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

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?

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

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*

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.

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 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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.