[0:02] You are watching Access

[0:04] LaPorte County Channel 97. Next up is the

[0:09] LaPorte County Planning Commission meeting on September 22nd. You

[0:11] can find more

[0:13] information about this

[0:14] meeting at

[0:16] www.accesslaportecounty.org.

[0:22] Okay, we declare

[0:24] this meeting

[0:25] open on September 22,

[0:27] 2026. Please

[0:28] stand for the

[0:29] Pledge of

[0:30] Allegiance.

[0:32] I pledge allegiance to the

[0:33] flag of the United

[0:34] States of America.

[0:36] And to the republic it

[0:37] symbolizes, one

[0:38] nation under God,

[0:39] indivisible, with

[0:40] liberty and

[0:41] justice for

[0:42] all.

[0:44] Thank you. Roll

[0:47] call,

[0:48] please.

[0:53] John Matushak?

[0:54] Present.

[0:55] Joseph Dochalski?

[0:57] No.

[0:57] Steve Holyfield?

[0:59] Present.

[1:00] John Carr? Rita Beatty?

[1:02] Present.

[1:03] Anthony Os?

[1:04] Present.

[1:05] Andrew Kapalczyk?

[1:06] Present.

[1:07] Jimmy Pressel?

[1:08] Present.

[1:08] Eric Poynton?

[1:09] Here.

[1:11] Okay, thank you. We have

[1:12] your quorum.

[1:13] Thank you.

[1:14] May I make a

[1:15] motion to

[1:15] approve the agenda

[1:16] for this evening?

[1:18] I will make a motion

[1:18] to approve the

[1:19] agenda.

[1:20] Second.

[1:21] Everyone who is "in favor"

[1:21] confirms this with

[1:22] the words "I do." "I". "Is

[1:23] anyone against it?" What about

[1:25] approving

[1:26] the minutes of this or

[1:27] last month's

[1:28] meeting...We do

[1:29] n't have them, do we?

[1:30] No, we don't have it.

[1:32] We received it by

[1:32] email. Did

[1:33] you guys get

[1:34] it? Good. Good.

[1:35] Let's make

[1:37] a motion to

[1:37] approve the

[1:38] minutes as

[1:38] presented in the

[1:39] email.

[1:40] Is there a second offer?

[1:42] Second proposal.

[1:43] Thank you. Everyone who is "in favor"

[1:45] confirms this with

[1:46] the words "I do." "Is

[1:47] anyone against it?"

[1:49] The proposal is accepted.

[1:50] Okay, let's move on

[1:52] . We have no petitions

[1:53] for this evening, but

[1:54] we do have some new

[1:56] cases that need

[1:57] updating. Uh, a slightly

[1:59] different, important, uh,

[2:01] unique situation

[2:02] here. So, I will turn

[2:04] this over to our

[2:05] building commissioner and/or

[2:07] attorney, or both.

[2:08] Thank you, Madam President

[2:10] . This is related to

[2:12] correspondence we

[2:14] received, uh, from a

[2:15] lawyer regarding, uh, the

[2:16] appeals

[2:18] court decision. Uh, I sent

[2:21] this to all of you so you

[2:22] could have a chance to

[2:23] read it.

[2:24] initially

[2:25] went to me, our

[2:26] legal counsel, and the

[2:27] district attorney. Um,

[2:31] and then the correspondence back and

[2:32] forth, um, the attorney

[2:34] indicated that, um,

[2:35] she would like to

[2:36] appear before the

[2:38] planning commission or the BZA to

[2:39] explain this, um, and

[2:41] provide us with

[2:42] information. Um, I don't

[2:46] think she'll

[2:47] be here tonight

[2:48] because we

[2:50] don't have the Zoom capability,

[2:51] um, but you all

[2:52] received

[2:53] the correspondence, um,

[2:54] which will be available, um,

[2:55] in our office as, um, a

[2:57] public record, as well

[2:58] as the

[2:59] appellate court decision. And,

[3:03] um, that's all I have.

[3:05] Perhaps our lawyer

[3:07] has something to add.

[3:08] So, we see that

[3:09] she is not present

[3:09] tonight,

[3:10] so we will continue with

[3:11] the lawyer tonight

[3:12] .

[3:13] Madam President,

[3:14] good evening. Hmm, you're

[3:15] right. This is a somewhat

[3:17] unique situation.

[3:20] Um, the speaker or

[3:21] questioner is

[3:22] missing here. Hmm, it doesn't

[3:25] appear. And I won't

[3:29] make a

[3:30] presentation on her

[3:31] behalf because I don't know

[3:32] what the

[3:33] presentation should be like. We were

[3:38] provided, or, excuse me, the

[3:40] Planning Commission

[3:41] was provided, and the

[3:43] building commissioner's office was provided with

[3:45] a copy of the

[3:45] appellate court decision, um

[3:47] , which I reviewed. And

[3:50] again, the signature

[3:51] on the

[3:52] appellate court decision

[3:53] that I received or that

[3:54] we received is

[3:55] in the case of Kenneth and

[3:56] Laura Nerenberg as

[3:58] plaintiff-appellants

[3:59] against Stacey Royer as

[4:00] defendant-

[4:01] appellant. This is from an

[4:03] appeal case

[4:05] that was heard, or,

[4:06] excuse me, the LaPorte County Trial Court

[4:10] in Superior Court

[4:12] Number Two in case

[4:13] number 46 D 02-2011-CT-1933.

[4:16] The conclusion provided, um,

[4:18] to the building commissioner's office

[4:19] indicates that

[4:20] this is the conclusion.

[4:22] However, there is some

[4:23] information that

[4:24] indicates that this is a

[4:25] memorandum conclusion

[4:27] or a

[4:27] memorandum decision. I couldn't

[4:29] tell what was

[4:30] true and what wasn't. Therefore, I

[4:32] simply proceed from what has

[4:33] been

[4:34] presented. And again

[4:35] , I'm not making a

[4:36] presentation about this

[4:37] . Um, frankly

[4:39] , there

[4:40] are errors in this conclusion.

[4:44] Um, for example,

[4:45] the property that is the

[4:46] subject of this

[4:47] appeal is listed by the

[4:48] appellate court as

[4:50] zoned residential.

[4:51] It is not zoned

[4:52] residential. It is

[4:53] zoned

[4:54] rural. And I've

[4:55] highlighted at least

[4:56] six questions that

[4:57] I have, uh,

[4:58] about this decision. And

[5:00] again, I don't

[5:00] know what exactly is meant

[5:02] by this

[5:03] decision or how it should

[5:06] be interpreted

[5:07] as related to the

[5:08] joint

[5:09] zoning ordinance. However, there

[5:11] are certain statements in the opinion

[5:12] that

[5:13] raise certain

[5:14] questions about

[5:15] the inclusiveness or

[5:16] exclusivity of the

[5:19] LaPorte County Joint Zoning Ordinance. Whereas,

[5:23] perhaps, the position will be taken

[5:24] that if a

[5:25] specific

[5:26] use is not

[5:27] permitted under the JZO,

[5:29] then it is prohibited. I

[5:32] can't believe that

[5:33] was the intent of the JZO

[5:34] or the wording

[5:36] contained in the JZO

[5:37] that each

[5:38] permitted

[5:38] use had to

[5:40] be specifically

[5:41] listed, because

[5:42] you would have a joint

[5:44] zoning ordinance the size of

[5:45] five phone books

[5:47] if anyone else was

[5:47] using a

[5:48] phone book. Um

[5:53] , so again, I do

[5:54] n't know what the asker

[5:56] was trying to do with

[5:57] this. We facilitated,

[6:00] sorry, Mike's office

[6:01] facilitated the inclusion of her

[6:03] request on the

[6:04] agenda. She is not here.

[6:06] Uh, there's no lawyer here to

[6:08] dissect any

[6:09] wording that

[6:10] they think needs to be

[6:11] dissected, as it

[6:12] relates to the LaPorte

[6:14] County Joint Zoning Ordinance

[6:15] , but given

[6:17] that, um, certainly

[6:18] it raises the

[6:18] possibility of

[6:19] some

[6:20] issues in the future

[6:22] that could potentially be

[6:23] addressed by this body

[6:24] . But again, I'm

[6:25] not going to make

[6:26] any presentation

[6:27] or offer a

[6:28] legal opinion on

[6:29] anything when there's

[6:30] nothing before the board

[6:31] on which to

[6:32] offer a

[6:33] legal opinion. So,

[6:34] here's where we are

[6:35] .

[6:37] Good. Well, as we

[6:39] said, this was a

[6:40] unique situation,

[6:41] something that I have

[6:43] n't seen before, our

[6:44] board has not seen before, so it's

[6:45] not something we're usually

[6:46] used to looking at.

[6:49] So at this point I

[6:50] don't know if there's

[6:52] any discussion needed on

[6:53] this, um,

[6:54] unless someone

[6:55] wants to say something

[6:56] outside the council; otherwise we'll

[6:57] just, um,

[6:58] listen and

[6:59] do our

[7:00] due diligence for

[7:01] tonight and

[7:02] move on to

[7:03] old business.

[7:08] If any of you have

[7:09] questions for me or

[7:10] legal counsel, I can

[7:12] answer them

[7:13] now. Otherwise

[7:13] , I would say

[7:14] we could move

[7:16] to where we have two

[7:17] standing committees,

[7:18] so maybe we could

[7:19] get

[7:20] updates from those

[7:21] committees from the rest of the

[7:22] board. The

[7:24] solar energy committee

[7:25] met last

[7:26] week or so

[7:27] . We discussed

[7:28] a few issues, and Matt

[7:29] Reardon from

[7:30] Economic

[7:30] Development was also

[7:31] involved in this.

[7:32] He was present at

[7:33] this. He

[7:35] suggested that

[7:37] since we can't

[7:38] kick these "

[7:39] baggage guys" out of

[7:40] town, then, um, let's

[7:41] set a limit of

[7:42] megawatts per acre, rather than

[7:43] just an overall

[7:44] limit, because, he

[7:45] said, they'll

[7:46] find a way around it

[7:47] . So you

[7:49] can say you

[7:50] can

[7:51] only use a

[7:52] certain number of

[7:53] megawatts per acre. That's

[7:55] all, that's all. And then, um,

[7:56] another proposal

[7:58] that he had to make

[7:59] to ensure

[8:00] implementation, regarding

[8:01] the cost of implementation,

[8:02] um, discussing a fee

[8:03] for each panel or

[8:04] structure on an annual

[8:06] basis. So, in that

[8:07] way, these guys are

[8:08] someone that you can

[8:09] investigate,

[8:10] make sure they're

[8:11] following the rules

[8:12] and their contract,

[8:13] make sure they're

[8:14] following it, because

[8:15] they're going to have

[8:16] weed control, they're going to have

[8:17] fences

[8:18] that they're going to have to take

[8:19] care of. They

[8:19] will have to

[8:20] take care of

[8:21] pollinators, which

[8:22] they claim

[8:23] can very quickly

[8:24] turn into

[8:25] noxious weeds.

[8:26] So, that's basically all

[8:27] we discussed. Uh

[8:29] , Tony, you were there. Do

[8:31] you have anything? Eric,

[8:32] were you there? Any other things

[8:34] ? I don't have one

[8:35] . I think we

[8:37] mentioned maybe

[8:39] looking at whether

[8:40] we want to have any

[8:41] insurance requirements.

[8:42] Good.

[8:43] You know, if any of

[8:45] them were to express their

[8:46] opinion, I think it

[8:47] would require

[8:47] a longer

[8:48] discussion with a

[8:49] lawyer about the

[8:49] implications and how

[8:51] it works. But

[8:52] at least it was

[8:52] broken.

[8:53] And that was basically

[8:54] in case there

[8:54] was a fire that

[8:55] threatened to

[8:56] spread out of control or something

[8:57] like that.

[8:57] Just in general,

[8:58] just the fact that we

[8:59] discussed it. I

[9:01] know this issue

[9:02] was raised during a

[9:03] previous

[9:04] discussion on BZA, where there

[9:05] was a question about whether

[9:06] they had environmental

[9:07] insurance. So, I

[9:08] think it's just

[9:09] worth it...That was what

[9:10] we were talking about. So...

[9:13] Okay. Something else?

[9:16] Hmm. Do we have any

[9:18] updates from the other

[9:19] committee?

[9:20] Data center?

[9:23] We haven't met yet

[9:24] , and until someone comes up with a

[9:26] proposed plan,

[9:27] I mean, we don't

[9:28] know what we're going to have to

[9:29] change

[9:30] or make changes to. So...

[9:32] Yeah, I think the only

[9:33] reason we

[9:34] wanted to, and we should probably

[9:35] consider

[9:36] getting

[9:37] together, is because, I

[9:38] think, we wanted to

[9:39] look at how the

[9:40] data center works and tie that into

[9:41] , um, the changes that

[9:42] were made for the

[9:43] overlay district

[9:44] and the area, just

[9:45] to make sure that

[9:46] we're not creating

[9:47] some confusion or

[9:48] conflict between those

[9:49] two provisions.

[9:49] So, I think it would be worth at least

[9:51] considering these two.

[9:52] Good. Nothing else is

[9:56] connected. Good.

[10:00] Any other reports?

[10:03] So, in addition to that, um,

[10:04] a year ago, maybe

[10:05] longer, we started

[10:06] working on our

[10:07] new comprehensive

[10:09] county plan. Um,

[10:13] we had

[10:15] , uh, consultants working on this. Um

[10:19] , it was paid for by a

[10:20] grant. Um, the

[10:21] county planner

[10:23] was heavily

[10:23] involved in this.

[10:25] Um, he led it perfectly

[10:27] and organized everything

[10:28] . Um, several members of

[10:30] this, uh, commission

[10:32] were also on this

[10:33] committee. We

[10:34] met several

[10:35] times. Um, there were

[10:36] several

[10:37] public workshops held

[10:39] at various locations throughout the

[10:40] county. Um,

[10:42] literature was published to

[10:43] try to get

[10:44] as much

[10:45] public opinion on

[10:46] this issue as possible, uh. Um,

[10:48] we even added, uh,

[10:49] Tony and, uh,

[10:51] after Harold, uh,

[10:52] resigned from the

[10:54] board. But, uh,

[10:56] usually these things

[10:57] are updated every 15-20

[10:59] years in the

[11:00] municipality.

[11:01] It's time to make

[11:02] ours. We are getting ready. We are

[11:04] at the end, and we

[11:05] are preparing to officially

[11:06] accept it. And

[11:09] usually after that,

[11:10] there is a review of

[11:12] our

[11:13] zoning ordinance and its

[11:14] update. And I think

[11:21] there was some

[11:22] discussion within this commission, as well as at the BZA level, of

[11:23] specific things that

[11:24] could be updated,

[11:27] wording adjusted, you know,

[11:28] things like that. We

[11:31] talked about

[11:32] shipping

[11:33] containers, chickens, and

[11:34] animals. Tony raised

[11:36] some interesting

[11:37] points. So, I think the

[11:42] entire JZO needs a

[11:43] review. And, um,

[11:49] instead of

[11:51] breaking it up into

[11:52] pieces with

[11:52] amendments here,

[11:53] amendments there,

[11:54] as time

[11:55] permits, we could

[11:57] , um, propose

[11:58] changes. And then, um,

[12:03] when we're ready

[12:05] , maybe in the first

[12:06] quarter of next

[12:07] year or some

[12:08] other time, we

[12:09] could schedule a

[12:10] public hearing,

[12:12] which is required

[12:13] by law, get

[12:14] public feedback, um,

[12:15] maybe have a few

[12:17] projects, eventually

[12:18] do something that we're

[12:19] happy with, and eventually

[12:20] adopt a new

[12:22] zoning ordinance.

[12:23] So, you're just

[12:24] looking at

[12:24] just

[12:25] tweaking a few

[12:26] things here and there. I

[12:27] mean, it's been a

[12:28] long time since the

[12:29] update. And

[12:30] with the new, um,

[12:31] comprehensive, plan...

[12:34] That's what you're looking at

[12:35] ...

[12:35] in 2016...

[12:37] 16, so that's 10 years.

[12:39] So,

[12:41] yes, yes, a comprehensive

[12:42] plan, um, even

[12:44] older...

[12:45] That's right...

[12:45] than JZO. And then our JZO,

[12:48] 10 years old, I would say the

[12:50] time has come.

[12:51] There are some things you have

[12:53] seen in your office

[12:54] that we should

[12:55] consider.

[12:58] Yes, I have various

[12:59] things that I found that

[13:01] I would like to

[13:02] fix. One of them is

[13:05] sand mining and

[13:07] quarrying, and the

[13:08] wording is as follows. But I

[13:12] think several

[13:13] members of this board have

[13:14] also raised

[13:15] other issues. You know,

[13:16] just today Tony

[13:18] found a link to the

[13:19] maps and information that

[13:22] our JCO is referring to, these are broken

[13:23] links. The expiration date

[13:25] has expired. Nothing

[13:26] happens when you

[13:27] open them.

[13:31] Eric and I talked about

[13:32] this. We get so

[13:34] many cases regarding

[13:36] shipping

[13:36] containers at BZA. Um,

[13:40] this is something that could be

[13:42] addressed at the

[13:43] planning commission level

[13:44] to reduce the

[13:45] burden on the BZA.

[13:48] Eric, do you have anything

[13:50] you want to add on

[13:51] this?

[13:52] I mean, as far as

[13:54] this is concerned, I think if, you

[13:55] know, the way you

[13:56] do some other

[13:57] things, if you

[13:58] sign it with

[13:59] your neighbors or

[14:00] send it, they

[14:01] might object.

[14:03] You know, it needs to be

[14:04] painted just like

[14:05] , you know, a house or

[14:06] structures or

[14:07] whatever. This falls

[14:08] under the same existing

[14:09] structure. You cannot

[14:11] have more than a certain

[14:12] number of existing

[14:13] structures. It still has to

[14:14] comply with

[14:15] all the regulations, and as long as

[14:16] you guys say

[14:17] they can

[14:18] comply with the regulations

[14:19] , we won't have to

[14:19] see one or two

[14:20] sea containers

[14:21] every month on the BZA.

[14:22] For example, a section of

[14:23] auxiliary buildings.

[14:25] Right. We could

[14:26] develop a standard for,

[14:27] you know, proper

[14:29] installation, um,

[14:30] foundation supports,

[14:31] anchoring, um,

[14:32] placement. You're not

[14:33] going to put

[14:35] it in front of your

[14:36] house on the road. Both do

[14:37] not match

[14:38] . So, it has to be,

[14:40] you know, we'll

[14:40] have to develop

[14:43] criteria. Would it be

[14:44] ...Would it be time

[14:45] to look into...We're

[14:46] getting a lot of

[14:47] complaints and I'm forwarding

[14:48] them to you guys regarding

[14:49] defective

[14:50] cars. Would

[14:51] this be something we could

[14:53] include in the JZO? But

[14:54] again, as we

[14:55] said this

[14:56] afternoon, we will have to

[14:58] find the strength to

[14:59] do it. And that

[15:00] would require fines

[15:01] or something like that,

[15:02] even if you

[15:03] have to, even

[15:04] if you have to

[15:05] allocate enough

[15:06] money to cover

[15:08] it, to have someone in your

[15:09] department deal with it.

[15:11] Yes. Hmm, one of the

[15:14] problems we have

[15:15] with

[15:16] code enforcement, or

[15:17] lack thereof, is

[15:18] that the regulation is

[15:20] old, uh, for example,

[15:21] and the legal framework of

[15:22] the departments that have the

[15:23] authority to

[15:24] enforce it is very

[15:25] broad.

[15:28] For example, you have a

[15:30] noxious weed council

[15:31] that hasn't met in

[15:34] over a decade,

[15:35] maybe more than a

[15:36] decade.

[15:38] Wasn't that part of the

[15:40] village board of trustees?

[15:41] Yes, yes, the caretakers

[15:42] have unkempt

[15:43] grass. So,

[15:46] there are certain cases that

[15:47] I will send

[15:48] letters about for any

[15:49] reason, any

[15:51] complaint that comes in,

[15:52] because we have, you know

[15:53] , let's say, a 40% success rate in

[15:55] mitigating these

[15:56] consequences without, uh,

[15:57] sending a

[15:58] punisher on them or,

[15:59] you know, filing

[16:01] lawsuits and so on.

[16:03] You should look

[16:04] at the results.

[16:05] Uh,

[16:06] yeah, I'm not against it,

[16:08] but when it comes to

[16:09] having the legal

[16:11] right to file

[16:12] cases, there could be

[16:13] more clearly defined

[16:14] wording as to what

[16:16] the sheriff will do, what the health department will do

[16:19] , what the

[16:20] building

[16:21] department will do, what the

[16:22] trustee's office will do, uh, what that,

[16:24] you know, point is. There are

[16:26] many different

[16:27] law enforcement

[16:28] agencies, but a clearer

[16:29] regulation with

[16:33] updated

[16:33] wording would be

[16:35] appropriate.

[16:36] Well, when everyone

[16:37] hands over

[16:37] authority to the

[16:38] next person, we

[16:39] run into so

[16:40] much of this that

[16:41] it goes back to the

[16:42] building commission.

[16:44] So...Yes,

[16:47] we are indeed

[16:48] universal and

[16:49] statewide...I

[16:50] know, like DHS and the

[16:51] fire marshal's office, there are

[16:53] some state

[16:54] departments where, uh, they have

[16:55] fewer people,

[16:56] they've

[16:57] reorganized, and

[16:58] more and more is

[16:59] being devolved to local

[17:01] municipalities. Um,

[17:05] and when that happens

[17:07] , you just

[17:07] go to people

[17:09] who already have a full

[17:10] plate and tell them,

[17:11] "Well, now you have this

[17:13] duty, and this

[17:15] duty." No

[17:16] protocols, no

[17:17] standard

[17:18] operating procedures

[17:19] , no resources. It

[17:21] makes life difficult for all of

[17:22] them, so...

[17:23] Right.

[17:24] Mandates without

[17:24] funding.

[17:25] Hmm. Good. Okay, so

[17:30] we have a lot to

[17:31] look forward to

[17:32] next year, it looks like

[17:33] ...

[17:34] That's when you guys

[17:35] moved to 2 acres, and

[17:37] then we moved away from

[17:38] that because there

[17:39] are a lot of places in the county

[17:40] . They have a yard in the front

[17:42] that they mow, and

[17:43] then you have an acre and a half in

[17:44] the back that's

[17:45] weeds, or you have

[17:46] people who have let a

[17:48] couple of ponies out and they

[17:49] eat on the bare ground.

[17:50] And didn't we

[17:51] adjust that

[17:52] a few years ago

[17:53] when they had to

[17:54] have at least

[17:55] 6 acres for horses?

[17:56] We switched to three.

[17:58] Now three, okay. So,

[17:59] shall we

[18:00] consider this? Even 3

[18:01] acres, meaning one horse,

[18:03] 3 acres

[18:04] will not be too much for them.

[18:06] I think all this

[18:07] terminology that

[18:08] applies to animals,

[18:09] from chickens to horses and

[18:11] whatever, should be

[18:12] reviewed,

[18:13] discussed,

[18:13] different

[18:14] points of view taken into account, and then

[18:20] come to a consensus and

[18:21] vote.

[18:24] That's how we ended up

[18:25] creating it, because when we were

[18:26] doing it originally,

[18:27] we didn't have anything that

[18:28] could be

[18:29] considered in the

[18:29] animal ordinance.

[18:31] So we took other

[18:32] counties that were

[18:33] near us, what they

[18:35] had, because some of

[18:36] them have 20 acres and

[18:37] so on. So we

[18:38] tried to

[18:39] compromise and chose

[18:40] three acres over four

[18:42] acres to try to

[18:43] accommodate the needs of

[18:44] some families who

[18:45] were looking for four acres.

[18:47] So we compressed it.

[18:50] And if we see

[18:51] problems with that, it doesn't

[18:52] necessarily mean

[18:53] we need to

[18:54] change the area, but we

[18:56] could add

[18:57] criteria to

[18:57] address the problems

[18:59] that we saw. And I

[19:00] think the other thing

[19:02] you violated is the

[19:03] two acres that were

[19:04] reduced to one

[19:05] acre.

[19:06] Right.

[19:07] This happened to me,

[19:08] but, um, I think I...I

[19:10] know about it. I think it

[19:12] was in 2012,

[19:13] Jacob.

[19:14] Just for

[19:15] residential property. Good.

[19:16] It used to be two

[19:17] acres, but now we've

[19:18] moved to one acre

[19:20] with 200 feet of frontage.

[19:21] That's what we

[19:21] switched to when we

[19:22] did this.

[19:25] And we get a lot of

[19:27] those at BZA regarding

[19:28] deviations,

[19:29] facade reduction. Good.

[19:35] Okay, is there

[19:37] any more old stuff?

[19:41] Good. A

[19:42] transfer proposal?

[19:45] Second.

[19:46] Everyone who is "in favor"?

[19:47] Yes.

[19:49] Thank you all for

[19:50] being here.

LaPorte County Planning Commission September 22, 2026

Transcript