« Indiana Decisions - One decision today, from Tax Court | Main | Courts - Judge Vaidik honored »

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Environment - Ordinance requires builders to set aside open space

"Compromise on open space law: Developers required to set aside land at residential sites" is the headline to this 9/9/04 story in the Munster Times. Some quotes:

VALPARAISO -- Porter County Board of Commissioners forced a compromise late Tuesday night when it signed off on an amended version of an ordinance requiring developers to set aside open space as part of larger residential developments.

The ordinance calls on developers to set aside 10 percent for open space if a site does not include high priority natural resources, such as wetlands, forestry land or prairies, said Porter County Planner Bob Thompson. If these natural features are present, the open space requirement is bumped up to 20 percent, he said. This differs from the original version of the hotly debated ordinance, which called for a flat 20 percent amount of open space. * * *

Developers failed, however, in a last-minute attempt to include language that would have allowed detention basins to be counted as open space, said Read. The proposal was modified to allow detention basins to be counted if developers are willing to set aside more open space.

The Times also had an editorial on this requirement yestersday. Some quotes:
It has long been apparent that housing is the biggest cash crop in Porter County. Farmland is disappearing. So it is only right that the county require developers to preserve some open spaces while building large subdivisions.

A compromise approved by the Porter County Board of Commissioners late Tuesday night requires developers to set aside 10 percent of a large subdivision for open space. The requirement increases to 20 percent if the site includes high priority natural resources such as wetlands, forest or prairie.

The South Bend Tribune yesterday published a thoughtful letter on development by Merrill Clark, natural resources director for the League of Women Voters of Berrien/Cass Counties (Michiana), that concludes:
As [David] Dempsey stated, "Chasing the old mirage of expanded tax base through relentless development'' is a dead end plan. "Smart growth'' allows for a balance between development, recreation and environmental protection, which promotes overall quality of life for years to come.

For its part, the Niles Township Planning Commission, with its limit on residential development near and around a portion of the St. Joseph river, appears to be looking at the impact unplanned growth might have in that watershed area. The "residential preserve" idea may be good, if complete preservation of river frontage is out of the question. Yet, complainers at the July zoning meeting couldn't stop talking about a retail boom in Niles and the need for more homes.

"When you can only build two houses in an area where you now could build eight, that's definitely an attempt to stop development,'' said a meeting attendee.

Smart growth is not necessarily about "stopping development.'' If communities of thinking people can sit down and look first at the natural assets which bless a particular area and vow to protect them to the degree possible before launching off on plans to take over "country'' and riverbanks and dune areas, they will find their communities unique, green, clean and livable for years to come. Business and home sites will flourish in appropriate areas and Leopold's land ethic will have instilled a sense of stewardship throughout.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 14, 2004 07:19 AM
Posted to Environmental Issues