Subjects

Active cases

Closed cases

Wall of Shame

Please inform the webmaster of any broken links!

Porter, Indiana

See latest update at bottom of page.

Update: 2002 March

http://www.chestertontribune.com/PorterCounty/2000_protest_landfill%20plan.htm

2,000 protest Chesterton firm's Porter County landfill plan

By VICKI URBANIK

An overflow crowd estimated at 2,000 people jammed the Porter County Expo Center Wednesday in a unified front against a Chesterton company’s plans to open a new landfill near Boone Grove.

After more than five and a half hours of testimony from a string of lawyers, biologists and professors and questioning from the Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals, the request from Porter Development LLC was tabled until April 6.

As they adjourned at about midnight, BZA members said it was impossible for them make an informed decision due to the massive amount of written materials presented.

BZA President James Robertson criticized Porter Development for supplying a thick document outlining its plans on the night of the BZA meeting, saying that the BZA had asked for the information ahead of time. The opponents, the citizens group P.R.O.U.D. (Porter Residents Opposed to Unhealthy Dumps) and the Aberdeen Homeowners Association, presented an equally daunting amount of written testimony and exhibits, including a petition signed by about 12,000 people against the 353-acre landfill site at 550S 250W. Despite the massive crowd—hundreds of whom sat in bleachers, along the wall, and in a space adjoining the main Expo Center room—outbursts against the landfill were kept to a minimum, and the testimony from the opponents focused less on emotion and more on studies, data, and legalities. In fact, by the time the attorneys and expert testimony was completed and the floor opened to the general audience, the other opponents had only 20 minutes to speak.

The BZA meeting started 25 minutes late, since some BZA members were stuck in the traffic jam outside the Expo Center. The announcement that the heavy public turnout would delay the meeting prompted the first round of applause of the night.

Attorney Todd Leeth, representing Porter Development, repeatedly urged the BZA to base its decision on land use issues only and the petitioners’ compliance with specific zoning criteria, saying that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has the expertise to monitor and oversee landfills.

“You do not. The county does not,” he said.

But the opponents ripped into the idea that the BZA has no control over the matter. Aberdeen attorney R. Lawrence Steele said the BZA is bound by law to take into account issues such as the public safety, health and morals in its decision making, as he criticized Porter Development as a quickly organized company that presented undetailed plans in an attempt “to get something by you.”

“Don’t buy into this ‘it’s all going to be taken care of downstate,’” he said. Among all the other concerns presented, two recurring topics seemed to weigh heavy on the minds of the BZA: uncertainties over the exact nature of Indian burial mounds on site and a unspecified truck route and truck traffic. “It seems to me your request is somewhat premature at this point,” said BZA member Robert Detert.

Leeth’s presentation focused less on the landfill plans—such as the amount of waste expected per day and where the waste would come from—and more on the need for a landfill in the region that he said should be located far away from a population density. He said studies show that each day, each of Porter County’s 146,000 people generate six pounds of trash. “It has to go somewhere,” he said.

Truck Traffic

During the 1/1/2 hour questioning period from the BZA, members repeatedly tried to get Porter Development to pinpoint how many trucks it expects daily and the routes the trucks would take.

Leeth responded several times that the number of trucks is unknown. The number will be tied to IDEM’s permitting process, he said, and IDEM could require a larger buffer zone and less useable landfill space.

Clearly frustrated, BZA member Rich Hudson hammered away at the truck numbers, at one point hypothetically setting the landfill at 200 acres and asking for average truck numbers. Leeth again said he couldn’t provide a number but said the petitioners do expect a significant number and that’s why they are offering to rebuild the county roads used to get to the site, which he noted are currently substandard.

Steele then presented some of the numbers Hudson seemed to be looking for, as he roughly calculated that a 200-acre site would generate 75 to 90 fully loaded trucks per day and that the Deercroft landfill in Michigan City has reported truck traffic of 322 trucks in one day.

The truck route also was a recurring concern.

Leeth said he would not identify the preferred route, saying that Porter Development wants first to work in conjunction with the county on a selected route. But he said the preferred route is from the south on roads that pass by the fewest number of houses possible—likely meaning that trucks would be directed to use a main artery like Ind. 8 and then north on a county road now used mainly by farmers.

Leeth said entities that have a contractual relationship with the landfill could be forced to use the designated route; the sheriff’s department would have to enforce truck route compliance with those trucks without a contractual agreement.

But an attorney for P.R.O.U.D., Deborah Dubovich, said the group’s documentation includes an affidavit from waste haulers stating that they do not follow designated truck routes. Detert, too, said no one can guarantee the truck routes that will be used, but that the burden will be on the taxpayers to repair them.

And Porter County Sheriff Dave Reynolds testified that he finds it surprising that no one has contacted him about the traffic issues, even though he is responsible for public safety. “I think that’s a serious concern,” he said.

Indian Mounds

Perhaps the most conflicting views involved the presence of Indian burial mounds. And perhaps the most poignant testimony came from two representatives of Indian tribes who said the Porter Township site is sacred. Kevin Daugherty, representing the Pokagon Band of Pottawatomie Indians, said the entire Kankakee River watershed was a special place for his ancestors and that regardless of one’s culture, every one respects its dead. “You don’t dump trash on your dead,” he said.

Timothy Brazill, an Indianapolis attorney representing the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, said if there is any attempt to excavate the sites, the tribe will claim its sovereign right over the land. He called for designating the site a federal or state historic site.

Both sides clashed over the nature of the mounds.

Valparaiso University Professor Janke said of the 36 known Indian burial mounds in the county, 10 are on the landfill site. “There are skeletons there,” he said.

Leeth acknowledged the existence of mounds, and said Porter Development has both a legal and an economic reason to chronicle their significance before moving forward. But he said 11 known mounds are in the area, but that the three most “significant” sites are not on the landfill property.

He said without an excavation, no one can know for sure if the mounds are Native American burial grounds. He also said the mounds are not pristine, since they’ve been dug up before, and that they’ve been farmed for 105 years. Porter Development’s plans would preserve the mounds “far, far more than the current land use.”

But on this point, Robertson asked Leeth to assign a moral value to the discretion caused by running a plow over a burial mound versus placing garbage on top of it. Leeth said he could not answer such a rhetorical question.

Conflicts

The BZA heard plenty of conflicting views.

Leeth cited a 1998 state report finding that farming causes six times more pollution to rivers and streams than any other source and that septic systems and landfills are virtually equal in their severity of contamination. PROUD attorney Dan Whitten presented evidence showing no groundwater contamination in the heavily farmed community.

Leeth cited the goal of locating landfills far from population densities, and said the Porter Township site is in possibly the most remote site in the county.

But a traffic expert for the opponents, Michael Cap, countered that the site is also probably as far away as one can get to state and federal highways, and that none of the county roads leading to the site are considered good candidates for upgrades as thoroughfares.

“What direction will the waste come from?” Cap asked, citing a statistic that Porter County’s waste would represent only 20 percent of the waste going into a 2,500-ton landfill.

Steele said if the goal is to locate a landfill in a remote place, then the site chosen fails, since it is so close to the Boone Grove schools and the fire department.

Steele further contended that landfills should be sited near interstates, since that’s where most trash comes from. He presented the following statistics: More than 60 percent of the waste going to the Deercroft landfill and nearly 50 percent going to the Fulton County landfill comes from Cook County, Ill.

Steele blasted the idea that Porter County needs a landfill as a “song and dance,” as he called for improved recycling programs and alternative to landfills. “This needs to be a global fix,” he said.

Leeth later responded that the Porter Development site is indeed a global fix, since the waste is intended to come from Lake, Porter and LaPorte counties. The developers have not ruled out out-of-state trash.

Another conflicting point dealt with soils. Joseph Camp, a Purdue North Central professor of ecology and biology, said one or two types of soil on the site are suitable for a landfill, but that they’re intermingled with unsuitable sites. But Porter Development presented evidence showing that the soils on the site are clay, the best for landfills.

The opponents also noted that the site along the Porter County Bikeway System as they raised concerns about cyclists conflicting with heavy waste trucks. Leeth said the only place where there would be a conflict between cyclists and waste trucks is at the intersection of 250W and 550S.

Property Values

Another conflicting point dealt with property values.

Speaking on behalf of the opponents, Chuck Moseley, president of the Porter County Builders Association, and real estate brokers Frank Pressel and Larry Hitz said they believe the landfill will negatively impact property values and residential development. Hitz cited three incidences of real estate transactions that have fallen through just because of the publicity so far on the landfill.

But Leeth submitted one study showing that land values in remote agricultural areas actually increased with a landfill.

He also announced a “property value protection plan”: Porter Development will purchase the land from all abutting property owners at 125 percent of its appraised value. Landowners within a one-half mile radius would get a paid appraisal of their property at the time the IDEM permit is granted; if in 10 years they want to sell their property and don’t receive the previously established appraised value, Porter Development will make up the difference.

The plan was bitterly criticized by some opponents. Steele called it an offer to “buy off people.”

Whitten presented letters from property owners, some of which he said describes why people moved to Porter Township and how their homes represent their entire life savings. “These are not letters of ‘not in my back yard,’” he said.

He, too, ripped into the promises of cash from Porter Development. “The is something far more at stake than money,” he said.

home : mission : updates : sites : learn : action : links : contact