lifestyle choice. People will want to live there.”

Supporting the Preserve was Chesterton resident Mike Hogan, who said his consulting firm works to attract an intellectual clientele in part to negate the “brain drain.” Such a sophisticated development as The Preserve would be another incentive his firm could offer people thinking about moving here, he said.

Another Chesterton resident, Christine Livingston, a watershed coordinator for the Save the Dunes Conservation Fund, also spoke in support of the plans. She said she was asked by Redfish to provide input and said it’s refreshing to work with developers who “are willing to go the extra mile” to protect the environment.

Drainage, Drainage

But drainage weighed heavily on the minds of others at the hearing. C.R. 50W resident Mike Shook said in any normal year other than this drought year, the property consists of standing water year-round. His one backyard lake is now about 18 inches from its normal level, he said.

He also questioned who would enforce the homeowner restrictions against weed killers and the like, noting that the county has a ban on open burning but that burning goes on all the time.

Shook said he believes there “are much more suitable lands available for development before it becomes necessary to develop ecologically sensitive wetlands.”

J.F. Schrader raised a variety of questions about the accuracy of the developers’ wetlands and soil maps. He added that the soils are not suitable for basements or any building in general, and cited his own ancestors who tried to farm the land but couldn’t. “It’s just too wet, “ he said.

Similarly, Alan Hewitt said the soil type has a high potential for frost action, which could affect the durability of the roads and housing foundations. “The ground will not perc,” Hewitt said, adding that he’s afraid that the water problems will eventually damage the county roads and the people of Porter County “will get stuck with the bill.”

Planners’ View

Detert said in all his years on the plan commission, this was the first time he has ever heard that developers “would have to educate people on how to live” at the subdivision.

“I don’t know why we have to build on risky property,” he said, questioning what would happen if 100-year storms occurred in succession as they have done before.

But Cole praised the presentation as the best he has ever seen and said the technical engineering makes him believe that if any development can succeed with such a difficult plan, The Preserve would do so. He said the Chesterton land use plan identified this area for industrial and business use, which he said seems “strange” given the land characteristics.

“Annexation is probably a foregone conclusion,” Cole said, raising a concern with how Chesterton’s use of the surrounding land, if it is annexed one day, would affect the wetlands and the subdivision.

Read said if the property is one day industrially developed, the wetlands would be gone. And the fact that the soil is so impermeable is actually favorable if the objective is to preserve wetlands, he said.

Marshall questioned if it was true that the property used to be in a classified designation giving the property owner a tax break by keeping the property in its natural state. The developers said that was true but that once the property changed hands, that classification was removed and the prior owner paid the required back taxes.

At one point, after several planners raised concerns about homes with basements in the soil type, the planners asked if Redfish would be willing to give up all basements, which the developers said they were not prepared to do. At another point, Harper called on several neighboring residents to detail their experiences with the drainage in the area. He questioned if the Technical Advisory Commission adequately studied the drainage calculations and suggested that all the commitments and restrictions get put in writing before any vote would be taken. “It’s all sort of spaghetti right now,” Harper said.

After Detert made his motion to deny the primary plat due to a lack of information about drainage, Read asked what additional information should be required. But Whitten called for the question, ending any additional discussion, and the motion passed 5-3.

Posted 11/10/2005