Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Chesterton Town Council wants answers from DNR on beach banquet facility

Back To Front Page

By KEVIN NEVERS

The Chesterton Town Council has elected not to take a position on the construction of a banquet facility next to the Pavilion at the Indiana Dunes State Park beach.

That doesn’t mean, however, that members are satisfied with the process by which the DNR awarded the concession to Pavilion Partners LLC. Nor that they’re satisfied with the aesthetic of the banquet facility itself as suggested by a conceptual drawing released by Pavilion Partners in April. Nor else that they’ve found reassuring the DNR’s assurances with respect to the banquet facility’s environmental impacts.

Accordingly, the members voted unanimously at their meeting Monday night to do two things:

* Adopt a resolution which “strongly encourages greater transparency and public input” going forward.

* And--to that end--put the DNR’s feet to the fire, in a letter addressed to DNR Director Cameron Clark and DNR Director of State Parks Dan Bortner and seeking specific answers to specific questions related to the banquet facility.

As Town Attorney Chuck Lukmann noted, “You’re not taking a position on the Pavilion project but encouraging a public debate. At the end of the day, all that the resolution does is encourage transparency.”

Lukmann, who together with Member Jim Ton, R-1st, drafted the letter, said that it asks Clark and Bortner to provide, for the first time really, a complete account of the following:

* The evolution of banquet service as one of the minimum expectations listed in the DNR’s prospectus.

* The design of the banquet facility and its compatibility with the Pavilion.

* The projected environmental impacts of the banquet facility.

The Letter

The text of the letter:

“Gentleman:

“As you know, the proposed renovations to the Indiana Dunes State Park Pavilion, which apparently now includes a banquet center, is a matter of importance to the citizens of Northwest Indiana and particularly the Duneland area. Of course, when you are considering restoring and adding to a building that has the historic significance of the Pavilion, you would certainly expect that this matter would be important to our citizens.

“Over the past few months, a number of issues have come to the forefront concerning the Pavilion project that we believe require an open and complete vetting process.

“We have heard comments from individuals who were at the ‘open house’ you conducted in April, that the information presented regarding this project was vague and incomplete.

“The purpose of this letter is to strongly encourage transparency as you proceed with this project. When we speak of ‘transparency’ we believe that a process for public input on issues of significance to our residents must take place.

“Some of the major concerns are as follows:

“First, it has been reported, and we believe this to be true, that the Indiana Dunes State Park Interpretive Master Plan 2008 did not include facilities for a banquet center. However, in 2011, your Prospectus explicitly required ‘full service restaurant and banquet service operations shall be a year-round operation.’ Obviously, you added ‘banquet service.’ Our question is why was this added to the 2011 Prospectus? Whose idea was it and conversations, discussions, and input was given in order for you to change the Prospectus to add banquet service?

“The next issue of significance has to do with the plans for the building that would house the banquet service. As you know, there was a conceptual drawing given at the meeting which was virtually universally rejected by anyone having an opinion on this project. It should be obvious to you that a compatible architectural style to the historically significant Pavilion is critical. Do you have plans that are presently being considered that would house the restaurant and banquet service? What will be the process for public input on these plans? Again, this project is of high public interest in Northwest Indiana and we believe the public vetting of this issue is critical.

“There are serious environmental issues concerning this project that should be addressed. What protection are you providing for migratory birds with the final design of a building that looks to have a good amount of glass? Finally, what are your plans for disposal of sewage, which certainly will be increased should you follow through on the proposed renovations. Chesterton owns the wastewater treatment plant in this area and we have not heard any discussions concerning wastewater treatment. You are fully aware of these and other issues, all of which should have a full and complete discussion at public forums in our area. Our citizens deserve and expect transparency with open forums on matters such as this.

“We are aware that many in this area are troubled by a perceived lack of openness in this process that has been going on now for over three years. The Town of Chesterton, its residents, and all of those in the Duneland community need your help. We would appreciate it if you could provide the information requested in this letter to us so that we might share same with the public. This information will also assist the Chesterton Town Council in becoming informed, for itself and its residents, concerning the progress of this project, along with the history of how this project was determined. Decisions are best made with accurate, factual information in hand. That is what we are seeking.

“Thank you for your cooperation.”

From the Floor

Earlier in the meeting, Paul Tharp attempted to preempt what he thought the council was likely to do on Monday, that is, take a formal position on the Pavilion project.

“I don’t think it’s necessary to do anything,” Tharp said. “Burns Harbor didn’t do anything.”

Member Ton, Tharp continued, put his colleagues “between a rock and hard place” by raising the issue in the first place. “Any position can be taken as sour grapes, for whatever reason.”

Tharp also wondered whether, to date, there’s been anything like a genuine public debate between those who oppose the banquet facility and those who support it, inasmuch as proponents may be unlikely to make their feelings known for fear of incurring someone’s passionate response.

“I haven’t heard anybody speak in favor it,” Tharp said. “There may be a silent majority out there.”

Neither Ton nor his colleagues responded to Tharp’s thoughts.

For the record, Ton identified himself at the council’s April 13 meeting as a member of the not-for-profit group which submitted a proposal of its own in response to the DNR’s prospectus. That proposal the DNR rejected in favor of the one submitted by Pavilion Partners.

At that meeting, Ton urged the DNR to reconsider the location of the banquet center--just east of the Pavilion, just south of the beach--but did not object per se to the idea of a banquet center.

Nor, at the council’s May 12 meeting, did Ton specifically urge his colleagues to take a position against the banquet center. He urged them to take a position. Member Emerson DeLaney, R-5th, for his part, suggested instead that the council give the DNR another opportunity to answer questions which it has failed to answer in the past, in the form of a letter of query. Ton found that suggestion valuable and volunteered to draft such a letter with Lukmann.

 

Posted 5/27/2015

 
 

 

 

 

Â