Plan commission forms subcommittee to clean up Unified Development Ordinance; staff outlines long‑term scope

The Porter County Plan Commission voted to form a plan commission subcommittee to review, evaluate and recommend additions, deletions and revisions to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the commission—s rules and procedures.

Planning staff presented a memo saying the committee—s role would be advisory to the commission and that any formal amendments to the UDO would still require planning‑commission deliberations, public hearings and final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff described recurring issues that prompted the proposal: inconsistent language across documents, unclear definitions (for example, "legal lot of record" and the distinction between private driveways and private roads), membership and procedural questions for development‑review bodies, dozens of past ordinance amendments not consolidated into the published UDO, and repeated variance requests that suggest some standards may need updating.

The staff memo noted there are more than 35 prior ordinance amendments that are not yet incorporated into the printed UDO; staff said they have contracted with the UDO—s original publisher to consolidate amendments into a single publication and proposed a subcommittee to help review the consolidated document. Staff recommended a subcommittee composition of commission members (no more than four), at least one elected official and citizen appointments; staff also said department staff would participate in an advisory capacity. The planning director told the commission this would be a long‑running effort and could take many months to sequence and prioritize changes.

Public questions focused on transparency and timeline. Natalia Dalvin, a county resident, asked whether subcommittee meetings would be publicly noticed and what timeline the subcommittee would use; staff responded that organizational meetings and subsequent subcommittee meetings would be publicly noticed and suggested the review could be ongoing and take 12 to 24 months, depending on scope. Staff emphasized that the subcommittee would not itself adopt ordinance changes; any recommendations would return to the full commission and then to the Board of County Commissioners with public hearings.

Members of the public also urged faster work on specific topics. One commenter urged a countywide moratorium on new data center approvals while the county updates its ordinances and provided a list of suggested ordinance provisions (setbacks, groundwater testing, monitoring, decommissioning plans and emergency response requirements); staff and commissioners noted that the subcommittee is intended to address such policy gaps over time, but the committee itself will be advisory and not a permitting body.

Action and vote: The commission approved formation of the plan commission subcommittee by voice vote. The staff memo recommended subcommittee membership and noted the commission would appoint members and solicit citizen candidates; the commission named initial volunteers and asked staff to schedule an organizational meeting and public notice. Outcome: approved (voice vote).