Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPetition for Voluntary Disannexation - 3939 PortageSeptember 8, 2026 Mr. John Rosetto 3939 Portage Rd. South Bend, IN 46628 jrosetto@comcast.net RE: Disannexation Petition Dear Mr. Rosetto: At its September 8, 2026 meeting, The Board of Public Works reviewed your petition requesting disannexation of the property located at 3939 Portage Avenue. After reviewing the petition and the applicable requirements under Indiana Code 36-4-3-17, the Board has determined that the petition does not meet the statutory requirements. Therefore, your request for disannexation is denied. A staff report with additional details is included for your records. Sincerely, /s/Hillary Horvath Hillary Horvath, Clerk STAFF REPORT Petition for Dis-annexation of property from the City of South Bend, Indiana Prepared by: Brian Killen, Zoning Administrator, Department of Community Investment General Information Petitioner: John Rosetto, Sr. (owner of 100% of land proposed for dis-annexation) Property Location: 3939 Portage Road, South Bend, IN 46628 Size/land use/Population: 1.76 acres / residential use / 2 residents Tax Key: 025-1046-0969 Current net assessment (2026): $28,680 = ($94,800 (gross value) – $66,720 (deductions)) Current zoning: S2 Suburban Neighborhood 2 District City of South Bend Council District: 1, Canneth Lee Context The property proposed for dis-annexation is currently at the city – county boundary, off Portage Road. The property owner is not currently on City-owned utilities and has private well and septic. The petitioner is requesting that the land be dis-annexed due to ongoing issues and frustrations with city services such as trash service and police finding the owner’s property. Because the property is at the city – county boundary and is not on City- owned utilities this creates an apparent issue with addressing services. The property owner also experiences issues with mail delivery so has posted both his city and county address on his mailbox. City of South Bend sanitary sewers and water lines of varying sizes exist adjacent to the dis- annexation area along Portage Road. The property was annexed into the City of South Bend in 2004 per ordinance #9483-04. Staff Comments A threshold question is whether the petitioner meets the criteria to file a petition under Indiana Code 36-4-3-17. The petitioner must either own: 1. (F)ifty-one percent (51%) or more in number of the lots in an addition or subdivision to a municipality; or 2. Contiguous territory within the corporate boundaries of a municipality, constituting not less than one (1) entire block, if platted, and not less than one (1) acre, if not platted; Here, petitioner has not submitted proof that the property is in an addition or subdivision. The property of 3939 Portage was annexed into the City of South Bend in 2004 under annexation order 9483-04 when it was previously denoted as 52423 Portage Road. At the time of annexation, this property was already platted and in the subdivision of "Portage Farms" as part of an earlier distinct process; this is clear as the original annexation order references the property as the lots "in the plat of Portage Farms" in its legal description. There are other lots, in the plat of Portage Farms, such that this owner does not own 51% of the subdivision. Furthermore, the second possibility is not satisfied. The property at 3939 Portage Ave is clearly platted. The property class on its ownership card is listed as “1 Family Dwell-Platted Lot”. Its County Low tax record indicates that it is composed of Lots 1,2,3 & 4 in the plat of “Portage Farms”. 3939 Portage, as a single lot, is not an entire block. Nonetheless, the Board of Public Works (BPW) should not grant dis-annexation unless a petitioner demonstrates substantial cause for such dis-annexation. The petitioner in this case does not appear to have an appropriate rationale for the requested dis-annexation. The main reason is the petitioner’s frustration with trash service and at times police finding the property. This by itself does not reach the level of substantial cause. And the petitioner is not requesting any City services or other accommodation as part of this petition. Furthermore, there is a substantial risk with dis-annexation of having to seek annexation back into the City. The property is not currently on City-owned utilities therefore dis- annexation causes no disassociation from the water or sewer network. However, if their existing private well or septic were to fail after dis-annexation, the county health department is unlikely to support new private well or septic in this location due to the proximity of City-owned utilities along Portage Road. Thus, to access City-owned utilities along Portage Road they would have to apply for annexation back into the city. The Zoning Administrator advised/cautioned the petitioner of this scenario. In addition, historically, a petition for dis-annexation rarely occurs. Although there were three petitions before the BPW in the 2000s (one each in 2002, 2006 and 2007), this is the first petition in about twenty (20) years. The BPW did grant those three petitions which are instructive here to distinguish the current petition, because of frustrations of trash and police service finding the location. In 2002, the BPW concluded that, because of the unusual, unique configuration of the real estate, the extension of water and sewer utilities would be cost prohibitive which was substantial cause to grant dis-annexation. In 2006, the BPW concluded there was substantial cause to grant a dis-annexation petition because the property was uniquely located near the University of Notre Dame for the use as a campus “Town Common’. In 2007, the BPW found substantial cause to grant the dis-annexation because of the need for the installation of a right-of-way to facilitate efficient police and fire protection to a residential development. The petitioner has not presented a similar type of substantial cause for dis-annexation. The proposed dis-annexation, unlike the others, would most likely cost the City money in taxes and overhead while providing no tangible benefits; all the other petitions seem to ultimately have been a financial benefit to the City. The petitioner has neighbors within only a few hundred feet who are presumably able to utilize the City services he complains about. Furthermore, this owner only purchased his property in January 2026. The owner's complaints cannot be particularly long standing and are likely to have less drastic potential solutions that have yet to be explored. Finally, there appears to be some confusion on the part of the owner about what exactly dis-annexation may solve (for example, the City is not in any way responsible for the delivery of his mail). Based on the foregoing, Staff does not support the petition and recommends that the BPW deny the petition. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM REVIEW REQUEST FORM Date: August 26, 2026 Name: Brian Killen Department of Public Works – Engineering Division BPW Date: September 8, 2026 Phone Extension: Required Prior to Submittal to Board BPW Attorney X Attorney Name Michael Schmidt Dept. Attorney Attorney Name Purchasing Check the Appropriate Item Type – Required for All Submissions Professional Services Agreement Contract Proposal Open Market Contract Amendment/Addendum Special Purchase, QPA Bid Opening Bid Award Req. to Advertise Title Sheet Quote Opening Quote Award Reject Bids/Quotes Proposal Opening C/O & PCA No. PCA Chg. Order, No. Traffic Control Resolution Other: Petition for Voluntary Dis-Annexation Ease./Encroach Required Information Company or Vendor Name John Rosetto – 3939 Portage Rd. New Vendor Yes If Yes, Approved by Purchasing No MBE/WBE Contractor MBE WBE Completed E-Verify Form Attached Yes No Project Name Project Number Funding Source Account No. Amount Terms of Contract Special Contract Provisions Purpose/Description For Change Orders Only Amount of Increase Decrease $ ($ ) Previous Amount $ Current Percent of Change: Increase Decrease % ( %) New Amount $ Total Percent of Change: Increase Decrease % ( %) Time Extension Amount: New Completion Date: