May 22, 2009

The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on May 22, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, IN.

Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Mike Haller, Kelly Cadwell, Harvey Nix, Tim Cole, Joey Larr, Ray Joseph and Robert W. Thompson Jr. Also present was Toni Byers.

The following cases were heard by the Committee on this date:

Mace subdivision primary plat.

Alex Fabian stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter.   

Mr. Thompson stated that this was in front of the Plan Commission some time ago. They’ve been working on drainage issues, and they also have a Variance.  The Variance is from the Storm Water Standards, Section 7.28 of the UDO, for water to flow offsite and from installation of the water quality features for a proposed subdivision to be located.

Mr. Fabian stated that he is from Torrenga Surveying.  From his understanding, what the Variance was is there is a berm that runs along the East and North sides of the entire site. The Plan Commission wanted them to purchase an easement on the East and North sides of the lot and move that berm to where every single drop of water that would hit the berm would go back onsite, not inside the parcel, as we have it shown here.  They also wanted them to install forebays along the swale that runs along the base of the berm.  That’s what the Variances that they sought were.

Mr. Thompson asked how many lots it is.

Mr. Fabian stated, 2.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she’s hearing that the useable acreage for Lot 1 is .86 acres.  Is that correct?

Mr. Fabian stated that he’s assuming that that is correct.  He believes that was supplied to them by Soil Solutions.  

Ms. Cadwell stated that to issue a well and septic permit for a lot they would have to have one acre of useable.  They would not be able to issue a permit for this lot as it is now.  Originally they have a drawing when they originally submitted this subdivision, and it showed the fill area…where is the fill area?

Mr. Fabian stated that it should be the light line that goes around.

Ms. Cadwell stated that originally when they submitted this, the fill area was the entire top portion of the lot, so the area where they’re showing that fill is currently much smaller than the area that existed earlier.  Is the fill area accurately marked?

Mr. Fabian stated that it should be.  As far as he knows, nothing was changed since the last time they were in here.  Something had to have been changed, because if you look at the site plan for Lot 1, they said the useable acreage is 1 acre.  He’s wondering if something was changed on the site plan for Lot 1, and the changes weren’t made to the first sheet in the drawing.   Yeah, Lot 1 shows useable acres as 1 acre.

Ms. Cadwell stated that if he’s talking about those berms they’re going to put in…she knows they’re going to have a detention area going along the driveway?

Mr. Fabian stated that there’s actually two detention areas.  There’s one on either side of the driveway.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she thinks all those have been subtracted. She’s guessing where some of the useable acreage went.  There were a lot of issues at the time that they submitted these originally:  Getting a well and septic permit – they needed mounds, specialty mounds that had to do with the drainage outlet, so her caution to him is that the area of the septic needs to be protected.

Mr. Nix stated that he said that where they’re building this berm on the North end and on the East side that there’s going to be like forebays in there, too?

Mr. Fabian stated, no, that’s what they sought the Variance for.  What their engineer determined is that the slope wasn’t really great enough from one end of the lot to the other to install forebays.  It would actually create little pockets of water back there and it would breed mosquitoes.

Mr. Nix stated, so, when this water is coming off like the Riddles at the top on Lot 2 and it goes North, when it gets into that corner, is it going to be brought back a different way?

Mr. Fabian stated that there’s a swale that’s actually the base of this berm, and the water flows in that swale, goes North and then follows the swale along West until you get into Lot 1 and it discharges into two ponds that they have.

Mr. Larr stated that they will have to file for Rule 5, as well as the local erosion control ordinance permit.

Mr. Thompson stated that he read off the Variance application and kept referring to the UDO. This application was in prior to the UDO approval, so we have to go by the old ordinances that were in place, which open space is storm water is in place, but the lot configuration they have does follow the old code and is acceptable…meets code requirements from the old subdivision. Regarding drainage, the concern was that there was two watersheds and it was shedding off into the Northeast, but they would have to bring it back to the West, if he remembers.

Mr. Fabian stated that the swale runs to the West.

Mr. Thompson stated, so they are bringing all of Lot 2 back across into Lot 1 and into the culverts that are existing.  And DLZ said they had to bring the water back. They have a legitimate outlet on this.  He’s assuming the fill that Ms. Cadwell was talking about was because of the motocross track that was out there.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she thinks so.

Mr. Thompson asked if that’s stopped.

Mr. Fabian stated, yes.  To his knowledge, that was without the owner’s permission.  

Mr. Thompson stated that this was heard at a public hearing at the Plan Commission, but it was some time ago, September 28, 2007 – no, that was the last DAC hearing. There was even a Plan Commission meeting after that.  But, it was at a public hearing, so this will be coming back as pending business.  Did they get the DLZ letter?

Mr. Fabian stated, yes.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s still a little puzzled that the Variance doesn’t seem to be any different than the one  addressed in the meeting in January, at which time it says in the minutes that it was approved.

Mr. Thompson asked, the Variance for the storm water?

Mr. Cole stated, yeah.

Mr. Thompson stated that they were asking for forebays, which is the water quality…

Mr. Cole stated, okay, so we’ve changed that DLZ came back, because it said there’s a DLZ report, but there’s no indication of what that report said.

Mr. Thompson stated that the BZA does sometimes require a drainage report, and he doesn’t see one here.   He’s sure he can go up there and find all the forms submitted to us, and he will make sure they’re included with all the Plan Commission staff reports.

Mr. Cole stated that he would also like to see, for  the record, the letter from Mrs. Janet Hiple of Champaign, IL, since she did not have an opportunity to speak at the public hearing.

Mr. Fabian stated that he has that here.

Mr. Cole stated that Mr. Whitcomb and Mrs. Hiple have strong concerns about the drainage and he needs to know that the configuration now satisfies them.

Mr. Fabian stated that that letter was given to him the second BZA meeting that they had, and approval was pending whether or not DLZ said that the runoff would be reduced by the installation of the improvements that they have, and that’s what this letter says, that they’ve exceeded the 2-year release rate by three times, and the 100-year release rate by eight times.   

Mr. Cole stated that the only concerns he would have at this point would be that this property be properly secured and marked so that no more trespassing occurs on it.

Mr. Breitzke stated that Janet Hiple is 1506 Sandpiper Lane, Champaign, IL.  Is she part of the McCormick Trust, or what is her relationship with anything?

Mr. Fabian stated, from what he understands, he guesses that just from reading the letter, she is on the West side of CR 40 E. and he’s not sure if she is to the North or to the South of Mr. Whitcomb.  She stated in there that after the water runs underneath the road, it runs under the road and then flows onto her property, after Mr. Whitcomb’s. He’s not sure what direction the water runs after it goes underneath the road.

Issues raised were to be sure there is 1 acre useable on Lot 1 and where is the fill?; protect septic area; Rule 5; show all DLZ reports; secure the property.

Joseph Francis pre-BZA review for UV for landscape business at 127 N. 750 W.

Mr. Thompson stated that they want to operate a small landscaping business with inside storage of vehicles and equipment and a 75 by 50 foot pole barn to be located approximately at 127 N. 750 W.  There are no plans and they are not here.

Mr. Larr stated that he was at their house last week.  It is a single pole barn detached from the house.  He sits on like 3.5 to 4 acres and is well-maintained. There was no equipment showing outside. Everything was inside the pole barn.

Mr. Haller asked if it says in the file how this case originated. Was it a code enforcement issue or a hand-me-down?

Mr. Larr stated that he thinks some equipment was seen outside the pole barn.

Mr. Cole stated that there is some property with a gate down in the hollow just North of this about a quarter of a mile, and the gate has hours of operation on it.  It’s been out of operation for a long time, but he’s curious just what went on in there, if maybe that should be brought to our attention.

Mr. Larr asked if there were any sandpits back there before.

Mr. Thompson stated that there is a sandpit back there.

Mr. Larr stated that he will inspect it.

Mr. Thompson stated that he thinks it’s Tressmer.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 a.m.