A proposed ordinance which would require the owners of vacant and abandoned
buildings to register their properties with the town--under certain
conditions--will remain an “Old Business” item on the Chesterton Town
Council’s agenda, after members agreed at their meeting Monday night to
leave it in Town Attorney Chuck Lukmann’s hands for further revision.
“It’s a work-in-progress,” remarked Member Jim Ton, R-1st, who broached the
subject of such an ordinance in the first place. “We’re working with
Attorney Lukmann right now and we’re looking at making the ordinance more
responsive to state parameters.”
Ton, noting that the first iteration of the ordinance was based on that
enacted by another town, added that a more customized document taking “full
advantage” of the measures authorized by Indiana Code, would serve the town
better than the “cookie-cutter approach.”
“I think we can make it tighter,” Lukmann said, for his part. “I think we
can make it a better ordinance. I think we can make it more enforceable. I
want to give you an ordinance which will take 100-percent advantage of the
enabling authority.”
How exactly a revised ordinance would differ from the one which Lukmann
originally prepared for the council isn’t clear. That first version would
require the owner of an abandoned building to register with the town,
“abandoned” being defined as follows: one that’s been vacant for at least 90
days, is in violation of the town’s unsafe building ordinance, has been
issued a remediation order, and has been in non-compliance with that order
for at least 30 days.
Registry would involve, among other things, the owner’s appointing a
property manager who lives in or near town, providing various pieces of
information about the ownership and insuring of the building, and filing a
plan for maintenance and remediation.
“We’re not looking at someone who’s selling a house and has moved to another
house but is still maintaining the property,” Ton said. “We’re looking at
people who walk away from something and stop taking care of the property.”
Member Emerson DeLaney, R-5th, did suggest that he wouldn’t be prepared at
the council’s next meeting, Monday, Sept. 14, actually to take action on any
new version of the ordinance but would want time to review it.
Ton was unhappy to hear that, voiced his desire to get the
revision--whatever it might look like--passed on Sept. 14, and told DeLaney
that, as always, members will be receiving the document in their packets on
the Thursday before the meeting, in plenty of time for them to digest and
consider it.
Clerk-Treasurer Stephanie Kuziela said after the meeting that she will
similarly make a copy of the revision available to the Chesterton Tribune,
in time for the Trib to preview the document in the Friday, Sept. 11,
edition, so that the public also has a chance to see what members might be
voting on.
Earlier in the meeting, Pat Carlisle from the floor expressed her gratitude
to the council for making a vacant and abandoned building ordinance a
priority. “We’re very, very, very pleased to see you moving ahead on this,”
she said.
Accepting the Gateway Blvd. Extensions
In other business, and by unanimous votes, members accepted as new public
rights-of-way the dual extensions of Gateway Blvd. constructed east of
Village Point by the Lake Erie Land Company and Urschel Laboratories Inc.
In fact, the two extensions together comprise a single continuous stretch of
road leading from the intersection of Village Point to the bridge over
Coffee Creek and then further east to the traffic circle, on the far side of
which it becomes a private drive owned by Urschel.
Lake Erie Land built at its own expense the stretch from Village Point to
the bridge, while Urschel built the bridge itself and the stretch of roadway
east of it. The town accepted the whole of the extended Gateway Blvd. with
the exception of the bridge, which Porter County, through its Highway
Department, must accept, the Highway Department having jurisdiction over it.
As a condition of acceptance, Lake Erie Land and Urschel must provide the
town with a two-year maintenance bond equivalent to 25 percent of the total
construction cost of their respective bits of roadway. For Urschel, that
amounts to a bond of around $97,000.
Lake Erie Land has not formally submitted its construction cost yet and so
members made their acceptance of its stretch of roadway contingent on the
calculation of that cost and the receipt of a bond in the correct amount.