By VICKI URBANIK

By a 5-1 vote, the Porter County Council has approved the funding for a corridor study to plan future land use along the county’s major roadways.

The council on Thursday approved a $350,000 expenditure out of income tax funds, both for the $245,000 corridor study and for a separate technical standards plan. The corridor study has been under discussion by the Porter County Plan Commission for more than a year.

The council twice before rejected the expenditure. Last year, the council refused the funding and directed the plan commission to get firm quotes from consultants first. Then, last month, questions arose over whether the Northwestern Indiana Regional Plan Commission should chip in some of the costs.

Porter County Council member Michael Bucko, D-4th, said in order for NIRPC to help, the project would have to compete with many others in the region vying for federal grant funding available to NIRPC. He said it probably wouldn’t be known until September or so if the corridor study would qualify.

As he did last month, council member William Carmichael, R-at large, questioned the need for the plan, saying that the project sounds like “a lot of gobbly gook as far as I’m concerned.”

The plan will address land use and development guidelines along most of the county’s major roads, including Ind. 49, Old 49, U.S. 6, Meridian Road, U.S. 30 and Ind. 149. Not included are U.S. 12 and U.S. 20, since those two highways are included in the Marquette Plan’s second phase.

Council member Jim Burge, R-at large, said he supports the study, but said it shouldn’t be used in a negative way to restrict property owners from being able to develop. He said on all zoning issues, the county needs to balance good planning with personal property rights and that many landowners, such as farmers, are relying on the ability to develop their property one day.

But County Commissioner President Robert Harper, who first proposed the corridor study, said the plan isn’t an attempt to change zoning. Rather, he said, it’s to ensure that new development is properly planned, which in turn will save money and problems later.

Harper also noted that the cost of the study is less that what the city of Valparaiso pays for legal fees for its redevelopment commission.

The funding was approved 5-1 with only Carmichael voting no and Bucko, Burge, Robert Poparad, D-1st, Dan Whitten, D-at large, and Rita Stevenson, D-2nd, voting yes. Karen Conover, R-3rd, was absent.

Tax Abatement

In another matter, the council granted SurTech in Washington Township a tax abatement, one month after the council agreed to renew the ability to grant abatements in the county’s economic revitalization areas.

SurTech intends to build a new building and to expand its workforce from eight to 17. The company produces a component used in plastic bottles.

But a concern for council members was a warning issued by the County Plan Commission in response to neighbors’ complaints about a large amount of material, described by some as junk, that’s being stored outside and in front of the business.

Burge objected to linking the abatement request to a zoning enforcement issue. Poparad agreed that normally, the two issues are separate. But he also said that the business has an obligation to the community when seeking a tax break and noted that the material is readily visible and not covered with a tarp.

“If this is their best face, I’ve lost my enthusiasm,” Poparad said.

SurTech representatives said the materials outside will be placed inside the new building once it’s completed.

Poparad passed the gavel as council president and made a motion to grant the abatement as requested – 10 years on the building and 10 years on the equipment -- contingent upon SurTech cleaning up its site. If the property isn’t cleaned up within six months, then the abatement will be revoked, under his motion.

The motion failed on a 3-3 vote, with Burge, Carmichael and Poparad voting yes and Bucko, Stevenson and Whitten voting no. Bucko advocated for a two-tiered abatement – 10 years on the building and five years on the equipment. The two-tiered abatement is what the council typically granted in the past, before the law changed allowing 10 years for both real and personal property.

Bucko’s proposal then passed 4-2, with only Stevenson and Whitten voting no.

Posted 3/24/2008