[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6176615,"mediaKeyId","5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d","parentId",5345622,"title","Officials warned: BZA ex parte contacts prohibited; recusal and alternates advised","audioSeconds",519,"startMs",6470000,"endMs",6989000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d&start=6470&end=6989","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d/thumbnail_6470000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6176615/Porter-County/Indiana/Officials-warned-BZA-ex-parte-contacts-prohibited-recusal-and-alternates-advised","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176615-54276b593bc38ea39324ad3ae11e5f4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773648819&Signature=dkL9GRq0BAgNrHwcX~10C5BVQugzo-XoouY-xmUWfqjKnDxeyrxftNXZcGvyTRYCjKhKi63FhmKeXZpFGXr6GPcEF7iy122uGGdQu7zNUi4pLQDgFHftd~vhgLfNbyasEmf6T7Dohh1xqvVsgGOSTuipfqAS2tYZJ4lT4dHY7v7xyvMfLoYtXLrR2SgkysvmJBzOB2M9cxBn38fFhIcFflTQVk5EUm08foq~I7LDB5OVkJy4BE7-~-f1KQurPsX~HkHLXc44KnD6POcWoG2p2KCgE0JMxdceIJV7Dczo3X4dp8bi-vk4fWc86tligPtlNTN7Umoqup7q3RG-o8Yeyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Porter County IN","date","2025-07-09T15:41:57Z","article","Presenter K.K. Gerhard Fritz told Porter County planning officials that ethics rules and ex parte contact restrictions are central to preserving the fairness and legal defensibility of quasi‑judicial land‑use decisions.

Fritz said the law bars BZA members from private contact about a case: “BCA members cannot meet with an applicant or a neighbor. You can't talk on the phone. You can't go to the site. You can't share emails.” She described that restriction as explicit for the BZA because it is a quasi‑judicial body and urged plan commissioners to treat off‑record contacts cautiously as well.

The presenter reviewed conflict‑of‑interest standards named in state law: direct financial interest (for example, when the property or business involved is a board member’s own), indirect financial interest (family members, organizations to which the member donates), and bias or inability to be impartial. Fritz emphasized that perception matters: even the appearance of a conflict can require recusal, and a surrounding property‑owner notice typically signals an affected interest.

Fritz recommended that members declare conflicts as soon as possible, place them on the record, and then leave the room rather than remaining in the audience and signaling at the hearing. She noted that state law permits appointing alternates who can sit when a regular member must recuse, and recommended incorporating clear recusal procedures into the boards’ rules of procedure.

The presenter also advised staff to be proactive: make site photos and staff reports available to commissioners so members need not conduct off‑record site visits or engage in private discussions that could be viewed as ex parte contacts.

Fritz closed by encouraging officials to consult staff or the county attorney immediately if they are unsure whether a conflict exists and to document recusals and the reasons for them in the meeting record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Department of Development and Storm Water Management Meeting (March 3, 2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Training emphasized that Board of Zoning Appeals members must avoid ex parte contacts and that conflicts of interest (including perceived bias) require recusal; the presenter recommended using alternates and documented recusals to preserve decisions.","taxTitle","Porter County, Indiana","taxId",12891,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6176621,"Training clarifies legal tests for variances, practical versus unnecessary hardship",211,3149000,3360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d&start=3149&end=3360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d/thumbnail_3149000.jpg","/articles/6176621/Porter-County/Indiana/Training-clarifies-legal-tests-for-variances-practical-versus-unnecessary-hardship","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176621-eed5b390bacdb901823c1c344778042f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773648819&Signature=lnBaoGwd25KkUeIKrRjYnLv6BeNVOJ9pkLYKFLNSPXkxvSN2Z-XUdFtzIC~xXVT4NEKwqp9Nz2HieH0yzspy4KUBBQbum~PPkSmlmjEc9XaPs9Qsk3qC9w~mZjUcB7LrPkjEiKW95xtEKgd8P1HuwsbqovOhV1rDSpFm3n33IFhm3xXRvwnTDXgj6vF89ey~8lOQEGD6~uj3Oe6w~vYi~8fevVlk~QIgmfO7krBuzxnoSWm-SHzIKZKxw-NGepe0rJFrnSI5GQrbb6HWurizFYTxteNVOJxjAsvKSex9Lv3x5v1VQ1-KOBWVCjFRbtZGd-QgQZQAQ0GCfljDnhS2-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Porter County planning officials were given guidance on the legal standards they must apply when reviewing variance requests, including the distinction between use variances and development‑standards variances.

Presenter K.K. Gerhard Fritz told the group that state law requires variances to be decided against a set of objective criteria and emphasized that a use variance requires satisfaction of five statutory factors. She summarized the guiding standard by asking rhetorically, “Is it whether somebody's nice, whether they're handsome, whether they bake good cookies, or what is it? Well, here's what Indiana law tells us.”

Fritz outlined the five factors used for a use variance: protection of public health, safety and welfare; effect on adjacent properties; whether the property is peculiar compared with others (a unique physical condition); whether denying relief would cause an unnecessary hardship; and consistency with the comprehensive plan. She said applicants must meet all applicable criteria and that “it's gotta be all off or nothing.”

She contrasted the high bar for a use variance with the lower practical‑difficulties standard used for development‑standards variances (signs, setbacks, parking), where the inquiry asks whether following the ordinance causes practical difficulties in using the property rather than an “unnecessary hardship.” Fritz clarified that courts have repeatedly held that economic loss or financial difficulty alone does not satisfy the unnecessary‑hardship test.

Fritz advised boards to make written findings of fact that explicitly address each criterion if they approve or deny a variance, and noted that repeated grants of the same variance can signal that the ordinance should be amended. She also cautioned officials about informal compromise solutions that leave open ambiguous conditions, saying such compromises can lead to litigation if they are not carefully written.

The presenter recommended that staff reports clearly state whether the application meets each legal criterion, so commissioners and BZA members can make decisions that will withstand judicial review.","Presenter explained Indiana’s legal tests for use variances and development‑standards variances, emphasizing that use variances require meeting five statutory criteria and that financial hardship alone does not qualify as an 'unnecessary hardship.'",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6176626,"Porter County training reviews legal roles of Plan Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals",660,808000,1468000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d&start=808&end=1468","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345622-bad7f4081341bc0d2353e67fe70db28d/thumbnail_808000.jpg","/articles/6176626/Porter-County/Indiana/Porter-County-training-reviews-legal-roles-of-Plan-Commission-Board-of-Zoning-Appeals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6176626-51c9985d87827b656711b47880c58454/orig.mp4?Expires=1773648819&Signature=cAAh5We5eHszHdRQCYdiR5mzujB~6vzgZyqi628XcZFBK~~0JsYMEVVy1IkSaV5vFzTGDIfTfWcrIDK2FvfqKB6rseugs3C3Gl587IUQnq2ITWrlp8~FDgpT~9pXq1~iaMxeKf6NFuS8QQmKU-jcnY82gZO~0q12nZvvKfwk6sBNvdy0kRmflhyx4j-zFVJsUnQcAMxkac9hgIB0H8QPfTzkZWhVDjYAwYGDsMBOwaX5bHTGOJuCjhu6Iq51XPMEk0qiLmf~XzW10In0v7NFjYfvYqurzLg4ouJbGGOOVsvg7ZPX15lg0vFKBhXMfCR8AUl9i8ykha63lBfg1RSn~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Porter County planning and zoning officials received a review of state law duties for local planning bodies during a training session led by presenter K.K. Gerhard Fritz.

Fritz told attendees that “the decisions that you make, whether you're on the planning commission or the BCA, are very important decisions,” and outlined which tasks state law assigns to each body.

The training stressed that the Board of Zoning Appeals is a quasi‑judicial body that hears appeals of administrative interpretations and decides final variances and special exceptions. Fritz said BZA “are the ones under state law that are named to hear appeals of any administrative decisions.” She described two common BZA responsibilities: variances from development standards (for setbacks, height, parking and similar site rules) and use variances (to allow a use not normally permitted in a zoning district). Fritz noted that the BZA also may give informal interpretations and, when necessary, initiate enforcement actions for violations of approvals.

Fritz explained that the Plan Commission’s role is to shepherd and manage the comprehensive plan and related amendments, and to hold the public hearing for rezoning requests and then send a recommendation to the county commissioners. She said plan commissions typically “push for updates” to the comprehensive plan and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and may approve subdivision plats and development/site plans where state law and local ordinances give them final authority.

County commissioners, by contrast, are the legislative body that formally adopts comprehensive plans by resolution and ordinances such as the UDO, and make the final appointments to boards and commissions. Fritz emphasized the practical reason for having a commissioner on the Plan Commission: “knowing the right hand, knowing what the left hand is doing is very important.”

The presenter also urged regular review of local ordinances where recurring variances suggest a standard should be changed, and reminded officials that many community plans or studies (for example, a park master plan or thoroughfare plan) only carry legal weight in decision making if the Plan Commission held a public hearing and the county commissioners formally adopted them.

Less critical but practical details covered included recommended preparation for meetings (check calendars for conflicts, read staff reports, do a drive‑by of the site) and the distinction between public meetings and public hearings.

Fritz closed by urging officials to rely on staff for factual information and to use the legal roles assigned by state law when framing decisions that ultimately go into the record for any subsequent review.","A training session for Porter County planning officials reviewed Indiana law on the separate duties of the Plan Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), and county commissioners, emphasizing that Plan Commission makes recommendations while commissioners adopt plans and ordinances.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Officials warned: BZA ex parte contacts prohibited; recusal and alternates advised

Training clarifies legal tests for variances, practical versus unnecessary hardship

Porter County training reviews legal roles of Plan Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals