Citizens of Clear Lake,

You may not know, but there will soon be a major change in the rules and regulations that govern Clear Lake. Currently, our ordinances consist of fifty pages of rules and regulations. Since the Town’s inception, we have only passed ordinances gradually, as needed. On Wednesday, April 8th, there will be a meeting at the Town Hall at 7:00pm. A new set of ordinances, or Unified Development Ordinances (UDO), will be voted on by the planning commission, and is expected to pass.

The UDO goes against our tradition by adding four times the current regulation at once; the new document consists of over 250 pages. The document was first available online in September of 2008. It is now the beginning of April 2009 and the UDO is set to be finalized and passed without even a summer going by for public input on the document.

Did you know that according to the new UDO:

• Re-zoning will change the use of many properties, stripping owners of their rights. For example, many lots that were formerly Single-Family Residential are now Lake Accessory only.

• The need for permits will increase dramatically – this means increased fees, paperwork and penalties for non-compliance. A large increase to the Town’s budget will be needed to cover costs of enforcing the UDO. You will need a permit for improvements as minor as adding an exterior light.

• Adopting the UDO will not protect us against lawsuits from Dan Hogland - it may actually increase lawsuits from him as well as others.

• Frankly, I haven’t had time to read and understand the entire document, but what I’ve come across so far concerns me. I’d like to have a better understanding of why all these additional restrictions are necessary. Why are we in a rush to adopt it?

If you would like a public forum this summer to discuss the proposed UDO, possible changes and whether we need it, please attend the April 8th meeting to let your voice be heard. If you cannot attend, but would like a summer forum or are simply against the proposal, please send your email to threeclovers@hotmail.com and feel free to call me at 260.243.1026. We will print emails and take them to the meeting. You can also e-mail Bill Geiger, Plan Commission President, at bgeiger1@verizon.net, though we would appreciate it if you cc’d the message to us so we can read some of the comments aloud at the meeting.

Please note that we respect the people who put a lot of time and hard work into this project. However, it just makes sense for our community to take a step back, thoroughly examine the proposed ordinances and question whether they are necessary or even applicable to the Town of Clear Lake.

Trey McArdle

Please follow this link to view the proposed UDO:
http://townofclearlake.org/content/UDO%20A...20%202009.03.17.pdf

Dear "Clear Lakers":
   The Clear Lake Plan Commission voted to CONTINUE the Public Hearing until this May meeting.
   Thus there 4 WEEKS to review SPECIFIC CONCERNS.
   A citizen's advisory committee is consolidating public concerns, and discuss in depth to present a concise and documented reply to our Clear Lake government officials.
   There were specific topics of concern voiced to members, and more info will be forth coming.
   If you have SPECIFICS to be discussed about the ordinance, please review DRAFT H of the UDO first that is on the official www.townofclearlake.org for this draft.
   This committee, as well as the Plan Commission really did appreciate everyone's input at the meeting which did not depart the Clear Lake town hall until 10:45pm.
Thank you in advance for everyone's immediate input.
    Respectfully, Mark B Hansbarger - email: mark@hansbarger.com

Edited by author 04-09-2009 09:35 AM
Megan Moss
584 Lake Dr.

Notes from the Clear Lake Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 7pm

More than 55 people in attendance. Standing room only.

These are a few of the comments made after the majority of the audience left.

Bill Geiger: “My thought process is to let this document stand. I think we have a solid document.”

Jerry McArdle: “6-8 weeks out of the year, we are the 2nd largest town in the county. We need to have an infrastructure to service those people.”

Rick Behnfeldt made a motion to revisit the pages about lake accessory. Jerry McArdle 2nd. Chris Folland, George Schenkel + Bob Lewis voted against. Rick Behnfeldt, Jerry McArdle + Bill Geiger voted for, resulting in a stalemate.

Rick Behnfeldt- Our responsibility is to do what is right for the community. If we don't take a 2nd look @ that issue(Lake Accessory), then we are doing a disservice to the community.

Neil, lawyer for town, said to the planning commission, “You heard people who just philosophically don't like the idea of lake accessory. The question is, do you agree with lake accessory and the limitations that it imposes (on the property owners)?”

The planning commission voted unanimously to change pg. 5-5 E. Utilities: Accessory structures shall not have sewer or water service provided in (was 'to') the structure.

Dear CLEAR LAKERS! The clear Lake Plan Commission NEEDS your SPECIFIC comments & concerns on. Here are SOME I have so far. PLEASE reply AFTER reading the ordinance. I am working on several ordinances and regulations, but none that need more attention than the CLEAR LAKE one ... and NOW!

FORTUNATELY, we have 3 WEEKS to get our "collective crap" together on this ordinace, otherwise the prospects for change will be difficult at best with the required Indiana state procedures. Like Bill Geiger said, let's shoot for 100% correct as best we can FIRST!

Comments please or email: mark@hansbarger.com
                =============

Specific ITEMS OF CONCERN include: (emphasis added in CAPS to call attention to particulars, and mostly in sequence with the ordinance)

1.06 Compliance: "NO STRUCTURE shall be located, erected, constructed, RECONSTRUCTED, moved, altered, converted, ENLARGED, or USED, nor shall ANY piece of land be used, NOR shall ANY EXISTING USE be expanded EXCEPT WHEN IN FULL COMPLIANCE with ALL provisions of this Unified Development Ordinance ...."
        QUERY: So a residence must be in COMPLETE & FULL COMPLIANCE with ALL provisions of the ordinance before any change at all can be done? If you want to add a walk, or ramp, or porch or deck, but don't meet setbacks or some other provision, ordinance reads that must be in FULL COMPLIANCE, correct?

1.11-E. "Building Sites: All NEW BUILDING SITES shall meet the requirements of this Unified Development Ordinance ..."
        QUERY: So, already platted lots that were purchased for prospective building sites ... in order to become NEW BUILDING SITES ... must meet requirements of the UDO? (Considerable discussion was over this in regards to item 3" Buildable Lot provided it was approved PRIOR to the UDO, and prior approved buildable lots were nonetheless being rendered not buildable.
    QUERY: What precisely then is allowed to be "buildable", and only then certain building uses. (Lake Accessory only?)

1.17: Establishment of Standard Zoning Districts: ... states that "Only those uses and development standards which are EXPRESSLY PERMITTED and noted ...apply to that zoning district."
    QUERY: How easy are additional uses to be added to the limited uses provided? Example: Neighborhood Commercial (since there is no General Business zoning) has limited allowable uses, what is the procedure, and what is the length of period allowed, or should the use cease, would the zoning also likewise cease? (Example: "Old Rieke Building near the Yacht Club as Marina? Or platted vacant lots there were not buildable because of governmental change in health department regulations, and then governmental changes in zoning, and/or setbacks?) What is fair when the government precluded use?

 2.01 "Conservation District" - QUERY: No minimum lot area or width stated, but with 35 feet set backs from for primary and accessory structures with maximum lot coverage of 5% and 2 per lot with 25 feet for primary and 20 feet height for accessory structure, and NO provisions for ANY structures and/or use; like for a house, pavilion, tool shed, bunk house. If there are setbacks and coverages, what IS allowed?

2.04 Parks and Recreation (PR) District: QUERY: This conveniently by governmental control, renders otherwise valuable land virtually worthless, as in the Public Beach property on the SE shore of Clear lake; but with the stroke of a pen/vote multiplies the value over 1,000 fold. Is this appropriate power?

2.05: Agricultural (AG) District:
    a. QUERY: Permitted Uses includes "fair housing facility (small)" which is what? How many units, etc.?
    b. QUERY: "HELIPORT" ironically is included as a "special exception use" but not an AIRPORT ... both of which otherwise require considerable FAA regulatory approval; airport should be included with Special Exception also, shouldn't it?
    c. QUERY: What about farm help residences?
    d. QUERY: while Minimum Lot size for AG is just 2 acres, minimum DWELLING size is 1,200 square feet, but allows 2 primary structures per Lot ... so does that mean 2 SEPARATE DWELLINGS ALLOWED?
    e. QUERY: Also no minimum main floor area, so living area for example could be ABOVE a pole building?

2.08: Intense Agricultural (IA) District:
    a. QUERY: 4 acre minimum Lot area ... isn't that too small for a "feeder operation"?
    b. QUERY: Minimum Lot width of 1,600 feet, with minimum setback for front of 750 feet, and rear set back of 750 equals: 1,500 feet front to back x 1,600 feet minimum width equals a minimum size of 55.096 Acres for any buildings, yet Maximum Primary Structures are 2 on a minimum lot size of 4 acres doesn't fit at all. What is the thought on this impossible situation? (or does $50,000 planning not include math of 43,560 SQUARE FEET in 1 acre?)
    c. QUERY: No residential structure allowed?
    d. QUERY: Maximum Primary structures states is 2 per lot with no minimum dwelling size, but diagram on the right SHOWS 3 PRIMARY STRUCTURES?

2.10 Rural Estate (RE) district:
    a. QUERY: Why on 2 acres is sanitary sewer and water utility REQUIRED for hookup with Maximum of 1 Primary Structure per lot when for the same 2 ACRE size and with 2 PRIMARY structures allowed in AG ... there is no required hookup? (Doesn't seem to make health or logical sense. Explain.)
   b. QUERY: Accessory structures are shown, but is there a limit on size or number in this district as opposed to Agricultural?

2.11: Single-Family Residential (SR)
    a. QUERY: With EXISTING platted lots, do these NEW regulations and now more restrictive setbacks apply, especially for obtaining new building permits like stated in the earlier portion of this U.D.Ordinance?
    b. QUERY: With EXISTING platted lots but where the setbacks were drawn, labeled, and thus previously approved by the plan commission and town board, then these NEW setbacks and regulations do or do not apply?
    c. QUERY: If setbacks were approved previously approved for one district, but then commission then changes the district designation to one of the new 12 districts, what regulations then apply? Previously recorded and approved, or new?
    d. QUERY: With 10 feet side setbacks, with lots that are NOT with recorded and approved set backs, won't that make those lots very difficult to build upon?
    e. QUERY: In light of that, since 1,200 sq. ft. is required, wouldn't downsizing the required 800 sq. ft. on the main floor to 600 sq. ft. be more appropriate, particularly with 10 feet side setbacks on some of the 40 feet wide existing size lots?

2.14: Lake Residential (LR) District
    a. QUERY: What are the "Limited use for new development" criteria?
    b. QUERY: Would all PRE-existing NON-conformances of a residence or property have to be "cured" in order to proceed to be "reconstructed" or "alter" with an addition, since the ordinance requires that work all be done in compliance with this U.D. ordinance?
     Say part of the home does not meet the now required setback, or not the required number of trees, or an existing fence, or architectural style, under the ordinance, wouldn't the entire property have to be in conformity before being able to say add a handicap ramp, or porch, or deck, or accessory building? (according to section 1.06 of this UDO).

2.15: Lake Accessory (LA) District
    a. QUERY: 5,000 sq. ft. and 50 feet width minimum lot size is larger than the 4,000 sq. ft. for Lake Residential, yet residential is ONLY allowed by SPECIAL EXCEPTION ... and only when "LEGALLY TIED" to an ESTABLISHED adjacent or relatively adjacent Lake Residential lot in PERPETUITY.
    b. QUERY: How can plan commission previously approved lots, and particularly those with previously recorded setbacks that were also approved, how can those lots stand and stay buildable and useable for their purpose, and yet these now "Lake Accessory lots", which were also previously approved, and recorded, how can these lots then not also stand as previously approved, platted and recorded?
    c. QUERY: If residential secondary dwelling is allowed, again with the size, would not a MINIMUM FLOOR AREA of 600 FEET be more appropriate to accommodate the mostly typical small size of the existing lots.

2.17: Multiple-Family Residential (MR) District
    a. QUERY: DISTRICT INTENT lists "Two and three-family homes" ... yet Permitted Uses only states "Dwelling, Single-family Detached" but NO MULTI-FAMILY allowed in a MULTI-FAMILY district.
    The "2-4 dwelling units per structure" are "erroneously" listed under the wrong heading and intent is confused compared to the definition.
    Obviously Permitted Uses should contain Multi-Family (attached) dwellings.
    This entire section is not clear at all, and appears intentionally confusing.
    b. QUERY: Minimum lot area is 12,000 sq feet with maximum primary structures of 3 per lot, with maximum lot coverage of up to 40%, and 35% for structure, with only 800 sq. ft. per unit for new construction, but Maximum Density was CHANGED to only 3 UNITS PER ACRE when all other regulations and provisions for minimum lot area, maximum coverage, minimum lot width, front and side yard setback, lot coverages, structure coverage, dwelling size and primary structures provide otherwise for multi-family density. Thought processes here are not clear as to the intent of the provisions and definitions.
    c. QUERY: SINGLE Family Residential Districts provide minimum lot size of 12,000 sq ft., or 3.63 residences per acre.
    LAKE Residential Districts provide minimum lot of 4,000 sq. ft. or 10.89 residences per acre.
    Even LAKE ACCESSORY Districts can allow up to 8.7 residences per acre.
    But for MULTI-Family, with minimum lot size and providing for "Two and three-family homes", or "2-4 dwelling units per structure", or "3 per lot" with a minimum square footage of 800 sq. feet (less than all other districts) ... however, the maximum density is listed not as 3.63 residences per acre as in Single Family, nor 10.89 residences per acre as in LR district, nor 8.7 residences in LA, but listed as Maximum Density of "3 units per acre" ... less units for a Multi-Family District than for a Single Family District. That is opposed to every other Multi-Family district in the state. Explain.
    d. QUERY: Fair Housing Facilities are allowed Agricultural, Rural Estate, Lake Residential (on surprisingly small lots), but for Multiple-Family Districts the use is ONLY allowed with special exception seems counter to MULTI-FAMILY intent and discriminatory; was the intent to keep "fair housing" away from others?

Also: QUERY: Why are Fair Housing Facilities (small) for 8 unrelated people are allowed, but "Family" is more restrictive to only 3 persons? (Article 11 Definitions F)

Also: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES (Section 10) go on for SEVEN (7) pages.
    ===== continued ==============
ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF CONCERN INCLUDE:

2.19: INSTITUTIONAL (IS) District -
    a. QUERY: Minimum permitted lot area is 6,000 sq.ft. with 60 ft width, allowing 1 Primary Structure with no minimum Main floor area, but up to 50% Maximum Lot Coverage, which is a density of 7.26 "high traffic uses" per acre for municipal airport (which could not possibly fit), heliport, police, fire, school, community center, farmers market, etc. ... all of which are higher traffic, higher use than the 3 units per acre as in Multi-Family. (clear inconsistency in the ordinance)

2.21: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District
    a. QUERY: Type 1 Retail, Very Low Intensity on page 11-34 does not include OFFICE SPACE, but does include gift shops, jewelry store, news dealer, and specifically includes Permitted uses like club, lodge, day care, pub and restaurant. Why is list so exclusive?
    b. QUERY: No RETAIL (TYPE 2) or higher commercial uses are allowed anywhere (unless by special exception). Why is there NO GENERAL BUSINESS or higher commercial use district ... like for bowling, actual bank, skating rink, grocery store, GAS STATION or CONVENIENCE STORE, etc.?
    c. QUERY: Minimum Main Floor Area is 1,000 sq. feet, which would be pretty large for a BANK MACHINE/ATM?
    d. QUERY: Density for these HIGHER TRAFFIC (pub, restaurant, etc.) is over 2.9 UNITS PER ACRE ... which again seems to fly in the face of so restrictive 3.0 UNITS PER ACRE Multi-Family Density, which would be most appropriate to be adjacent a Neighborhood commercial district. The preferred locations of retirement communities that are to be easily accessible to groceries, community shopping areas, and such properties, and which seems appropriate for the ordinances prescribed intent of "encouraging economic vitality".
    How is this High Traffic Density encouraged in this way?
   
2.23: Marina (MA) District: A Unique, Distinct District.
    a. QUERY: since minimum lot area is 15,000 sq. ft. for permitted "with up to 40 rack and launch boats", and since 15,000 sq. ft. is minimum lot size for Neighborhood Commercial "with up to 40 rack and launch or MOORING OR BOATS", then the separate parcels of a "property" could easily be 2.9 approximate UNITS per Acre, which would allow some roughly 116 RACK AND LAUNCH BOATS PER ACRE, or some 737 BOATS on the roughly 6.36 acres of the Clear Lake Marina (not that present owners would do so), or 145 BOATS at the 1.25 Acre Clinrud Corp/Old Rieke building if zoned Marina or NC; or 104 BOATS at the Clear Lake Yacht Club's 0.4 acre plus 0.5 acre site, or potentially 80 total boats for the just 2 parcels ... but not including the Yacht Club's other 1.08 Acre and 1.35 Acre Tennis Court/Channel front area for additional 80 to 281 boats.
    The Ind DNR may have some particular jurisdiction as they are processing "Group Pier" and commercial use "PIER" and MOORING regulations that will go into effect, hopefully, however, the potential for 737 plus 145, plus 104, plus 281 equals some worst case of 1,267 ADDITIONAL BOATS.
    b. QUERY: Since the Marina is considered and favored as a vital component to the life style at Clear Lake, shouldn't some Permitted Uses, or at least some Special Exemption Uses ... like ATM, cafe, deli, etc. be listed here as well as "alluded to" in the definition of Marina alone so as to not have to be interpreted by some governmental employee?
    c. QUERY: Some of the most attractive resort areas, San Antonio's River-Walk District, Florida's Disney area, etc., compliment the waterfront areas, and a setback closer than 50 feet should perhaps be adjusted or allowed with special exception (I presume it is), in order to make Clear Lake more in line with other "up-scale" communities.

3.01 OVERLAY DISTRICTS: Although is included by design in 1.23-C2. there are no details.
    a. QUERY: Explain "overlay District."
    b. QUERY: What additional controls and regulations are by written word allowed for these "overlay districts?" NOT what is INTENDED, what is SPECIFIED?
    c. QUERY: Item 1.18 describes Overlay District is to "ADD ADDITIONAL AND UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ..." to reach the Town Goals. What are the Town's SPECIFIC WRITTEN GOALS that might determine these OVER CONTROLLING OVERLAY DISTRICTS?

4.01: Planned Development (PD) District:
    a. QUERY: What specifically would constitute "A CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY" so that a property owner might have some guidelines for this, and NOT INTERPRETATION such that a lawsuit and court would have to decide?
    b. QUERY: Since Minimum Lot sizes are so small (some 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 12,000, 15,000 sq. ft. for Lake Residential, Lake Accessory, Institutional, Single Family Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Multi-Family, and Marina as examples), with all of these uses fitting on total areas of roughly 1.25 ACRES, the PD requirement of 5 ACRES appears OVERLY RESTRICTIVE for an use that MUST BE A CLEAR BENEFIT to the community and which would otherwise fit nicely with the standards otherwise imposed by this ordinance.
    The 5 ACRES should be downsized more appropriately, or why not?
ur NEXT."

    THUS, for these and other reasons that remain un-answered in the extremely limited time allotted to individuals at "Public Hearings" ... this ordinance SHOULD NOT BE PASSED until a FULLY ATTEND ABLE HEARING with ALL CLEAR LAKE TAXPAYERS is held.
    This SHOULD BE TABLED until THIS SUMMER because the particulars of this ordinance WILL AFFECT EVERYONE AT CLEAR LAKE, obviously with more regulations, and undoubtedly more costs, more government, more taxes and fees.

Respectfully, Mark hansbarger

Leading up to the April 8th plan commission meeting, people were posting on the Clearlakefun.org bulletin board regarding the new Ordinances (UDO). The choice was made that the Clear Lake Fun bulletin board is a place for fun and not politics. Before the meeting, my sister created this discussion forum to continue the political dialogue. There is a link to the forum on Clearlakefun.org in the upper left titled “Political Message Board.” Please post questions, comments and thoughts regarding Clear Lake issues. This forum is not specific to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Discourse on all Clear Lake political and policy issues are welcome. The key to making this a productive forum is respect. All we are asking is you post in a manner that is courteous and respectful of others. Please follow similar etiquette to the Clear lake fun bulletin board.
Trey McArdle
20 Penny Court, Round Lake.

This article titled, "Clear Lake residents question ordinance" was published in The Herald Republican on Thursday, April 9th, the day after the Plan Commission meeting. It has been transcribed word for word. The only exception has been inserted in brackets for clarification.

Clear Lake residents question ordinance
By Jim Chilander
jims@kpcnew.net

Clear Lake – Citizens from around Clear Lake including a number of summer residents packed the Clear Lake Town Hall Tuesday to voice concerns about the proposed Unified Development Ordinance under consideration by the planning commission
 The Clear Lake Plan Commission decided not to vote at this time on the ordinance at the meeting.
Many of the residents came to ask about proposed restrictions on lake accessory lots owned by lakefront property owners, which would have additional restrictions placed on them by the new ordinance. Resident Jack Daniel said he was concerned about the ordinance eliminating the “middle ground” between homes and garages, such as a shop.
It seems like we should go the extra mile and get those things included in the ordinance,” Daniel said. He explained that he feared inconsistent rulings by the town zoning board might allow some people to get a shop they might want while others lose out.
Commission president Bill Geiger said those provisions were put in place to encourage neighbors to come before the BZA and let their voices be heard about what type of structures would be put in.
“It’s so neighbors would know what you’re putting in,” Geiger said.
Board member Jerry McArdle, who has been vocal about issues, said by restricting as they had, he felt the current ordinance essentially “outlawed” things like shops to be built on those lake accessory properties.
Other concerns about lake accessory properties included proposed restrictions on who could purchase those properties if the lakefront property was sold. The current [drafted UDO] ordinance stated that neighbors within 75 feet of a property could purchase it if it came up for sale. That, Geiger said, was meant to allow those who would have the most interest in keeping the property the way it is to own it.
Other residents said they wanted to see passage of the ordinance wait for summer, when the town’s population increased, to allow summer residents to have a look at the document and voice their opinions. Trey McArdle was one such advocate.
“I would like to see a summer forum and let us hear a little more about it,” McArdle said.
 Jon Zachrich questioned the need for additional regulations contained in the ordinance.
 “We’re not enforcing some of what we have now,” Zachrich said. “Why do we need more?”
 Brad Johnson, the consultant who helped to draft the ordinance, said much of the new language contained in the UDO was about adding up-to-date information and state standards, along with new definitions he hoped would clarify the document.
 “We’re making it more user-friendly, even as we’re making it larger,” Johnson said. Much of that length meant putting in standardized definitions, he said. “There’s content that just had to be in every ordinance. Definitions don’t add regulations, they add clarity.
 Geiger tried to emphasize that the board would have a working committee to keep up with needed changes to the document as the needs arose.
 “I really appreciate the letters we’ve received Geiger said. “This in my mind is a very good document, but I understand, and I’m trying to hear what the community has to say.”

These are the two newest postings from the Town of Clear Lake site http://townofclearlake.org/

News

Plan Commission Meeting

On Monday, May 4th, 2009 the Clear Lake Plan Commission will hold their regular quarterly meeting. The commission will continue their review of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The meeting will be held at the Clear Lake Town Hall at 7:00 pm. The draft up for adoption is available at this link. March 17, 2009 UDO Adoption Draft.

The proposed Zoning Map (revised 3/9/09) is posted at Town Hall. Copies of the map file (in pdf format) may also be obtained by contacting the Town Hall during normal business hours.

During the commission's last four meetings, January 8th, February 8th, March 9th and April 8th, 2009 public hearings were held. The Notice of that Public Hearing is available at this link. Public Notices.

**********

Note from Plan Commission President, Bill Geiger

The Plan Commission met on April 8th, 2008 and listened again to comments from the residents on the proposed ordinances. Some residents sent in specific questions in which a newly organized working committee will review and then present to the commission. We encourage residents who have specific questions to put them in writing and forward them to the Plan Commission President, Bill Geiger at president.plan.comm@townofclearlake.org.

We appreciate everyone’s efforts in this endeavor as we work towards the completion of this process.

**********

In order to make reviewing the UDO a more manageable task, I've compiled a list of the areas which, to my understanding, are being newly regulated, OR more regulated than they are in the current ordinance. Following each item is the appropriate page number in the UDO for Lake Residential and Lake Accessory properties.

Please let me know of any corrections.

Sincerely,
Megan Moss

In general the page numbers correlate with the ordinance numbers. These go in order from the beginning of the ordinance to the end.

Roof Pitch 2-15
Overhangs 5-11
Exterior mechanical equipment location 5-11
Maximum lot coverage of building 2-15
Maximum lot coverage of impervious surfaces 2-15, 5-12
Driveway material size & location 5-13
Fence height, location & material 5-18, 5-19 (Vision Clearance ? 5-77)
Floodplain 5-21 to 5-29
Minimum Floor Area 2-15
Structure Height 2-15
Home businesses 5-32, 5-33
landscaping quantity, location and type 5-35, 5-36, 5-37
Outdoor Lighting, 5-39
Outdoor Storage 5-42
Parking 5-43, 5-44
Noise 5-47
Vibration 5-47
Odor 5-47
Ponds 5-49
Setbacks & Horizontal and Vertical Views2-15, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55 (The setbacks may be the same as in the current ordinance)
Retaining Walls 5-51
Signs 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-62 (includes temporary signs, such as garage sale signs)
Trash Receptacles 5-75
Utility service to structures 5-76 (must all be underground)

To view the CURRENT ordinance (in effect now), go to the American Legal website: www.amlegal.com/library/
Select the state of Indiana and you will see Clear Lake listed in the selections at the left.

Jon Zachrich questioned the need for additional regulations contained in the ordinance.
 “We’re not enforcing some of what we have now,” Zachrich said. “Why do we need more?”

I don't know how all of you feel about this but this quote says it all for me. I'm with Jon I see no reason for this UDO at all. We need less Gov't at Clear lake not more. I'm having a problem with the dog ordinace that was passed after everybody went home in september. Does anyone know why we the town members taxpayers of Clear Lake are letting this go forward!!!!!!!

Edited by author 04-22-2009 11:08 AM
HAPPY EARTH DAY

We need to protect our precious resources, including our most precious, Mother Earth. This is particularly important for the Town of Clear Lake and The Lake, itself, and not just today, but all year. This responsibility goes beyond what is required under rules and regulations. Here is a list of 10 things you can do to help at the lake, at home, at work and anywhere else.

1. Use less water!
Take showers instead of baths, fix leaks, and turn off the tap when brushing your teeth. And buy efficient fixtures by looking for the WaterSense label.

2. Save electricity!
Do a home energy audit, get programmable thermostats, buy Energy Star products, turn stuff off when you’re done, and change your bulbs to compact fluorescents.

3. Reduce, reuse, recycle!
Try to find products with less packaging, take reusable bags on shopping trips, creatively reuse other products, and recycle what's left. If you are not already recycling at The Lake, get a tub from the town hall and start this year!

4. Think before using chemicals and use them safely!
Read labels carefully and consider natural options and less harmful options. Consider biodegradable cleaners. Lock up pesticides, paints, and cleaners where kids can't reach them.

5. eCycle! Take your old computer, DVD player, or other electronics to a recycling center. This helps keep hazardous substances out of the landfill.

6. Consider using bio-degradable sunscreen, when possible.

7. Consider replacing your 2 cycle outboard motor (and any old 2 cycle motor) with a 4 Cycle or a newer High Efficiency EPA Certified "cleaner" 2 Cycle outboard. (Older 2 Cycle outboard motors are some of the worst polluters in our waters: it is estimated that older 2 cycle engines discharge 25-30% of their fuel unburned directly into our environment.)

8. Always remember that what goes into the ground around the lake can and does end up in the lake.

9. Don't litter and pick up after those who unfortunately do.

10. Consider using biodegradable bug spray and/or DEET free bug spray, when possible.

Lastly, spread the word!

Save our lake, save our planet acting individually together.

(Sorry for the Off-Topic post. Now, back to the regularly scheduled political discussion.)

Anyone who wants to get updates when there is a new post can hit the blue subscribe button in the top left hand corner of the page and sign up to automatically be sent update emails when people post new items.

   COMPREHENSIVE PLAN for U.D.O. is FLAWED.

   Clear Lake Plan Commission appears to "hang their hat" on the SURVEYS done with Clear Lake property owners, and my review of the "construct" of the survey QUESTIONS, and well as the ANSWERS ... does NOT seem to correlate correctly.
 
   2007 Comprehensive Plan for Clear Lake link is: http://www.townofclearlake.org/content/Com...%20plan%20Final.pdf
 
    Specifically: page 26 ... I believe has been TOTALLY MIS-INTERPRETED by the Plan Commission and members on the Comprehensive Plan in that the UDO should control:
 
1. Building Height
2. Lake Yard Setback
3. Road Yard Setback
4. Side Yard Setback
5. % Area of Lot covered
6. Lake Yard Averaging
7. Fences
 
    However, those answering the survey (QUESTION 11) replied OVERWHELMINGLY that then "NEED INFORMATION" ... by 2 times, 3 times, 4 times, and even 5 times to one. "Need Information" is NOT "Requires Revision."
 
    QUESTION 12, I believe was both MIS-construed and MIS-interpreted!
 
    The question was a "SET UP" ... implying ADDED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, threatening 2nd and 3rd tier homes, and thus "BAITING" contrived answers (to questions a and b) to FALSELY EMPOWER the plan commission to "limit NON-Lakefront residential DEVELOPMENT".
    For 12a: Most readers obviously read that as NEW DEVELOPMENT!
    And for 12b: the questions was also swayed by suggesting "to allow garages and storage buildings" on smaller non-lakefront lots.
    The Plan Commission to this to thus DIS-ALLOW houses on EXISTING LOTS.
 
    Who ever designed these "GUIDING LIGHT" surveys ... did not phrase the questions correctly to gain truthful insight.

    EXISTING LOTS owners will absolutely be deprived of rights and suffer monetarily, the Plan Commission MIS-interpreting that EXISTING lots should were to be allowed ONLY to have garages and storage buildings.
    The "LAKE ACCESSORY" (new designation) now has been hotly debated (rightfully so), however requiring PERMENANT TIES to lakefront owners, or restricting sales ONLY to others located within 75 FEET is a travesty to private property rights.
        
    NEW OFF-LAKE developments should be limited, that was the "interpretation of the surveys" ... NOT TAKE AWAY EXISTING OWNERS RIGHTS.
 
    The SURVEY was NO mandate! Out of 568 surveys, there were ONLY 54 who supported an revision! And that was for only BUILDING HEIGHT (the highest response received)! Nearly TWICE that voiced that they NEED FURTHER INFORMATION!
 
    There were roughly 54 people IN ATTENDANCE at the last meeting of the Plan Commission ... WHO OPPOSED THE WHOLE THING!
 
    A GOOD CONSOLIDATION of ALL ordinances which should include the revered "ANTI-FUNNELING ORDINANCE" seems like it would allay most everyone's concerns with its limitations of public access to public waters.
    
    "Funneling" is briefly mentioned ONE TIME and only for Lake Accessory lots in all 262 pages! No definition, no anything.
    If indeed "Funneling" is the main concern of the owners at Clear Lake that prompted this whole U.D.O., then it should certainly be included as the standards by which ALL developments are judged.

    Sincerely, Mark Hansbarger (mark@hansbarger.com - 260-665-2154x11)

LAKE ACCESSORY: With NO Sales and NO RENTALS for Secondary Dwellings! 5.67 General Special Exception Standards and Interested Parties (9.08 C2) … those within 300 FEET who are DEFINED as INTERESTED PARTIES for variances and having some 'controls' over neighbors properties. Yet, restricting any of a secondarty dwelling to only those within 75 FEET is overly restricted, particularly when also providing that there be absolutely NO RENTAL of the property to public, further “subject to all means of enforcement to bring the property and structure into compliance.”
   QUERY: Doesn’t Plan Commission see the provisions of 300 feet for interested parties, and 75 feet as being at odds with each other legally, and also overly restrictive? How can Plan Commission justify tearing down or causing foreclosure upon owner?

Edited by author 04-28-2009 01:54 PM
The newly formed Advisory Committee met for their first meeting Monday, April 27th. They will continue to meet every Thursday when not in conflict with other meetings. These meetings are open to the public. A copy of the members and purpose of the Committee was handed out at the meeting and is reprinted BELOW without edit. Public in attendance included: myself, Jack McArdle, Annie Skinner, Mark Hansbarger, Bob Lewis and Leo Helmith. The first three questions from Mark Hansbarger's posted questions were addressed. It was decided that all questions to be addressed should be submitted to the committee president one week in advance (send to: president.plan.comm@townofclearlake.org). The three options for the committee concerning questions are 1)Legal Opinion & or Send to Ground Rules 2) Send to Plan Commission 3)Table.

Of the 3 questions addressed the first is to be sent to Ground Rules. The second is to be sent to Ground Rules for definition clarification. The third 2.21 permitted uses is yet to be clarified. The action taken for all questions will be published on the town website.

It was clear at the meeting that these are good questions that should be addressed BEFORE the UDO is passed. INTENT VS. WRITTEN WORD - SOME OF THE ARTICLES USE LANGUAGE THAT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PLAN COMMISSION. If this is written into law before they are addressed the intent will no longer be considered and those effected will suffer from unclarified articles until the document is fixed.

The direct input from the Zoning Administrator was invaluable because it brings about real world application questions before it is passed. This process should be viewed as a necessary debugging before passage.

Trey McArdle
threeclovers@hotmail.com


Town of Clear Lake Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Advisory Committee Members 4-2009

Member Email Town Relationship
Bill Geiger bgeiger1@verizon.net Plan Commisssion President
Ron Kummer ark950@hotmail.com BZA Commission President
Bruce Snyder bsnyder63@verizon.net Zoning Administrator
Chris Folland chris.folland@verizon.net Plan Commission Member
                                                  BZA Commission Member
Jerry McArdle djmcardle33@verizon.net Plan Commission Member
                                                  BZA Commission Member
Mike Long mlong280mchsi.com Property owner
Mary Jo Fitzenrider mjfitzenri@aol.com Property owner
Alan Korte ark950@hotmail.com Property owner
Emma Brown emmajoyce@verizon.net Property owner

Advisory Committee Purpose

To Review and discuss Community UDO questions and determine if the questions need to be passed on to the Plan Commission for further review and action.

To provide answers to community questions if Plan Commission review and action is not required.

To provide a communication outlet for the Zoning Administrator on issues and questions to the proposed UDO.

To assist in the UDO development and guideline procedures for the Zoning Administrator.

Clear Lake Re-ZONING map is available from me if anyone wants one by email reply. I simply photographed the Clear Lake Town Hall copy, and also took 4 closer shots (NW, NE, SW, SE). I think there have been some revisions already too, and it's still proposed.

Map shows:
     Dotted Red Clear Lake Corporate Limits,
     Yellow "Lake Accessory" Zoning, etc.
     Purple-ish Lake Residential ... but

Unfortunately, the Red Commercial & Reddish Single Family Residential are hard to distinguish in color and they are NOT labeled otherwise.
   
   Just email - mark@hansbarger.com - SUBJECT: Clear Lake Zoning Map Please

Unfortunately, I couldn't make the meeting last night.

Can anyone update us on what happened?

Thanks.

I was not able to attend either. I believe Trey McArdle is preparing a report on what occurred at the meeting last night, and plans on posting it later today. All I know is that they made some changes to the UDO, and passed it after those changes were made.

Megan Moss

Dear Clear Lake community,
Let me start by saying that the political arena is not one I would normally be a part of.
When the final draft of the Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO) came out, I felt it did not represent my views or the views of many seasonal residents. I attended meetings, sent email messages and started a discussion forum to learn more and encourage the participation of the Clear Lake community.

Those in favor of the UDO have said this has been an open process. In talking with a variety of people, I heard the permanent residents who opposed the legislation say over and over that they had been pushed out of the process. There was a survey, a steering committee and there were weekday meetings. I filled out a survey. I went to a meeting. When the draft came out, my opinion had not been represented. So I read the comprehensive plan, the UDO and all the questions and comments everyone sent to me. Let me tell you, with two small kids at home it was quite an effort!

At the Plan Commission meeting on April 4th, the crowd of over 50 people stated a clear mandate for a public forum to be held this summer - before the Plan Commission passed the UDO on to the Town Council - so that changes could be made. Many questioned if we even needed this new legislation at all.

On Monday, May 4th the Plan Commission met and voted to approve the UDO and pass it on to the Town Council.

This was possible because of a recent change in the composition of the plan commission. The Plan Commission is made up of 3 Town Council members and 4 appointed committee members. Earlier this year Mike Long’s term was up. As is customary, he was given an allotted amount of time to reply as to whether he would like to continue serving on the Plan Commission. He responded within that time that he would like to continue and was informed by Bob Lewis that he had been replaced by Chris Folland. This was a behind closed doors move. Chris Folland has voted with the Town Council members on every vote. With Chris Folland on board, the three Town Council members have a majority on the Plan Commission.

At the April 8th meeting there was a vote to reopen the Lake Accessory issue. The vote failed because Bob Lewis, Chris Folland and George Schenkel voted against the motion.

Then Bob Lewis and George Schenkel took their concerns to the board meeting of the Clear Lake Association to discuss the Lake Accessory issue among other things. The Clear Association Board drafted a letter making specific “recommendations” regarding changes to the Lake Accessory section. These changes were then incorporated by Brad Johnson at Ground Rules to revise the UDO to incorporate the “recommendations” into the document. Jon Fitzenrider then wrote of the “recommendations” in their publication, The Clear Lake Newsletter. (You can follow the link to the article). http://www.townofclearlake.org/newsletterarchive/2009-2.pdf
The community was not informed or aware that this recommendation was to then be formalized into a new Lake Accessory revision to be presented at the Plan Commission meeting; nor did the public and even some members of the Plan Commission have access to this document until a few hours before the meeting. The proposed revision became known at the meeting as Draft X.

Bill Geiger, the committee president, said in the meeting that he only received the document 6 hours before the meeting, as did Rick Behnfeldt and Jerry McArdle. These three were then forced to vote on the details of Draft X at the meeting, because at this point they were in the minority and had no way to oppose a motion to include it into the UDO. The three council members and their appointee, Chris Folland, were in the majority. Jerry McArdle pointed out during the reading of the minutes that the Plan Commission had voted to NOT re-open the Lake Accessory portion of the document at the last meeting: yet it was reopened and redrafted behind closed doors with the help of the consultant.

Bill said the “proper place for Draft X to go is the Advisory Committee”. To which Chris Folland said, “Bill’s committee didn’t get anything done!” Then Bob Lewis said that this came out of the Clear Lake Association Board and the public clearly supports it. Rick Behnfeldt later noted that Draft X went above and beyond concerns voiced at the Clear lake association board meeting because there was no mention of 1) Getting rid of the BZA exception for a residential structure in Lake Accessory. 2) There was no reference to reducing structure heights of LA buildings from 27 feet down to the proposed 18 feet.

The public in attendance was approximately one third the number of the previous meeting. The public was not informed in advance of the plan commission meeting that major revisions had been made to the lake accessory portion of the UDO, nor were they informed that the UDO would be voted upon. During the public comment portion of the meeting, almost no discussion of the Draft X revisions took place, mainly because the revisions had not been publicly available before the meeting (and as far as I can tell, are still not available.)

Bill Geiger, Rick Behnfeldt and Jerry McArdle fought as hard as they could to get changes made to Draft X in support of what “the rest of the community” had been asking for, but there was only so much that could be done at that point with a minority.

None of the recommendations made by Bill’s Advisory Committee concerning the public’s questions were addressed at this meeting, including those sections that were recommended to be sent to Ground Rules. (see my April 28th posting on the political discussion board - http://www.quicktopic.com/43/H/jqgVQ3ZCN4q/m15).

The public was led to believe, and I was led to believe, that the Advisory Committee would have the opportunity to address public questions before the UDO passed the Plan Commission.

Unless the Council rejects the UDO or sends it back to the Plan Commission for revision within 90 days, it will become law. Currently the council has told the community that it will be considered by the council at three meetings. After these 3 readings the UDO will become law. The UDO will then go into effect 30 days after it becomes law.

Bill Geiger’s closing words were directed toward the Town Council members. Larry Armstrong was in the audience so the only member missing from the meeting was Barry Worl. Bill said, “Please give the community the summer to give input. Don’t rush this through. We have to remember that we, as permanent residents, are only 15% of this community. They are as much a part of this community as we are.” He again asked community members to come to the Advisory Committee with their written questions. Bill reiterated there is no big rush to pass this as we only have 8 improvement location permits in the pipe. He said the document is 80% there. He also noted that he hoped they could make this work without the community bringing lawsuits.

At the end of the meeting George Schenkel said that he, as a Town Council member, would not rush through the 3 required readings of the UDO in order for it to become law, and the final reading would likely be in September. He said this will leave room for public input during the summer.

My question is: what is stopping the Town Council from hearing all the public input and then doing as they please? What is stopping them from going behind the backs of the public in order to pass the UDO through the council the same way they passed it through the Plan Commission? They already have a clear majority on the Town Council. It only takes Bob Lewis, George Schenkel and Sue Williams to pass it. These are substantive changes in ordinances that should be given a chance for change as individual ordinances, not as a senate bill that is so big it is hard to know what is in it.

What I have taken away from this process is a clear distinction between the permanent residents who currently hold the power on the council (including their friends) and most of the rest of the community. Many of the people who want the increased regulation are the ones who were on the steering committee and composed the comprehensive plan. Many of these people are also on the BZA where almost all the exceptions go. In the meetings I have heard MANY times, “well then it will go to the BZA”. Based on the composition of the BZA, we can assume most of the exceptions to the new strict regulations will be denied.

I found a large discrepancy between the first survey (which Mark Hansbarger explained on the Political forum in detail) and the actions taken by the Town Council. There wasn’t a mandate in the survey requiring revision. In fact, respondents overwhelming responded they need more information about revisions - on such basic provisions as building height, road yard setback and area of lot covered. Therefore, I don’t see how public opinion mandated the comprehensive plan as it stands.

What makes sense to me is to pass a SIMPLIFIED UDO: a UDO document that includes a similar set of regulations to our existing regulations, but one without substantial changes and many new regulations passed all at once. While I understand the need to update the ordinances to state standards, I feel the steering committee made a grave error in trying to add many new changes to our existing ordinances. Why not update and add to the revised document, as needed? We would be able to add to the SIMPLIFIED UDO after it has passed. This would give the community a chance to review and better understand each change rather than force many changes that are virtually unreadable inside a 260-page document. It would be a much more transparent and unbiased process. It does not seem extraordinary to ask that the biggest changes be pulled out of the document and passed separately. Bear in mind, even the new SIMPLIFIED UDO would have changes we will all have to adjust. The way the document works, ordinances will be much tighter and enforcements and penalties more stringent. If the community is in favor of a SIMPLIFIED UDO, a petition can be started.
  
We could also ask that the UDO be put to a referendum instead of passing it through the town council. This would give the whole community a chance to weigh in as to whether this document is the best thing for Clear Lake.

The last thing we want to happen is for this to be passed, and then all those who have been disenfranchised to file lawsuits. Unfortunately, in talking to people, this is a reality. One person confided he assumed it would pass, but his lawyer said he had to wait until it passed to file suit.

If you are interested in volunteering in an effort to oppose the passage of the UDO or would like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know at threeclovers@hotmail.com .

DRAFT X – What’s in it?
The revised section was not posted or handed out.
Draft X is a change in the regulations controlling what can be done in Lake Accessory zoning. It took away the ability to build a 1200 Sq ft guest house in addition to a garage and limited it to a 1200 sq ft garage or bunkhouse, rec room, studio or workshop. Full bathrooms are allowed. Bill, Rick and Jerry fought for the full bath. Originally it was a half bath. Kitchens are not allowed. The height of the structure is reduced from 27 feet to 18 feet which eliminates a 2nd story living space. It requires a trip to the BZA if you want to have water in the building.

VOTES:
Plan Commission Meeting 5/4/09

These votes were mostly on motions to change Draft X and then to pass the UDO.

Motion proposed by Rick Behnfeldt to make 22' the maximum height for a building across lake drive:
    Aye: Rick Behnfeldt Nay: George Schenkel
             Jerry McArdle Bob Lewis
             Bill Geiger Sue Williams
                                                  Chris Folland
Motion did not pass. (can not go up to 22" in height across the road)

Motion proposed by George Schenkel to make a building across lake drive a one story structure with 18' the maximum height.
    Aye: George Schenkel Nay: Rick Behnfeldt
              Bob Lewis Jerry McArdle
              Sue Williams Bill Geiger
              Chris Folland

Motion passed. (only a one story 18' structure allowed across the road)

Motion proposed to allow a full bathroom in the structure across lake drive.
      Aye: George Schenkel Nay: Sue Williams
               Bob Lewis Rick Behnfeldt
               Chris Folland
               Bill Geiger
               Jerry McArdle

Motion Passed. (a full bathroom - stool,sink,shower - is allowed across
                           the road)

Motion proposed to define a kitchen as an area in an across the lake drive structure as having any of 3 things connected within 10' of one another.
(refrigerator, cooking device, sink and with no stove or range). Thus, it is not allowed to have a kitchen in this structure.
        Aye: George Schenkel Nay: Jerry McArdle
                  Bob Lewis
                  Chris Folland
                  Bill Geiger
                  Sue Williams
                  Rick Behnfeldt

Motion passed. (a kitchen not allowed across the street)

Several other motions were proposed relating to minor changes, verbiage, definitions, clarifications and language.
         Most were 7 to 0 Aye votes
         Jerry McArdle votes Nay to 3 of them.

Lastly a motion was proposed to send the document with today's changes on to the next level (the Town Council). George Schenkel pledged that the document would have the complete 3 readings.
    The vote was all Ayes - except Jerry McArdle - Nay.

Best regards,
Trey McArdle
 
If you do not wish to receive emails pertaining to this topic, please reply to this email and write “unsubscribe” in the subject line.
If this was forwarded to you and you would like to be added to the mailing list email me with “subscibe” in the subject line.

Anyone who wants to get updates when there is a new post can hit the blue subscribe button in the top left hand corner of the page and sign up to automatically be sent update emails when people post new items.

  CANCELLED! NO "Advisory Committee" meeting for C.L. Plan Commission for Thurs May 7th. Just got email from Bruce Snyder & cell call from Chris Folland; did not get advertised as required.
   Since the Plan commission PASSED it anyway despite objections raised on virtually every front, frankly, the "gloves should be off" and target PRECISE LEGAL objections for the Plan Commission and Town Board personnel!
    There are VERY real problems with many portions of the ordinance, too many almost to address here, but certainly no doubts in the courts.
    Legal problems seem certain since "intent" of the regulations are questionable and NOT what is stated in several instances, in fact certain parts conflict with other portions.
    READ and WRITE your specific questions and concerns, and feel free to send a copy to me also and I will try to see what else we can do.
    Sincerely, Mark Hansbarger mark@hansbarger.com Ofc: 260-665-2154x11.

Just so you know, there are always questions in the courts, and if you think there aren't, you haven't been there.

Town Council Meeting Tonight at 7pm!!! First reading of UDO! Agenda available at http://www.townofclearlake.org/Agendas/Council%202009-05.htm

If you can not attend, please let your town council member know how you feel about the UDO. All their e-mail addresses are on the town website here: http://www.townofclearlake.org/content/email%20directory.htm

The next meeting will be:
June 8 Town Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Edited by author 05-11-2009 11:59 PM
Notes from Town Council Meeting May 11, 2009
Town council members in attendance: Barry Worl, Sue Williams, Bob Lewis, George Schenkel

Neal Blythe, Bob Hull, Ginny Nye, Frank Nye, Kay Kummer, BobTroll and his wife, Kathy Latz, Karen Lewis, Mary-Jo & Jon Fitzenrider, Mrs. Compo, Megan Moss, Jack McArdle, Marc Hansbarger, Diane McArdle, Jerry McArdle, Bruce Snyder, Rick Eckert, Chris Folland, Bob Hines, Mr. Spangler, and a few others were also present.

Larry Williams sent a letter resigning from the Town Council due to health problems.

Ordinance 2009-2 Penalty for failing to connect to the sewer $500 per day. Third Reading – will go into effect 30 days after it is published in the newspaper.

Ordinance 2009-3 Garbage collection charge increases to $135 per year. Collection date from residences may be changed to coincide with the date the town signs the contract.

Noxious weed Ordinance was also passed on its third reading.

UDO
Ordinance 2009 -4 Passed its first reading with all council members voting in favor. George Schenkel moved that the ordinance accepted. Sue Williams seconded.

Bob Lewis said there will be a public hearing sometime during the 2nd week in June.
-after the meeting, Marc Hansbarger pointed out that the version of the UDO that the town council voted on was not on the website. Bob said “We received these yesterday.”
He said that they would be put on the website as soon as possible.

Here is a detailed account:
Provisions: “This is ordinance 2009-4, an ordinance repealing all previous zoning and subdivision control ordinances and maps and adopting a replacement zoning subdivision control ordinance and also adopting a complete replacement zoning map. Summary: the ordinance repeals all previous zoning and subdivision control ordinances and maps and adopts a replacement zoning subdivision control ordinance, hereafter known as the Unified Development Ordinance, and also adopts a complete replacement zoning map. Be it ordained by the Town Council of the town of Clear Lake pursuant to a 6-1 vote of the Clear Lake Plan Commission. The Clear Lake Plan Commission, after proper notice and hearing as required by statue certified the UDO and replacement zoning map with a favorable recommendation to the Clear Lake Town Council. All previous zoning ordinances and subdivision control ordinances and zoning maps shall be repealed as of September 1, 2009. The UDO and replacement zoning maps, which were certified by the Clear Lake Plan Commission and hereby adopted shall replace the repealed zoning ordinance, subdivision control ordinances and zoning maps September 1, 2009. Be it further ordained that this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after Sept. 1, 2009, after passage by the Town Council and proper publication in a newspaper of daily circulation in Steuben County. Are there any discussions? Any additions? Do I have a motion to accept the ordinance?

George Schenkel: I so move that we move that we accept ordinance 2009-4.
Sue Williams: I’ll second it.

It’s been moved and seconded that we accept the ordinance 2009-4, an ordinance repealing all previous zoning and subdivision control ordinances and maps and adopting a replacement zoning subdivision control ordinance and also adopting a complete replacement zoning map.

We will have a public hearing on this in June, in regards to this. At this time I would like to have George, as you all know. Excuse me, I’m sorry. Do I have a move to accept the ordinance? (Audience members say, “We already did.”)
George: We just need to vote on it.
Bob: OK. All in favor. “Aye”. Thank you. Keep in mind that …(Several audience audience members mention the lack of a call for opposed votes) “Opposed?” (No opposed votes) OK. The next thing on our agenda is …

Public Beach
Steuben County board of Commissioners asked to meet with the town council members about their desire to sell the beach due to wanting to purchase another piece of land. They didn’t have an appraisal, so did not have an approximate dollar value to discuss. Lots of fond memories of the beach. The county would like to see it kept as a beach, but they would like to sell it. No town money is currently available to purchase this land, though Steuben county did say they would be willing to drag it out over time. Still a lot of work to be done. Open to thoughts and ideas from residents of Clear Lake. Conservancy has just gone through a fundraiser for Kasota Island, but if they would want to step-up, we would facilitate that process. We will just keep the dialog open with the county. On the survey (which approximately one-third of the property owners responded to, 76% of the people responded that they wanted to keep it a beach) They did say that they did not want to sell it with the idea that it was going to be developed, but obviously, if they sell the property, they loose control. Comment: "They are just shifting their political problem onto you guys."

Edited by author 05-12-2009 09:22 PM
Thanks to those who have been supportive of our efforts to make sure the UDO that becomes law is a document that will improve the lives and property of those who live around Clear Lake. Unfortunately, that is not the situation with the UDO currently under consideration by the town council. We still have time to let the Clear Lake Town Council know about our concerns. The UDO must be read and approved at three separate town council meetings before it becomes law.

Can someone please tell me why Clear Lake has million dollar homes with five dollar streets.

I went by cottage 388 this past weekend. The road was flooded over (again), and full of pot holes. Its been like that for years.

Thank you.

20 Penny
Trey McArdle

Greg, it's refreshing to have a non UDO post. This forum was set up so the whole community can weigh in on town topics in an open forum.

Personally, road condition is at the top of my list of concerns. There are a lot of areas around the lake where the roads have flooded over for quite some time. Also, there are sections of road that badly need to be resurfaced. Some of these spots have been addressed. The new ditch by the Yacht Club / Rieke building is one example. It is my understanding that there is a limited budget for road repair every year. I'm not sure of the specifics.

The other issue I would love for people to weigh in on is a sidewalk. The Skinners brought this issue up at the last plan commission meeting. Mr. Skinner made the comment that we use roadways as a sidewalk and it is a danger to drivers and pedestrians. I have two young children and I think a sidewalk would be a big safety improvement.

The sidewalk question came up on the second survey in the comprehensive plan http://www.townofclearlake.org/content/Com...%20plan%20Final.pdf , page 25, qustion 8. From this survey it is unclear how the public feel about a sidewalk but I feel roadways and sidewalks are something the community should be talking about.

I think a discussion on pedestrian safety is a good one. We have three young children and are concerned for their safety. Last year we had our slow children playing flag man kidnapped never to be ransomed. Very disappointing. Rather than sidewalks which would make our beautiful lake community look more like the suburbs we love to get away from, I would like to see a nature trail (for biking, running and walking) that takes in the beautiful nature around our lake. There are so many special spots that people never see. This past summer I took my father to one of these special treasures after 40 plus years at the lake. He really enjoyed it. This could be a real asset for all ages and could positively impact safety on our public roads. Just a thought. I know that it did not get much support in the Comprehensive Plan.

I would like to set the record straight from previous postings that indicated I said using the roadways as a sidewalk is a danger to drivers and pedestrians. What I said was having homes on both sides of the roadways increases the danger of using the roadways as sidewalks due to the increased density of people and traffic. I certainly am not in favor of adding a strip of impervious surface around the lake. I would encourage anyone to consider not using impervious surfaces as driveways, parking lots and even sidewalks if they must be installed. The idea of non-impervious nature trails is a good one.

584 Lake Dr.

What types of materials are you suggesting in terms of non-impervious surfaces for driveways, parking lots, sidewalks and nature trails?

Edited by author 05-27-2009 06:02 PM
20 Penny

This is the latest news from http://www.townofclearlake.org/

The "news" addresses the resignation of Larry Armstrong. We know Larry and our prayers are with him. Obviously filling his shoes with a new appointee will be difficult for those involved. The news also covers the initial passage of the UDO at the first reading. The UDO still has 2 more readings to go. As it now stands there will be two more readings: one reading is possible at each of the next two town council meetings . Bob Lewis, the town council president, has committed to deliberations as well as readings in his web address, "The Town Council will then begin its deliberations and readings over the next 3 or 4 months and hopefully have completed documents in August or September". Deliberations (public hearings) will give people a chance to ask questions and voice concerns. There is also a medium sized version of the new zoning map available on the main page that was not previously available. It should be noted Bill Geiger's address as plan commission president has been removed from the news.

The news is copied exactly as it is written on the town website and you can visit the website to view the links.

NEWS

3rd Ward Councilman Larry Armstrong Resigns

We were informed this week that our good friend and fellow council member Larry Armstrong was diagnosed with a thoracic aorta aneurysm that requires emergency intervention. The surgeon and cardiologist scheduled a heart catherization last Monday, May 11Th. The catherization went well and Larry completed CTA and PET scans Thursday, May 14th. Larry is home resting and will probably have surgery next week. Our thoughts and prayers are with Larry & Kay at this time. Cards may be sent to his home at 1004 Lake Dr Clear Lake Fremont, IN 46737.

Because of his recent health issue and Larry's desire to reduce stress in his lifestyle, he has decided to resign his position on the Clear Lake Town Council. We will miss his leadership in many areas but do respect his decision in this matter. Larry's letter is available at the following link: Larry Armstrong resignation letter.

Bob Lewis
Clear Lake Town Council President

**********

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

We are pleased to announce that on Monday, May 4th 2009 the Plan Commission under the direction of its President, Bill Geiger certified and passed with a favorable recommendation the UDO to the Town Council.

The Town Council will then begin its deliberations and readings over the next 3 or 4 months and hopefully have completed documents in August or September.

We are grateful for the many people that participated in this process from the very beginning. Their efforts are duly noted:

Town Council (2004 – 2007) Commissioned the Project:

   Jack McArdle
   Tony Kraus
   Larry Armstrong

Clear Lake Comprehensive Plan Committee with Region III-A Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission:

Larry Armstrong, Chris Folland, Robert Lewis, Dan & Carolyn Bolovan, Brad & Teresa Gay, Jerry McArdle, Alan Brown, Ken Goeckel, Annemarie Rhinehart, Greg Brown, Robert Hull, Bruce Snyder, Robert Bruick, Sue & Alan Korte, Robert Troll, Orabelle Denzel, Ron Kummer, Kathleen Tyler, Jon & Mary Jo Fitzenrider, Sue Williams


Clear Lake Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee with Ground Rules Inc.:

Alan Brown, Ken Goeckel, Jerry McArdle, Greg Brown, Robert Hull, Bruce Snyder, Robert Bruick, Alan Korte, Robert Troll, Paul Federspiel, Ron Kummer, Nancy Wilhelm, George Schenkel, Larry Armstrong, Jon & Mary Jo Fitzenrider, Sue Williams, Chris Folland, Robert Lewis

Clear Lake Plan Commission:

Bill Geiger, President, Robert Lewis, George Schenkel, Rick Behnfeldt, Jerry McArdle, Chris Folland, Sue Williams

We would also like to thank everyone who took part in all the public hearings and sent letters for our consideration. Your participation shows that you care about Clear Lake and how we grow now and into the future.

As we go forward, the Plan Commission will continue its advisory committee meetings for those who wish to send in additional comments. All comments should be in writing and sent to the Plan Commission President, Bill Geiger.

Thank you for your support

Bob Lewis, President
Clear Lake Town Council

********

Plan Commission Certifies UDO

On May 4th, 2009 the Clear Lake Plan Commission certified the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. The certified draft and map are available at the following links: May 4, 2009 Certified UDO Draft *** Zoning Map.

The Town of Clear Lake's Comprehensive Master passed in 2007 is available at the following link: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Link.

Edited by author 06-03-2009 09:02 AM
Trey McArdle
20 Penny

This is the latest news from http://www.townofclearlake.org/

In the news it was announced that the public hearing addressing the UDO will be held the same time as the regularly scheduled Town Council Meeting. This will be held on Monday, June 8th at 7:00pm. The public notice for this meeting was only posted on the Clear Lake Town Website 10 days before the meeting/hearing is to be held. This gives little advance notification to anyone who would like to attend the meeting, especially seasonal residents.

I sent Bob Lewis, Town Council President, an email asking if he would consider another public hearing regarding the UDO this summer. The Clear Lake community overwhelming asked for a summer forum to be held on a weekend. A weekend hearing would give the the seasonal community and anyone interested an opportunity to voice any questions or concerns about UDO.

I also sent an email to all of the other Town Council members asking if they support a second public hearing on a weekend this summer, in addition to the June 8th meeting. I will post their responses to the forum as soon as I receive them.

The June 8th meeting is a regularly scheduled Town Council meeting. If there is not another public hearing (none are currently scheduled) then the June 8th meeting will be the second reading of the UDO and the last chance for public comment. The July 13th Town Council meeting would then be the last reading of the UDO and customarily no public comment would be allowed before the final reading (third and final vote). The UDO would then become law and take effect in 30 days - August 13th.


The news is copied exactly as it is written on the town website

NEWS

Replacement 3rd Ward Councilman Appointed

The Town of Clear Lake is happy to announce the appointment of Alan Korte by the Steuben County Republican Chairperson to fill the remaining term of Larry Armstrong - Ward 3 Councilman. The appointment is effective immediately. Alan accepted the position after Larry Armstrong resigned for medical reasons. Larry and the rest of the Town Council are pleased that Alan has stepped up to complete the remainder of his term.

**********

Public Hearings

The Clear Lake Town Council will conduct Public Hearings during the regular June 8th, 2009 Town Council meeting. The first Public Hearing will be regarding the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The second Public Hearing will be regarding an ordinance to increase the annual garbage collection fee. Both notices are posted under the Public Notices section.

**********

Free CPR/First Aid Class

This is an opportunity to get free CPR and First Aid training from the American Red Cross. The class will be at the Clear Lake Town Hall on June 6th, 2009 at 8 am. Call the number on the linked FLYER or call the Clear Lake Town Hall and provide your name, address and telephone number.

**********

Trey McArdle
20 Penny

I received word today from Bob Lewis that the request by Clear Lake residents for a public hearing on a weekend during the summer will not be granted. The MONDAY, May 8th meeting will be the first and final public hearing that the CLEAR LAKE TOWN COUNCIL will hold. Please bear in mind the documents were only put into final form at the May 4th Plan Commission meeting. This included last minute changes that never received public comment.

This is the quote from his email:

"In my conversations with other council members and council attorney, it is our feeling that this next public hearing will be our last hearing relating to this ordinance. I might add that this will be the 12th public hearing relating to this entire process. We are now into June and many "seasonal residents" presumably will be around."

Edited by author 06-14-2009 10:31 PM
584 Lake Dr.

The News-Sentinel ran an article on the UDO on June 13:

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll...e?AID=2009906130315

[The full version of the article (no picture) is at the bottom of this message]
The process of creating the UDO did not start until June 2007.

Excerpt from May 14, 2007 Town Council Meeting

Ground Rules contract discussion to develop ordinances for the second half of the master plan. Larry Armstrong outlined the steps to complete the master plan. The company would do the major work on the plan. There would be five committee meetings working on up to three drafts. The Plan Commission would make final decisions on the proposed plan. These would be user friendly zoning ordinances available on the web, including setbacks for lake, side, and road. They would write very specific ordinances.

Pricing: $37,800 Zoning ordinances
                            9,000 Subdivision Control Ordinance
                            3,500 Expenses
                        $50,300 Total

With approval at this meeting, the project could start in June and be completed in sixteen months.
(The proposal was accepted at the May meeting)

Article published Jun 13, 2009
Clear Lake zoning changes pass despite residents' dismay

Clear Lake Town Council unanimously passed a Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO) on Monday evening, in spite of protest from some residents.

The UDO is a new set of zoning codes and ordinances that completely replaces previous standards, said Town Council President Bob Lewis. He says that the ordinance removes ambiguous ordinances, updates building codes, helps maintain the quality of the lake water and protects against overcrowding and increased density by preventing housing development.

A Planning Commission made up of three council members and four residents along with a consultant formed the UDO, said Jerry McArdle, full-time resident of Clear Lake Town and member of the Planning Commission.

The UDO is the result of a plan that has been in the works since about 2004, Lewis said. In 2006, residents were given the opportunity to voice their opinions in two surveys with questions about what they would like to see change in the next 15 to 20 years, said Lewis. One of the biggest concerns of residents was the development of second- and third-tier housing, he said.

The first survey received 278 responses and the second, 208 responses. Of the 208 responses, 84 percent, or 175 residents, voiced concern on the issue of second- and third-tier housing development, according to the Clear Lake, Ind. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

One of the proposed ways for preventing overcrowding and development is to rezone non-lakefront property to “lake accessory,” said Lewis. This means that owners of lots across the road from lake-front property can only build structures up to 1,200 square feet. This rezoning is the major reason why residents are protesting the ordinance, says resident Megan Moss. Moss has started a petition against the ordinance and hopes to get the majority of residents, about 400, to sign. She had about 130 signatures earlier this week. She feels the council did not take into account the opinions of the public before passing the UDO.

McArdle was the only member of the Planning Commission that objected to passing the UDO. He says the document was unfinished and didn't address concerns expressed by residents. He also says that second- and third-tier housing isn't an issue because there is no lake access for those lots and most of the owners of those lots also own the lake-front property across the street. He said at Monday's meeting there was “a lot of opposition.” The majority of the population of the lake is just now starting to return, but it “doesn't make a difference because they're not listening to the opposition.”

Mark Hansbarger agrees. Although Hansbarger is not a resident of Clear Lake, his family has lived on the lake for decades. He says the ordinance limits the use of private property and gives special treatment to some property owners. He admits that some parts of the UDO are reasonable, but there were too many issues that were not addressed. Hansbarger raised more than 50 questions within the first 40 pages of the ordinance. “They said they wanted specifics. We gave them specifics, and they're still not listening.”

Homeowner Joe Moore says they haven't been listening for years. Moore has lived in his home in Clear Lake Town for over 15 years and has had problems in the past with the town trying to restrict the development of his property.

The UDO rezoned some of Moore's land, and Moore says he was never approached about it. Moore owns 20 acres of land across the road from the lake. He uses about 10 to 12 acres for farming, but one day hopes to sell some of the land to fund his retirement, but the rezoning of the land and the restrictions the UDO would place on developing that land causes the value of his property to decrease. “That was going to be my retirement, and they just took it away from me,” said Moore.

The final reading of the document will take place at the next town meeting July 13.

This is an exact excerpt from the UDO - 9.05 Improvement Location Permit
regarding documentation required to obtain an Improvement Location Permit
for a residential (inhabitable) building.
These increased requirments will obviously result in an increased cost.

c. Projects involving inhabitable buildings.
i. All requirements of Section 9.05(D)(3)(a): Applicability. (Included here)
  i. A scale drawing of the parcel with dimensions.
  ii. The location of existing structures (e.g. building, sidewalk, driveway, etc.).
  iii. Denotation of existing mature trees, greater than nine (9) inches in caliper.
  iv. Denotation of floodplains, wetlands, rock formations, karst, natural lakes, streams, regulated drains, retention ponds, detention ponds, known drainage tile, inlets, outlets, monuments or markers, and drainage swales on the parcel and within seventy-five (75) feet of the parcel's property lines.
  v. Two-foot contour lines of the existing parcel.
  vi. Two-foot contours showing the parcel's contours as it would be upon completing the proposed project.
  vii. Erosion control methodology, devices, locations, and maintenance strategy.
  viii. Drainage evaluation of the existing parcel and as it would be upon completion of the proposed project with a characterization of the change to drainage onto adjacent properties, into drainage tile, or into surface water ways.
  ix. Design cross-section of recreation ponds.
ii. Denotation of the location of mature trees, greater than nine (9) inches in caliper.
iii. Elevation above sea level at the location of the project prior to alteration of land.
iv. Certification by a licensed engineer or surveyor that the proposed project is not on or within thirty (30) feet of a floodplain or wetland.
v. Denotation of adjacent zoning districts if different than the subject parcel.
vi. Certification by a licensed engineer or surveyor that the soils are suitable to support the weight of the structure, and any foundation modifications necessary to support the weight of the structure.
vii Location of existing or proposed drainage tile.
viii. Denotation of where utilities lines will be run to the building and whether they are above or below grade.
ix. Location of a septic system, reserve area for a replacement septic system, well, geothermal loop, or other on-site utility system.
x. Denotation of any existing structure on adjacent parcels if within fifty (50) feet of the subject parcel's property line.

The July-September 2009 edition of the Clear Lake News is now available online at the town website www.townofclearlake.org Once you are on the home page click on "July-September 2009 Newsletter" located just below the welcome banner. This will open a PDF file with the news.
http://www.townofclearlake.org

The annual public meeting of the Board of Directors of the Clear Lake Township Land Conservancy will be held at 9am August 1st at Town Hall.

We were disappointed to hear that the Yacht Club/Ski Club Dances have been discontinued. Does anyone know what the reasoning was behind this decision?

Edited by author 07-14-2009 02:07 AM
If this does not display correctly, please visit the Quick Topic site to see the correct formatting.
Notes from Town Council Meeting July 13, 2009
Town council members in attendance: Barry Worl, Sue Williams, Bob Lewis, George Schenkel, Alan Korte
Marshals Report
 

3 thefts, 1 stolen bicycle (later recovered), 1 criminal
 mischief, 2 fireworks complaints.

 

3 unclaimed bicycles. – If you have any info on owners,
 call CL police

 

Each officer working maximum allowed hours in car and
 boat.

 

Have moved several swim buoys that were out past 200’
 max.

Golf Carts - Rough draft ordinance
for golf carts – following ordinance of Hamilton.
 

  
• Made to comply with state laws
• Will have separate language including what pertains to off-road vehicles which are not golf carts
• CL police will not be enforcing new statute until the ordinance is in place.
• Will take action - reckless or under age drivers (must be licensed or accompanied by an adult)

 

Town and association put money together to purchase radio so
that officers can communicate with each other (necessary due to a FCC banding change).
Zoning Inspector Report June 3 ILPs

 
• Todd Harvey - 141 Terrace Dr. – remodel house

 
• Cindy Moran - 36 Lake - remodel garage

 
• Todd Rumsey – 814 Lake Dr. - New fence and remodel deck

 
• June 15 BZA Meeting - Richard Waterfield - Variance for
   height and lake front retaining wall approved, storage shed in lake yard, denied

Town Superintendent Report

 
• Preventative maintenance for sewer


  
• lot of failures with grinder pumps, due to sitting
    for so long.  Before shutting down cottage for winter, run water for
    20-30 minutes, will clear them so they will not deteriorate over winter.
    

  
• Rake leaves away so that they can vent

 

 

56, 733 gallons per day – no problems @ 4^th
 -  4 grinders failed & were replaced

 

API finished paving work - All work billed as quoted
 

 

75 ton of stone and gravel along edge of new asphalt to
 keep it from breaking down from garage trucks and school buses.

 

Mowed roadside, replaced one sign, patched potholes

 

Spray for mosquitoes at the end of June, another at the
 end of July

Old Business
Litigation Update –

 
• Trespass case - sewer line crossed Dan Hoagland’s property.
   Have admitted that this did occur.  Hope to get summary judgment. Concession
   that the town had already made, but wasn’t on the record.

 
• Writ- fence and BZA decision, briefing done, waiting for
   Judge to issue ruling, which will affect the other fence case set for trial
   later this year.

 
• Was a case re: Mosier and Jarett’s property, could impact
   town’s litigation, but still assessing.

3^rd Reading of UDO Ordinance 2009-4 (read
summary of ordinance
VOTE: George – Sue 2^nd (all voted in favor)
For those who are interested, 2^nd and 4^th
Thursdays (July 23^rd, Aug. 13, 24) Bill Geiger has advisory committee
meeting reviewing questions about ordinance. These questions will be addressed in
the order they are received. Put questions about the new ordinance in writing.


New Business
 

Change in job description, town superintendent and billing
 clerk.

 

Maintenance agreement with Ground Rules.  (Bob read
 summary of services)
  

FEE - No maximum amount on the contract – there’s
  no minimum

  

Owner shall assign representative to act on behalf
  of the owner. – who?  May change from time to time. (Town Council president, Plan Commission President).

  

Motion to accept agreement VOTE: George, Alan 2^nd 
  – all in favor
   

Codification of ordinance.

   

Maintain an amendment tracking table

   

File for electronic media

   

Language changes

   

Meetings with stakeholders, BZA, Plan Commission

   

Both owner and consultant, terminate contract
   – 7 days.

  

 

Metz property determination – quit claim - vacate property.
 Easement doesn’t affect anyone other than us.  Never been used as far as
 we know.  Would like to have vacated so they can proceed with the sale
 of the property.

VOTE: Barry, Sue – motion to close
public meeting and open public hearing – all aye
318-Jerry McArdle – Question about
quit claim and vacation.
584-Jack McArdle – adjacent property
owners -  two roads of the town. Adjacent property owners agree to vacation-signed
on.
486-Bob Hines-thank everyone for
helping to put on 5K race.  >200 people.  Good, wet time. Should raise
a nice sum of money for the Lions Club.
416-Jim Skinner – Bought > 3 yrs
ago (for the first time). Had to have road vacated on their guesthouse – there is
precedence for the vacation.
182-Leo Helmuth – at a time when
the property around CL is not selling, have you noticed there has been an increase
in the assessed value of the properties around the lake?  (If so, would like
to talk to them.)

 

Moved and 2^nd – close public hearing and open
 public meeting.

 

1^st Reading of motion 2009-5 to vacate the
 property at Terrace Dr.

 

VOTE: Barry, Alan

 

Motion to close pubic meeting open the public hearing.
 (Have to have a public hearing on the petition and on the ordinance.)

 

Motion to suspend rules and proceed with 2^nd
 and 3^rd readings – needs to be unanimous to proceed.  (All in
 favor) VOTE: 2^nd reading moved and 2^nd and approved. Made
 motion to read it in summary. 3^rd Reading - Sue, George

Meeting Adjourned
Questions

 

Karen Hughes – 824: When will the UDO take effect? Bob
 Lewis - “We have to have a public, 30 days, Sept. 1”

 

Jerry McArdle – 318: Did the issue of grandfathering of
 existing non-conformances get resolved? Bob Lewis: I had 3 pages of questions
 that I sent to Brad, including question about grandfathering.  Didn’t hear
 back today, hoping to hear back. Jerry: How can we pass something when we still
 have questions? Bob: Those are things that will come up as an amendment later
 on. We’re having conversations about those things now. So if someone comes in
 after the 30 days -and wants an ILP and they have an existing, legal non-conformances,
 will they be able to get an ILP.  Bob:  They are going to be going
 under the old ordinances.  Jerry: My question was after the 30 days, if
 someone comes in to get an ILP and they have a legal non-conformance, will they
 be able to get an ILP?  Bob: I will have to check with Brad on that? Jerry:
 Don’t you think that is pretty important? Bob:  I think it is.  It’s
 in there to Brad, so we’re going to get information back. Jerry: I think this
 was brought up more than a month ago, we’re talking a couple of months. Is this
 the kind of service we are going to get out of him?  As I remember when
 we first started this issue, we didn’t get anything in writing from him until
 6-9 months after we were supposed to.  Bob:  I don’t think it was
 that long.  Jerry: It was. I was on the committee.

 

If, after the 30 days, if they have a legal non-conformance,
 will they be able to get an ILP?  Bob said he doesn’t know.  Has a
 question to Brad.  Hasn’t heard back.

 

Trey McArdle 20 Penny Ct. Contacted every Town Council
 member today. Spoke with Barry and with Alan.  Left messages for George
 and for Sue.  Spoke with Bob, who declined to speak with me. I put around
 a petition about the UDO. 184 properties were contacted (33.7%), 80% did not
 want this passed.  This information was given to the Town Council Members
 before the vote.  Two major issues have not been resolved.

      
One was the grandfathering issue which was already discussed. 

       
The other is the wetland issue.  Bruce has said that no ILPs
will be issued until that is resolved.  You have to go to the Army Corps of Engineers and have them certify that your property is not a wetland before you can get an ILP


Announcements
Bonnie Brown – information on Clear Lake History Book. Pre-orders
now available.  Visit www.clearlakefun.org
Clear Lake Association Annual Meeting – Catholic Church – 9:30am
(Speaker from NE Indiana Public Waste – talking about what the garbage man won’t take)
Clear Lake Land Conservancy – Annual Meeting, Aug. 1, 9am,
Clear Lake Town Hall.
Water Quality – July 27^th – 4-6pm Monday. 
Facilitated meeting by Kathy Latz.  Get re-focused on what their directives should be, so they know what they can aim at.  In need of extra people on the committee.  (Hear anything on Grant.  E-mail from Keith Tracy LARE – end of July. )
Ski Club 50^th Anniversary Show – Sunday, July 26^th.
 Alumni Dinner, Saturday July 25^th Details on
www.clearlakefun.org Bulletin Board

Edited by author 07-14-2009 03:18 PM
To all the people who signed the petition, I asked the Town Council to listen to your voice, the voice of their constituents and the property owners, and they ignored everyone by voting unanimously for the UDO.

 
            I am now about to attend the July 13th council meeting which will be the 3rd and final reading of the UDO. A successful vote at this meeting would mean that the new rules would go into effect 30 days after the passage is published in the paper: sometime between August 15th and September 1st depending on the publication date.

            This morning I called all of the town council members. Alan Korte and Barry Worl were kind enough speak with me and I made them aware of the current results of the petition. I left messages for George Schenkel and Sue Williams (who hung up on me) and made them aware of the results of the petition. I spoke with Bob Lewis but he declined to talk about the current results of the petition and told me to email them to him. I will email them to all the members and hand them out in person.

            As of 7/9/09 there are 171 signatures on the PETITION OPPOSSING TOWN OF CLEAR LAKE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

The petition reads: We, the undersigned, oppose the Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO) currently under consideration by the Clear Lake, Indiana Town Council. We believe, that the Town Council should vote against this ordinance.

 

Instead, the Clear Lake Town Council should adopt a simplified version of the UDO that would update the current ordinances so that they would be in-line with state and federal regulations. The results break down as follows:

 

Signing Household 134 78.4%

Households against UDO 148 80.4%

Households for UDO 24 13.0%

Households contacted 184 33.7%

Response Rate – Region 3A Second survey 36.6%

 
Total Unique Property Owners 546

(If one person owns more than one property, they were only counted once)
 
Methodology:
When I took the petition door to door I simply spoke to all the residents I found to be home. I asked homeowners to read the petition. I answered their questions. I asked them if they wanted to sign. We started door to Saturday, June 6th until the June 8th; in those three days we accumulated 64 signatures. 90% of the people we spoke with those two days signed the petition.

We also placed the same petition online June 1st. Before the June 8th meeting we accumulated 50 online signatures.

We submitted all 114 signatures to the Clear Lake Town Council before the June 8th meeting. At this meeting the UDO was read and voted on for the second time.

After the June 8th meeting additional online and paper signatures were gathered. Time was a limiting factor for the paper signatures. Frankly, I was extremely busy!

Residents from all areas of the Town of Clear Lake signed the petition.

It is my belief that the 33.7% of households contacted was an accurate representation of public opinion - much stronger than national polls such as the Gallup Poll. Despite the fact that 80% of residents polled were against the UDO under consideration the town council chose to pass the UDO without further revision. I made the town council aware of my findings by phone before the meeting.
 

NOTIFICATION

Notification efforts have been insufficient. This has resulted in a public largely unaware of the new regulations. To my knowledge, the last direct notification to Clear Lake citizens was the August 10, 2006 survey. That means that in the three years since the survey, the Town of Clear Lake has not put letters of notification in the mail to the 568 addresses it originally sent surveys to. Notification has been through the local Angola newspaper, the Herald Republican (as required by law), the Clear Lake Town Website and the Clear Lake Newsletter published by the Clear Lake Association. Without direct contact from the town, most property owners remained unaware.

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID: There have been 12 public hearings in this process. People have had a chance to attend meetings if they cared to do so. The silent majority is in favor of this document. If people don’t know about this they have had their heads in the sand.

IN ACTUALITY: As far as I know meetings have been on weekdays when most property owners aren’t at the lake. When I started calling people to notify them of the final public hearing, I found out very few people were aware of the process. Of the people contacted, few even knew there are new ordinances set to be passed. People told me they couldn’t make it to the public hearing with such short notice and asked why the meeting wasn’t being held on a weekend.

QUESTION: Of all these public hearings and meetings, how many have been held on a weekend?

IN ACTUALITY: None of the actual hearings on the UDO were held on a weekend, and the majority were held January – April.

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID: 85% of Clear Lakers are in favor of the UDO

IN ACTUALITY: The town is referencing the second survey (part of the Comprehensive Plan) which was sent around in August 10, 2006. The response rate was 36.6% (208 out of 568). The reference is to question 12a. Questions read:

12. During the June 22, 2006 public meeting, there were concerns expressed about non-lakefront residential development (2nd and 3rd tier homes). Currently most non-lakefront parcels within the town are zoned single family residential “R”.

a. Do you feel the Town of Clear Lake should consider looking into ways to limit non-lakefront residential development (through rezoning or ordinance revisions)?

84.3% responded yes to 12a. So that means that 85% of 36% (31.1%) wanted it looked into. Then after it was “looked into”, the Town never notified anyone in the same way they sent out the survey, as to what the citizens had desired or what action they planned to take.

“50% of the respondents on the same survey also answered yes to “Should the Town of Clear Lake pursue purchasing Kasota Island?” When a bond issue was suggested, the idea was unpopular…so the community voluntarily bought the island instead of forcing citizens to pay for it.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t the Town have had an open discourse on the Ordinances? Shouldn’t one meeting have been held on a weekend for all property owners to attend? Shouldn’t these meeting have been held in stages? For example: after the initial draft came out in August; then again after the final rough draft came out in March? Wouldn’t this kind of public input have created a better document?

QUESTION: Has the Town looked into pursuing a voluntary way to limit development of the roadside? For example:

1. Donation of land to the conservancy.

2. Voluntary rezoning.

3. Property owners changing their deeds.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t property owners be given the chance to donate property to the conservancy and receive tax benefits if they wish to do so? Wouldn’t this be better than rezoning because property would never be built upon?

QUESTION: Do we CURRENTLY have a problem with roadside (second tier development). How many houses have been built across the road since the sewer went in 6 years ago?

IN ACTUALITY: Two new “houses” have been built. One is a workshop, the other is a bar/game room.

QUESTION: At the April 8th Special Plan commission meeting there was an overwhelming call for a summer forum where the community could attend and ask questions. Over sixty people attended and many more wrote letters. The majority of these people asked for a weekend meeting in July or August. Why was this request ignored? Do you think that a regularly scheduled Town Council Meeting (open to public comment) on a Monday night in early June meets this request?

QUESTION: After the document passed the plan commission, Bill Geiger, plan commission president, asked that the public be given the summer to ask questions and comment on the document. Why was this request denied?

QUESTION: Why were residents not contacted individually, either by mail or phone, to notify them of the only public hearing on the finalized document? Why was the Public Notice of tonight’s meeting signed May, 19th while the notice on the main page of the Town of Clear Lake website read May 30th (only 10 days before the meeting)?

I called to notify home owners of the meeting and found that people who own property that is being rezoned – stripping them of property rights - had not been made of aware of these changes. They were not sent a notice in the mail.

QUESTION: Can the town re-zone citizen’s property without notification?

If I want to rezone or re-plot my property I have to notify the property owners on either side of me.

These questions deserve answers.

Respectfully submitted,

Trey McArdle 7-13-09

7/24/09

New grants totaling more than $925,000 have been awarded for the care of Indiana's waterways this year through the Lake and River Enhancement (LARE) program, part of the DNR's Division of Fish and Wildlife.

"In a time when all spending is scrutinized for cost-effectiveness, these boater-funded LARE grants are an important way to address problems in public lakes and river watersheds across Indiana," DNR director Robert E. Carter Jr. said. "The grants direct funds toward projects that protect and enhance the very resources used in aquatic recreational activities, including fishing and boating."

The 26 projects were submitted by local sponsors who commit to sharing a portion of the total cost. DNR's portion comes from the Lake Enhancement fee paid annually by boat owners to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. It is a variable fee based on the value of the boat when new.

"The LARE grants are crucial to local organizations enabling them to tackle natural resource concerns that can be impossible for them to address on their own," said Gwen White, an aquatic biologist with LARE.

White said some projects can require years of planning and diligence to complete. The new grants feature biological and engineering projects, including diagnostic, design, and engineering feasibility studies, and construction projects.

Several watershed land-treatment projects received funding to assist landowners with water-quality concerns near locally important streams. These grants complement the $1.33 million in LARE grant awards Carter announced in March to address nuisance aquatic vegetation and dredging of sediment in publicly-accessible lakes.

"Our goal is to provide grant funds in projects that provide improved aquatic habitat in lakes and rivers," White said. "As a side benefit these projects also promote a positive economic impact resulting from better access to improved water resources. In this way, LARE funds help improve the experiences for boating, fishing, swimming while enhancing and improving the aquatic environment for fish and other inhabitants of Indiana's waters."
A list of projects by water body, county, project type and grant award follow:


Water body (County)

Project Type

Grant Award


Engineering Feasibility/Design

$54,000
Clear Lake (Steuben)

For a list of all grants go to: http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/indian...river-projects.html

Edited by author 08-13-2009 10:05 AM
Please note the following correction to the 8-11-2009 entry on the Political Discussion Board:
The LARE Grant awarded to Clear Lake in Steuben County is a Design Grant for the amount of $45,000.00. The Engineering Feasibility/Design Grant for $54,000.00 was awarded to Big Creek in Posey County.

Edited by author 08-25-2009 11:25 PM
Town Council Meeting
Aug. 10, 2009
(The following are notes I transcribed from someone who attended the meeting. They are accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you find a mistake, please let me know so I can get it corrected - Thanks, Megan)

General fund
146,401
50,427- cash on hand
95,300-
367,728-

Garbage
93,631 cash
173,631 total

Sewer
497,416
1,176,895

Disbursements
100,000 +

Police Report -Fireworks complaint

Next BZA Meeting- Aug. 17, 2009

8 Improvement Location Permits issued

Sewer 79,484 gal/day average flow

Litigation - town won BZA case against Hoagland - Judge Wheat ruled

Nomination for Vice President - George Schenkel
Elected without opposition

Nixle program- free program offered by FBI. Has a computer bulletin board like the current one, but will actually notify citizens who have signed up. Will hopefully be activated in Sept.
www.nixle.com

Golf Cart Ordinance
Presented by Officer Gonya.
-drivers will be required to be licensed.
-carts must be registered with the town, which will require a fee. Temporary registration available for short term permits.

Water Quality Committee Report
-Received $50,000 grant for design study
-$45,000 from LARE, $2500 from CLA, $2000 from conservancy
-Looking at Cyrus Brouse ditch 1st,
but also at other inlets to Clear Lake.
1) Peter Smith mile in Marina Bay
2) Alvin Paterson ditch
3) Harry Teters ditch

Public Beach appraisal - $1.01M

Adjourn

Discussion about public Beach
-has been offered to the town and the conservancy
Issues:
 - control of access
 - restrooms
 - cost - financing
 - upkeep
Background - site was acquired to settle a law suit regarding moving the road 234ft. Back from the lakefront.

Discussion of overpopulation of deer
Bob Lewis discussed culling of deer population.

*END*

Below is a copy of the latest news from the town of clear lake website http://townofclearlake.org/

Please take the time to fill out the survey on the Public Beach which can be found accessed through the link on the town website or at this web address: http://townofclearlake.org/Notices/Public%20Beach%208.24.09.pdf

Below is a copy of the survey.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, Clear Lake Watch

Steuben County Public Beach
On Saturday, August 29th, 2009 from 8:00 to 11:00 A.M. the Clear Lake Town Council will be conducting a Public Forum on how the Town should proceed in response to the Steuben County Commissioners offer to sell the Public Beach to the Town of Clear Lake. The Forum will be at the Town Hall. At the following link is a Survey in which the town would like your input on. Public Beach Survey. Please review the included letter for additional information.

Survey
TO ALL CLEAR LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
As many of you know several months ago the Clear Lake Town Council was notified by the Steuben County Commissioners that they were interested in selling the Public Beach. In our first meeting with the commissioners they explained that they specifically would like to sell the Public Beach to the Clear Lake Town Council or the Clear Lake Township Land Conservancy. They also stated that they would prefer that it remain a Public Beach.
However, they realize that who ever buys it would have that final decision.
We ended the meeting with the Town Council stating that we would have to have more monetary information and feedback from the residents of clear Lake.
In the last two weeks the Town Council has received an appraisal for the property which came to $1.01 million. We are now in the process of reviewing this appraisal.
Attached to this letter is a short questionnaire seeking your opinions about the County Public Beach/Park. It is our hope that you will fill out the questionnaire and additional comments and return it to the Town Hall by August 29, 2009.

In addition to this questionnaire, the Town Council will have an Open Forum about the Public Beach at the Town Hall on August 29, 2009; 8:00 AM----11:00 AM for those who wish to turn in their questionnaires and discuss additional questions regarding the Public Beach.
All of us on the Town Council appreciate your support in this matter.
Thank You
Bob Lewis, President
Clear Lake Town Council
5950 Gecowets Drive Clear Lake
Fremont Ind. 46737 Tel: 260.495.9158

PUBLIC BEACH QUESTIONAIRE
When Clear Lake was developing the Comprehensive Plan surveys were sent to the residents about various issues. In one of the surveys residents were asked about the Public Beach. Should Clear Lake consider buying the Public Beach? There was an 80% favorable response to this question. Since the Steuben County commissioners are now interested in selling the Public beach
we are revisiting some of the questions that are pertinent to this endeavor. Please fill out the questionnaire and additional comments and forward them to the Town Hall or bring them to the Open Forum on August 29, 2009, 8:00 AM---11:00 AM,
1. Should the Town of Clear Lake pursue purchasing the Public Beach/ Park for our community?
2. Should the property be maintained as a Public Beach/Park?
If yes, should the Town consider a bond issue or other public funding for this project?
3. Should this property be rezoned residential and sold as buildable lots?
If Yes, Should the town consider public funding for this option?
4. Should the Town do nothing at all in regards to the Public Beach, except control land usage, and let the county sell it to interested parties?
We thank you in advance for your response.
Bob Lewis, President
Clear Lake Town Council
5950 Gecowets Drive. Clear Lake
Fremont Ind. 46737 Tel: 260.495.9158

Here is a further explanation of how to respond to the survey, as the Town website was not necessarily clear.
 
Please take the time to respond! The deadline for responses is August 29. If you'd like a further opportunity to voice your opinion, respond to the survey AND attend the meeting this Saturday at 8am at the Town Hall.
 
1) Copy the following questions into a new message or document.
2) Respond to the questions.
3)Submit your response via one of the following:
e-mail - council@townofclearlake.org,
mail it, or drop it off at the Town Hall or at the Open Forum on August 29, 2009, 8:00 AM---11:00 AM
5950 Gecowets Drive. Clear Lake
Fremont Ind. 46737
Call the Town Hall if you have further questions: 260.495.9158

 
1. Should the Town of Clear Lake pursue purchasing the Public Beach/ Park for our community?

2. Should the property be maintained as a Public Beach/Park?
If yes, should the Town consider a bond issue or other public funding for this project?

3. Should this property be rezoned residential and sold as buildable lots?
If Yes, Should the town consider public funding for this option?

4. Should the Town do nothing at all in regards to the Public Beach, except control land usage, and let the county sell it to interested parties?

Edited by author 10-05-2009 11:00 PM
Agenda
Oct. 12, 2009
Open Regular Meeting of the Town Council
 Minutes of the 9/14/09 Mtg.
Financial Reports-Kay Kummer
Warrant Approvals-Kay Kummer
Reports:
Marshal Report/Fire Dept.-Barry Worl
Zoning Inspector Report-Bruce Snyder
Town Superintendent Report-Bob Hull
Billing Clerk/Office Manager Report

Unfinished Business
Litigation-Neal Blythe
1. Golf Cart Ordinance 2nd Reading-Public Hearing-3rd Reading
2. Local Option Income Tax Ordinance 2nd Reading-Public Hearing-3rd Reading
3. Salary Ordinance & Amendments 2nd & 3rd Reading

New Business
1. Plan Commission Fee Ordinance 1st Reading-Public Hearing-2nd & 3rd Readings
2. Association Fund Ordinance-1st Reading-Public Hearing-2nd&3rd Readings
3. Sewer Ordinance-1st Reading-Public Hearing-2nd&3rd Readings
4. 2010 Budget
5. Water Quality Update-Annie Skinner

Results of the Public Beach Survey are on the Town Website: www.townofclearlake.org
Direct link:
http://www.townofclearlake.org/content/Pub...ults%2009.09.17.pdf