VANDERBURGH COUNTY

DRAINAGE BOARD

APRIL 28, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Drainage Board met in session this 28^th day of April, 2003 at 6:33 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President Catherine Fanello presiding.

President Fanello: Call to order Vanderburgh County Drainage Board meeting, April 28^th.

President Fanello: First item on the agenda is to approve the board meeting minutes from March 24^th and from April 7^th.

Commissioner Crouch: So moved.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

President Fanello: Mr. Jeffers, Old Business.

Bill Jeffers: Under Old Business we have a report on the Jones obstruction removal on Sheridan Drive. As you know we took bids on that in case the Jones family did not start the removal of that on their own. The bid was for $500. The Jones family was notified if they didn’t start by today that we would let the contract. They started last week, and have dug out a trench, and are finishing the side banks of that trench to turn it into a nice swale. Since they took a good, or have made a good faith effort for it’s completion, the County Surveyor recommends that we not let the contract unless it’s necessary, and give them the opportunity to finish the job along with the other neighbors.

Commissioner Mosby: I’ll make a motion that we accept the Surveyor’s recommendation.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Under drainage plans, the first one is Bridlewood, Section Six, final drainage plan. It has been reviewed by the County Surveyor, found to be compliant with the requirements of the drainage ordinance. It does have an erosion control plan attached, which was forwarded to SWCD for their review and approval. The County Surveyor would ask are there any persons in the audience wishing to speak to Stonecrest, Section Six, final drainage plans. Seeing none. I would recommend the approval of the final drainage plan for Stonecrest, Section Six.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Oh, I must have took them backwards. Let’s see, Bridlewood, Section Six, same comments. The Surveyor recommends approval of Bridlewood, Section Six, as well. Actually, it’s a combined subdivision. It’s two pieces that were put together.

President Fanello: (Inaudible. Mike not on.)

Bill Jeffers: Seeing none. I would recommend approval of Bridlewood Subdivision, Section Six, final drainage plan.

Commissioner Crouch: So moved.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: The next one is Windham Hill. The plan is here for viewing, if anyone wishes to view it. Windham Hill, Section Two, it’s a final plan. Again, it was reviewed by the County Surveyor, found to be compliant with the ordinance. There is an erosion control plan incorporated into it. The erosion control plan has been made available to SWCD for their review and approval. Are there any persons wishing to speak to Windham Hill Subdivision, Section Two? Seeing none, the County Surveyor recommends approval of the final drainage plan for Windham Hill Subdivision, Section Two.

Commissioner Crouch: So moved.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: The next drainage plan is titled 3H Investments, LLC. It’s a final plan located on Highway 41 up near the 4H Center. It’s a small parcel development into a commercial site. The engineer for the project is in the audience, Mr. Nicholson. The County Surveyor has reviewed the plan, found it to be compliant with the drainage ordinance, and would ask are there any persons wishing to speak to 3H Investments, LLC, final plan? Seeing none, the County Surveyor recommends approval of 3H Investments, LLC, final plan.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Next item is Cross Pointe, Section 1-A. It’s a preliminary plan. It’s actually a modification of a plan that was already approved for Builder’s Square, located in Cross Pointe. There is some modifications being made to allow another commercial venture to go in there. Basically, the modifications are the elimination of some detention basins, and their replacement with a large detention basin behind the old Builder’s Square building. The County Surveyor has reviewed the drainage plan and found it to be compliant with the drainage ordinance, and recommends approval of Cross Pointe, Section 1-A.

President Fanello: Anyone in the audience? Is there a motion?

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Windemere Farms, Section Five is a residential subdivision south of and adjacent to Windemere Farms, Section Four. It’s a preliminary plan. That’s out on Highway 57, south of Kansas Road, north of Oak Hill Road. For those in the audience that are not familiar with our process, a preliminary plan is a conceptual plan, and allows the developer to present his conceptual lay out with regard to drainage before he goes to Area Plan Commission. That way after the Area Plan Commission hearing, if there are any conditions added to the plat, or if there are any folks who come in with comments that should be addressed, those are incorporated into the review of the final plan. Which you may anticipate to come back to us 30 days from now on Tuesday, May 25^th, I believe, the day after Memorial Day at 4:30 in the afternoon. The County Surveyor has reviewed Windemere Farms, Section Five, preliminary plan and found it to be compliant with the ordinance requirements, and would ask if anybody has a comment to make on that project at this time. Seeing none, the County Surveyor recommends approval of Windemere Farms, Section Five, preliminary plan.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: The next project is Spring Lake Valley. It’s a preliminary drainage plan. For those who are not familiar with it, it’s the same parcel that came to us as Highland Pointe some months ago. It’s been scaled down to, I believe, 190–

Unidentified: 149.

Bill Jeffers: –149 lots. It had been 300 and–

Unidentified: 270.

Bill Jeffers: –270, excuse me. Had been 270, it’s been scaled down to 149 lots. The critical grades that we had been very concerned about in the last review, around the hillsides that surround the valley, the developer has laid back off of those hillsides, and set them aside as un-buildable out lots to remain in their current topographic condition. He’s indicated to the County Surveyor that he intends to grow, most likely, grass crops, such as wheat and other grass crops that would produce grain and straw to stabilize those slopes. He has a large creek running through the middle of it. He would like that to remain, or be converted to as natural a creek as possible. Those are the, essentially the major differences between this and the Highland Pointe proposal is the reduction to 149 lots, the low impact on drainage, the low impact development with regard to drainage by setting aside out lots that will remain un-buildable, and will be stabilized by grass crops, and the fact that he’s enlarged the basin and laid it along the railroad track rather than in the interior of the subdivision. He’s gone along the railroad track with a very elongated, wide basin to provide a buffer between the railroad tracks and the lots. Calculations show it’s around 7 ½ times the size that would be required to attain his required detention. He’s actually accomplishing about 7 ½ times the required detention. It also, some of the issues that came up in the previous submittal was the floodway, and the proximity of the homes to the floodway, some of the homes. That’s now not an issue, because of the way he’s aligned the detention basin. Those are some of the high points that I’d wanted to touch on before I opened for discussion. The lowered impact that this development has on the drainage by the more reasonable, not more reasonable, the more effective placement of the detention basin, and the establishment of cover crop on the periphery of the subdivision on the high grades that we were the most concerned about, building houses on those steep grades. That’s all been eliminated. Generally the way we take this is that the developer or his representatives present the plan, and then the remonstrators make their comments. The developer and his representative are available to answer your questions. Or would you rather take the remonstrators first, and have the–

Commissioner Mosby: Just see what the remonstrators–

Bill Jeffers: Take the remonstrators first and have the developer answer the questions? Might be briefer. Okay.

President Fanello: Are there any remonstrators in the audience? Okay. I don’t know who wants to go first, but if you would please come to the microphone and state your name and address.

Michael Thomas: Good afternoon, Commission. Thank you for allowing us to be here. My name is Michael Thomas. My wife and I own 70 acres to the west of the proposed housing development on Mohr Road. This is immediately across the railroad track. I don’t see a plat of it at this moment, but we’re to the west, okay, downstream. My primary income is growing grain, livestock, and hay for the many people that farmers now feed. I’m one of the farmers, thank goodness, and, hopefully, our food supply is stable. Teddy, I’ll have to say, has come a long way on my thoughts and views of our previous engagement. Teddy, I commend you for pulling the number of houses down, pulling down off of the highly erodible melvin type soils, hosmer clays, and getting off the limestone. I commend you. My number one concern is naturally drainage and flooding. The plans call for a major fill, and the good news here tonight is that I have not got a copy of the retention reservoir. So, that’s a good feeling on my part. The plans call for a major fill-in of the flood plain. I’m the guy on the other side of the ditch. I’m the guy on the other side of the creek. One guy on one side fills his side in, what happens to you. Mr. Mosby knows, related to the river bottoms maybe that one man’s fill can be another man’s just major problem. So, if that’s developed on that side, I’m very concerned about that. Now, my concern is how much deeper will the water get on my side than on Teddy’s side, if he fills his side in. But, again, in the last few minutes, the news I’ve heard is eight times as large retention reservoir? Not a bad plan. I’m feeling better already. Okay. My long range question is, if I would get flooded out, just like if you built a home, the other guy fills in, and the water runs through your back door and out the front door, who’s responsible? So, as a neighbor that farms for a living, my land that’s all I have, you know. I’m very concerned about that. The second concern, I see no provisions for a terrace system between, thank goodness Teddy has come down off the hills. I see no provisions on the copy I received of a terrace system, or a swale, as we could call it, between the hill the slope and the homes that are being built. Now, why would I want this? Why would I want that for somebody else? Well, imagine if you live below a major watershed, and it rained a 5" rain, and I’ve seen it out here. Haven’t we, Teddy? We’ve seen 5" rains. Water everywhere. You got up in the morning, and your wife goes to the back kitchen door, and says, “Oh my God, there’s water coming in our kitchen.” Well, with a swale, or a contoured terrace around the hills, this might prevent water coming in your back door and flowing out your front door. It can happen. We’ve seen it happen. Alright, enough of that. Now, remember that we’ve got, what, 250 acres in this valley? About total, Teddy? That’s taking in all the whole, Mohr Road, Darmstadt Road, and Laubscher Road basin. That’s a lot of water. A lot of water. My third concern, drainage and flooding. I see no provision for major sediment retention reservoir. Thank goodness I can almost eliminate this concern, because of the eight times as big retention reservoir. Very important to someone that lives in a low lying area. For the neighbor, let’s say the creek came up, which I have pictures of. May I?

Bill Jeffers: If you, if you present them to the Board, the Board–

Michael Thomas: Do they keep them?

Bill Jeffers: –keeps them. Keeps the pictures.

Michael Thomas: Alright, can I select them then?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir.

Michael Thomas: Alright, that’s not a problem.

Bill Jeffers: They can make them available for you to get copies at a later date.

Michael Thomas: I had copies last time, but this time (Inaudible. Away from mike.) Here we go, now, I was talking about the sediment retention reservoir. Why it is so important. A while ago when I opened, I started about saying, hey, if this guy fills in on this side, this guy doesn’t, the guy that doesn’t suffers. How? Well, it all depends on how much it rains. That’s a shot off of Mohr Road looking south over and parallel with the railroad track. Okay, sediment retention reservoir, very, very critical for anyone. In this case, if Teddy’s group does not build a levy around this, I’ll be thrilled, because it will also catch the water that comes off of the subdivision, but it will also, as it permeates down into the soil in the summertime, it will act as a catch basin and a reservoir. Now, that’s very important, because if the creek does come up, it adds all this capacity to the flood plain that we’ve eliminated by building houses. So, there’s compensation there is what I’m trying...this is how important this sediment retention reservoir is. As a farmer I use them all the time. I have to, to control run off, for sediment retention. I farm, well, I farmed the farm that Teddy owns, for years. I have other farms like it, and I have to construct sediment retention basins to hold any run off from going into our stream. So, I’m very much in favor of that. Alright, now, on this sediment retention reservoir we also have to remember that there is only a 48" sewer pipe at the railroad? You’ve got to remember, this whole subdivision depends on that 48". A whole 140 families living in a house, according to how much rain we get. It’s gotta go through a 48" tile. If the creek’s full below that, let’s say it’s backed up from the landfill up, which I’ve seen it, that’s what those pictures are of, then the water has to spread and go someplace. Of course, that’s one of my concerns. Now, this 48" sewer pipe, if it can’t take it...let’s say the creek is full below it, and it’s holding it back, then the water is going to be coming down from Darmstadt, which this watershed north on East Locust goes all the way to Darmstadt. This water is going to be flowing south, southwest, and it just hammers this spot right in here that we’re talking about. It hammers me, it hammers Teddy’s place, and it hammers Richard Moll’s, and Doc Bazal’s, four farms. I mean, it hammers us. What I mean by hammering, “Oh, my God!” It’s deep as the running board on the car type. So, very, very important the sediment retention reservoir. For Teddy, the most important thing about it, it’s his soil source. It’s a two way win-win. It’s a win for the developer, it’s a win for anybody around, because it’s a place for the extra water to go. It’s also a filtration sediment dropping area for anything that runs off, and goes into this sediment retention basin, fine, that’s what it’s for. Now, also I’m concerned about some water quality that this place, in particular, Teddy and I can relate to this, there’s a lot of springs on it. This is one of the problems with it when I was farming it. But, there’s some beautiful artesian springs. I mean, I didn’t really want to bring this up, Teddy, I thought you might go into the bottled water business, which would be good. I’d even go with you in on that. There’s artesian springs on here, and they’ll have to be addressed, because, you know, these waters are coming out of the limestone rock and going to the creek. So, anyway, there’s several, like six springs that need to be tiled. Several of them are, but they can’t just be capped, because, believe it or not, barometric pressure affects how a natural spring works. That doesn’t sound right, but let’s face it, today barometric pressure went down, a lot of these springs started running water this morning or last night. I can prove that to you. I can take you to five of them, even on my place. Beautiful days, sun’s out, barometric pressure up, the springs dry up, except a couple, because they are coming out of the direct limestone. Okay, now, I’m going to get to the last one, the fifth and last most drainage concern to me is, will, what are we going to do with the extra ground around it? Part of that was addressed maybe by our Surveyor. When Teddy pulled down off the hills, what’s he going to do? I think I was answered previously by some type of grass and recreation. Or is it going to be used for food production? Whatever the use, I hope it will be managed with conservation compliance. Okay? Again, I’ll take questions. I’m the farmer in the group. I sent a couple of kids to Purdue off of some of the meager proceeds from Teddy’s farm. They didn’t live in very good housing though, Ted. That’s my concern as a neighbor, as a farmer, as a conservationist. I’ll entertain any questions.

Bill Jeffers: You got one?

Commissioner Fanello: No, I don’t. I was going to see if anybody else did.

Bill Jeffers: I will just say, Mr. Thomas, on the terrace system, I believe you’re talking about protective grading around the homes where the water comes down the back slope–

Michael Thomas: See, that’s it.

Bill Jeffers: –that’s been where we bench into–

Michael Thomas: Right.

Bill Jeffers: –okay, we use HUD, Housing and Urban Development, protective details, it’s a part of our drainage ordinance.

Michael Thomas: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: It shows exactly how a hillside home has to be graded, so that the water coming down the back slope is intercepted in mid-yard and taken like a horse shoe shape–

Michael Thomas: Diverted around.

Bill Jeffers: –around and between the homes and out to the street. So, that terrace system is not shown on the original drainage plan here. It will be shown on the final drainage plan, both in detail, and the HUD housing details, federal housing details, those will be referred to. Those are what’s used by the industry to make sure that the lot’s insurable.

Michael Thomas: So, there is provisions for a contour to protect the homes?

Bill Jeffers: Yes, sir, absolutely.

Michael Thomas: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: In the drainage ordinance they have to–

Michael Thomas: Well, this farm can look like Niagra Falls in a 5" rain.

Bill Jeffers: Right.

Michael Thomas: I’ve been there, done that. I mean, it’s just overwhelming. The

poor unsuspecting homeowner–

Bill Jeffers: These have been used to real good effect. Keystone was a good example, they used those out there to a very good effect, but they have to be used on every drainage plan that we pass. The sediment retention reservoir, that large, where you show the pictures where the water is standing, that’s where their sediment retention reservoir will be.

Michael Thomas: That’s my scare. That’s been my worry for two years.

Bill Jeffers: Mr. Teddy Stucki will have to, it appears to me since he’s not moving dirt off those hillsides for fill, that’s why that retention basin has gotten so large is he needs the fill. Is that correct? You’ve done your cut, some of your preliminary cuts and fills, and determined that they need to oversize that reservoir. So, even any amount of silt that might go into that reservoir could be re-excavated at a later date–

Michael Thomas: Reclaimed.

Bill Jeffers: –and reclaimed. That’s large enough that it should suffice.

Michael Thomas: Eight times?

Bill Jeffers: That’s what the calculations show. Eight times more detention than what’s required.

Michael Thomas: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Bill Jeffers: We also feel that’s more than enough compensatory retention for what’s being displaced in the flood plain.

Michael Thomas: The first one was 2 ½, so we might get 16 acres out of this. (Inaudible. Away from mike.) I’m playing with them.

Jim Morley, Jr.: You’re talking on the square footage?

Bill Jeffers: Between now and our final drainage plan, we’ll take a very close look at it.

Michael Thomas: Alright.

Bill Jeffers: Because I hope that we’ll all be able to take a field trip together; Mr. Thomas. Mr. Stucki and his engineers and myself, because these six springs must be identified on the final drainage plan, and they must be addressed in such a way that they will not adversely affect crawl spaces, street foundations, etcetera. So, I would ask that Mr. Stucki allow Mr. Thomas and myself and his representatives to all take a field trip and identify these six springs, so that the final drainage plan will address them. The extra ground around the lots, this is where Mr. Stucki has pulled back off the steep grades. I have encouraged him privately, and I’ll make it public at this time, what I’m asking Mr. Stucki to do is to agree to talk to Darrell Reis from Natural Resource Conservation Service, which is a USDA branch. The representative here in town is Darrell Reis, talk to him about conservation tilling, which is a method of leaving organic material on the surface of the ground as you develop your wheat or your grass crop. Rotate your grass crop so that you’re not growing wheat after wheat and developing fungus problems. Grow some other recommended grains. Mr. Reis will talk to you about that. I agree with Mr. Mike Thomas that conservation tilling methods should be used to your benefit, and the rotation of grass crops would also be to your benefit. I think what Mr. Stucki is after here is to continue to grow a food crop. At the same time he can realize straw for his landscaping business–

Michael Thomas: I would agree.

Bill Jeffers: –and the other–

Michael Thomas: Good management.

Bill Jeffers: –silt retention, you know, using straw bales on the site for silt retention, and that type of thing. The only thing I didn’t touch on, Mr. Thomas, is the 48" pipe capacity, and I’ll let the civil engineers talk about that.

Michael Thomas: Questions? Thank you.

President Fanello: Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Let me know when you’re ready to take that field trip.

Michael Thomas: Bring your cup.

President Fanello: Is there anyone else wishing to speak?

Kevin Snodgrass: Good evening. My name is Kevin Snodgrass. I live right up side, right up the road just beside Mr. Thomas’ property. I just have a couple quick questions. I believe you, Mr. Jeffers already answered one of them. The fill coming off the property, since we’re not excavating the hillside, we’re obviously going to get it from this retention area. Is there enough fill there, enough good fill to build up the height we need out of that retention area? If there’s not enough fill there, or enough quality of fill there, is there another source to get the fill from to fill the property without having to touch that hillside? Is there more than enough there? If they get into it, and they find out the fill quality isn’t there, is there another source of fill so that we know we’ve got enough ground to build this up? My second question, the, I guess, we’re going to farm the hillside. Who’s responsible for farming that hillside? Is that property actually part of the development? Is Mr. Stucki going to retain that as personal property? How is that hillside going to be maintained for longevity? Obviously, the people buying these houses aren’t farmers. So, they aren’t going to be able to farm their backyard to preserve this hillside. So, what guarantees do they have that for the duration of the 30 years, or whatever they own their homes, that this is going to be farmed? Which my understanding it’s going to be necessary to maintain that grade to farm it with a grass crop or have something permanent planted there. What do they do when someone stops farming it? The other question is, the retention area, who is ultimately responsible for maintaining that retention area? You know, I’ve heard a lot about fill and sediment in it, who’s going to be responsible to go back and clean that sediment out periodically, as it needs done? Maintain, we’re talking a large body of water that’s going to vary in depth that’s going to become a mosquito breeding ground, who’s going to actually maintain that area for cleanliness and the upkeep? Are the few people who live along side of it going to be financially responsible for it? That’s (Inaudible).

Bill Jeffers: Mr. Snodgrass, on the fill source, it’s the owner, Mr. Stucki, and his engineers responsibility to do the soil testing and the soil boring to determine how much of that dirt is actually suitable for fill.

Kevin Snodgrass: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: They will have to do that responsibly. If they run into fill dirt that’s not suitable to build a home on as fill dirt, they will have to waste that dirt somewhere, and, yes, they will have to go to another source, and import dirt from another source. When that occurs, if it occurs after this fall, under the new phase II storm water control, they will have to identify that source. In other words, what I’m saying here is I anticipate he’ll do this in phases. I don’t think he’ll do the whole 68 acres in one chunk. You can probably anticipate the first phase to be the sewer pump station out on Mohr Road, and say the first 50, whatever, lots back in that section that abuts Mohr Road. I know there’s enough suitable fill on that site to do that. That will probably take him the better part of the next year. Then when he phases in to the back portion along the creek channel, he will be under the new phase II regulations, and he will have to identify any sources of fill, whether they be on the site, or imported. When he goes to imported fill, he will have to identify who’s in control of that, and what quality it is, etcetera, under new phase II guidelines. So, I wouldn’t worry too much about that. I doubt that he will use any unstable or unsuitable fill for any road work, because the County Highway Engineer and his inspectors will be watching that very closely to make sure any fill that’s put in a road bed is also suitable. Farming the hillsides, this is what Mr. Stucki told me he wants to do. But, let’s look at reality, that’s an un-buildable lot. It can’t have any homes, or any structures built on it. So, really it’s only available as background vegetation, which, at this point, is row crops. We’re encouraging conservation tilling and grass crops. In reality that land is available for purchase by adjacent lot owners, whether they be in Mr. Stucki’s subdivision, or whether they be in the adjacent, larger estate size subdivisions, who originally raised a considerable remonstrance about having these smaller lots butting up against them. Now they have the opportunity to buy that ground. The ground is for sale. I would not turn down a reasonable offer for any of that ground if I were a developer. Generally speaking, the people that surround that proposed development maintain their yards very nice, tight lawns, or wooded, park-like setting. That’s what I would anticipate if they bought it, they would stop farming, and convert that to sod, or park land, wood land type maintenance. So, that would be even more stable than grass crop or a row crop. Otherwise, and like I said, I have recommended to Mr. Stucki, and he has agreed to meet with Darrell Reis and look into some of the conservation tilling methods, some of the grass crops or pasture crops that would benefit that hillside. I would anticipate seeing it someday as a hay field or individual parcels bought and attached to adjacent properties, and maintained as yards. So, that would address that ownership issue there.

Kevin Snodgrass: So, right now it’s not actually part of the subdivision?

Bill Jeffers: It’s part of the subdivision as an out lot.

Kevin Snodgrass: As an out lot.

Bill Jeffers: Un-buildable out lots. Individual, un-buildable out lots. It has, he’s shown a subdivision plat that has a boundary, and anything in there that’s not divided up into a building lot has to be shown as something else.

Kevin Snodgrass: Un-buildable ground.

Bill Jeffers: So, it’s un-buildable out lots at this time, which means it remains available for use by the property owner of record, Mr. Stucki, and his business partners can use it. They’ve indicated they want to use it as agricultural ground, but being a business person you would probably understand that if there’s a reasonable offer made for that land, by adjacent landowners, the, I mean, it’s probably going to sell.

Kevin Snodgrass: Oh, okay.

Bill Jeffers: It would be attached to a, you know, adjacent lots.

Kevin Snodgrass: Okay. My concern is the ground is going to be, the integrity of the slope is going to be protected.

Bill Jeffers: I understand that–

Kevin Snodgrass: That the crop on it is going to be–

Bill Jeffers: –and under our local erosion control ordinance, each landowner is responsible for preventing erosion or addressing erosion on their individual lots, so that the erosion doesn’t cause siltation on an adjacent lot.

Kevin Snodgrass: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: So, anytime you would have erosion on one of these lots, whether it’s a large out lot owned by Mr. Stucki and his partners, or whether it was an individual parcel that may be chopped up out of an out lot and owned by an adjacent landowner, whether over in the large estate lots, or one of these lots wanting to expand their ground. Each individual lot owner, property owner is responsible, under the local erosion control ordinance to prevent erosion, arrest erosion, and clean up the effects of erosion if it goes on to someone else’s property. So, that goes with the ownership of the property. Long term maintenance on the retention area remains the responsibility of the individual lot owners who’s lot lines cross that detention basin. That detention basin is owned by a couple of handful of lots along the detention basin. Their property line crosses the basin. That’s expressed on the plat. It’s also expressed in the covenants and restrictions that will be recorded for this subdivision. Each lot owner is responsible for the shore line condition, whether that be arresting erosion, promoting grass growth, mowing weeds, anything associated with the maintenance of that lake, collecting floatable debris. Everything up to repairing the outlets. The county will receive funds from Mr. Stucki, $2 a lineal foot, from the pipe structures, and if one of those pipe structures fails, the county will replace it. Other than that, the mowing, picking up litter, etcetera, is the responsibility of the individual lot owners. If they wish, and many of them do, they form a lake owners association that is composed of each of the people who has a shore line, and shares the use of that lake, and then they collect annual dues, and say they don’t want to go out and mow it or pick up the trash, they hire a maintenance crew, or a contractor.

Kevin Snodgrass: How deep is this retention going to be? Average.

Bill Jeffers: Well, it’s going to be surely greater than 6' deep, and up to...have you all done your cuts and fills yet?

Jim Morley, Jr.: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Bill Jeffers: Yeah, at least six to prevent cat tails and promote water quality.

Kevin Snodgrass: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: You know, so algae can’t grow up from the bottom of the lake, and so cat tails don’t, but I would imagine, you know, whatever it requires until they hit the type of soil that they can’t use. But, I would say at least 6', probably 8' to 10'.

Kevin Snodgrass: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: I believe, if I’m not mistaken, that covers the questions you had. Unless you have one for one of the engineers.

Kevin Snodgrass: No, that covered them all. Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Thank you, Kevin.

President Fanello: We have someone else over here needing to speak. Please, go ahead.

Dixie Wagner: My name is Dixie Wagner. I live at 8444 Kneer, and that’s north and west of this proposal. I’ve lived in that area for 40 years, except for a couple of years, when I was first married, and I moved to town. I’ve pretty well spent my whole life in that area, and I have to say, number one, I’m just so surprised that anyone is even going to try to develop this land. Because it’s just wet, mostly all the time. I mean, when the creek comes out of it’s bank, a lot of this property is under water from the area I can see on Mohr Road. For probably the first time in my life, about two years ago, St. Joe Avenue was closed out in the area where I live because of flooding. Every year the flooding in that area gets worse. We were told when the landfill was expanded that there would be no increase in flooding in the area, and there has been. I mean, there is no doubt that there has been. For years, well, I own 2 ½ acres that my house sits on. My mother passed away, and I now own 13 acres that she had. She had six beautiful Colorado blue spruces. It has become so wet out there, they can’t survive anymore. If a spruce has wet feet, it dies. We’ve lost all of those spruce trees. I have other ones that luckily I planted on high ground. Another example, my neighbor, who lives just right across Kneer from me has not yet been able to mow his grass, because his yard is too wet. Now, when I was a child and grew up, that was never the case. My mother’s yard is probably, oh, 1/4 of an acre, her front yard. It’s wet the majority of the year now. Even last year when we had pretty much of a drought year, late, late into that drought it was still wet. So, my concern is the amount of fill, how high they are going to fill in? Because, you know, we already have this increased elevation of the landfill, we have all of that extra run off. If he’s going to fill in what basically now is a water storage area to a higher level, that’s going to be more water that goes somewhere else. If you figure the majority of that 70 acres is going to be paved, then you also have that increase in run off. Locust Creek also runs, an unnamed tributary of Locust Creek, runs very near my property. Years ago that section of Locust Creek never got out of it’s banks. It does now. For anyone to tell you there isn’t already a flooding problem in the area is not telling you the truth, because there is. So, my question is, I would like to know how much they are going to raise the elevation? How deep the retention pond is going to be? Because I don’t know how you can calculate that it’s adequate for this development if you don’t know how deep it’s going to be. If they don’t have enough fill from that area to get to whatever elevation they plan to go to, I have another concern about what kind of material they are going to use. Because a lot of areas are now using coal combustion waste. If that’s the case, I would definitely have a problem with that, because there are still people in the area that depend on a well. My mother’s property is on a well, and depending on the kind of fill material, there’s going to be an impact to the ground water, and it would impact people’s wells in that area. So, I think it’s mandatory to know if they can’t get enough adequate fill from this site, what type of fill material they are going to have. Also, on the retention pond, on this site map I got, I really can’t, even with my glasses on it’s too small to really make any sense out of it. I really can’t tell where the retention pond is going to start and stop. I just see an area here that, you know, I can’t tell the boundaries of that, so I would like to know that too. Like I said, it’s hard for me to comment, because the site plan, if it’s possible, I would like to have one that’s maybe a little more readable than this one. I would ask you to look at the cumulative impacts that this subdivision will have, in conjunction with what has already gone on there. One thing is the landfill. There has been other developments that are in higher ground. This area is kind of like a bowl, and this is the low part of the bowl. I’m also a part of the low part of the bowl. I know I’m wetter than I have ever been in my life in that area. My mother’s property is. Everyone I know out there is. I don’t want to see that increase. So, keep in mind that this is, you can’t look at this in a vacuum. You know, were these calculations figured on the elevation that the landfill property is now? Because it’s going to increasingly go up. They are permitted to go 200', and I would guess they’re probably not at half that yet. Now, when you talk about, I don’t know if you’ve been out to the landfill, but it’s fairly steep slopes, and there’s a lot of run off. That run off also goes into Locust Creek. This pond that they are talking about, when it runs over, it will also go into Locust Creek. The retention pond at the landfill, in a heavy rain, already runs over and goes into Locust Creek. So, you’re looking at the possibility of just overloading Locust Creek. It already is at times. It floods the area...I know the area that sits directly on the other side of Mohr Road, that area, which at one time never was flooded, is flooded often now. Okay, my last point is, when they, if they build this retention pond in this area, and depending on what the depth is, are these properties that abut this lake, are they, do they have to form an association to take care of this lake? I’m thinking what if, what if they don’t want to take care of this retention pond? What if they don’t want that responsibility? Then is there going to be someone who will, who will take responsibility? There’s nothing to say that, you know, if I bought one of these lots, maybe I don’t want the hassle of caring for a lake. Now, what do you do if these people don’t want to take control of that? Is there going to be anybody there to do the maintenance that’s required? Thank you.

Commissioner Fanello: Thank you, Dixie. Is there anyone, are there any other–

Bill Jeffers: Ms. Wagner? I can get another copy, if you would like my copy of the full size plat that shows you exactly the lay out.

Dixie Wagner: Okay. Thanks.

Bill Jeffers: Is your property located at (Tape flipped to other side.) Your mom’s was?

Dixie Wagner: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: And so the (Tape change due to malfunction.)

Dixie Wagner: If you, if you traveled west on Mohr Road, you would go up, you would go up a hill, and then you would go down that hill. You turn on Kneer, you go flat, and then you go downhill again.

Bill Jeffers: It was my memory that your mom lived at the north end of the road, and there was a hill behind her house with a ball field on it. I was thinking that you were substantially higher in elevation than this development.

Dixie Wagner: No, the property that is to the north of my mother’s property is a higher elevation.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. How many homes have been built on Kneer Road since, in the 40 years you’ve lived there?

Dixie Wagner: One, two, three, four, six, I think.

Bill Jeffers: With or without drainage plans?

Dixie Wagner: Well, I know we had a drainage plan, but, and we went above and beyond our drainage plan. In order, in order for us to be guaranteed that we’re dry, which we aren’t now, we have all of our down spouts connected to black, perforated pipe. We were required by the Surveyor, I think, to put in a swale. The back of our property is terraced.

Bill Jeffers: When was that built?

Dixie Wagner: ‘94.

Bill Jeffers: I don’t remember reviewing any drainage plans for any house on Kneer Road. The volume of detention in a detention basin is not based on the depth of the basin. It’s based on, from the pool elevation to the top of the dam. Whatever is sitting in the basin, that’s not detention volume at all. That’s just a pool of water. The detention is from wherever the normal pool is before it starts raining, then the water starts coming into the basin, and it rises, and rises, and rises. It’s got a controlled outlet. Only so much water can go out this bottleneck. Like when you’re pouring water out of a bottle, only so much water can come out the neck of that bottle, depending on how tight it’s squeezed. The detention volume is calculated from the surface of the water to the top of the dam. If you’ll look there, that detention basin is nearly 1/4 mile long, and it’s got, I mean, it’s in the report, but it’s several hundred thousand cubic feet of detention. Almost a million cubic feet of detention. It’s based not on the depth of the pond, but the volume that’s held in detention from the pool level to the top of the dam. Now, that landfill over there has more than an adequate waterway. That waterway, as you know, was constructed, due to many of your remonstrations you were very adamant about. It was created using a design by Christopher Burke Associates, which is the premiere drainage designer in the Midwest. The absolute premiere drainage designer in the Midwest.

Dixie Wagner: The landfill, except for the retention pond, their property doesn’t flood. But, the property around it does.

Bill Jeffers: And there’s an annual report that the county gets, that the county helps pay for, because of all the remonstrance out there, there’s an annual report done by Christopher Burke to guarantee the condition of that, of Locust Creek, through the landfill. It was all done completely in accordance with the most advanced technology available.

Dixie Wagner: Yeah, and that’s what I’m saying is that, they engineered that, and the landfill, the landfill property doesn’t have a flooding problem. The property around it has become increasingly wet.

Bill Jeffers: I can assure you that while they may not share the reputation of Christopher Burke, that Morley and Associates has a very good track record when it comes to designing detention basins and water conveyances here locally.

Dixie Wagner: I understand that, but I know, like you said, a premiere company designed the one at Laubscher Meadows landfill, and I have seen that one overflow on to Wimberg Road any number of times in a rain.

Bill Jeffers: That’s right, because it can only convey so much water. We’re here to receive, we don’t give. You know, that comes from somewhere else. What falls out of the sky, but we’re only here to receive it and deal with it the best we can. What Christopher Burke has created there works very sufficiently up to and including the 100 year storm. That’s what it was designed for, and that’s what it’s maintained for.

Dixie Wagner: And I understand that, but what I want you to understand is that it was designed to be adequate. That retention pond isn’t adequate. I’m sure whoever designed the Lloyd Expressway, it wasn’t going to flood, but we all know better.

Bill Jeffers: That’s why the raised it 4', because they built it 2' below flood plain. That’s what they didn’t tell you.

Dixie Wagner: I know, but my problem is–

Bill Jeffers: And now that it’s 4' above flood plain, it won’t flood. That’s correct.

Dixie Wagner: – I can’t, you know, if this engineering is flawed like that engineering, I can’t raise my home.

Bill Jeffers: No, that was the state. This is the county. We’re superior. We told them that they were 2' below flood plain, and they will not tell you this, but they hit bodies out there at the state hospital, and they stopped important fill from that because they couldn’t gather anymore fill. They went out there and they lowered the grade on that in front of the ice rink 2' below old Division Street. As you know, Division Street had water right up to the surface, and anybody that knows that area new that Lloyd would flood regardless of all the glorious statements that were made out there–

Dixie Wagner: And the only point–

Bill Jeffers: –that’s what happened.

Dixie Wagner: –I was trying to make is that engineers are not–

Bill Jeffers: Not infallible. That’s correct.

Dixie Wagner: –perfect.

Bill Jeffers: You’re very correct. The responsibility is conveyed with the deed. The responsibility to the maintenance of the detention basin is conveyed with the deed. There will be a statement in his covenants and restrictions, as is standard, by accepting the deed to this land, I hereby accept the responsibility to maintain the drainage basin in accordance with the plat restrictions and covenants and restrictions that I share with the adjoining property owners. If you don’t want the responsibility to maintain a lake, then that person needs to buy one that doesn’t share the lake with the other persons he’s entering into that covenant with. If a person next door doesn’t like the way that this person is maintaining his portion of the lake, and, in fact, it’s in violation of the covenants and restrictions, he can bring a restraining, I mean, he can...the powers inured to the other property owners that they can take legal actions against those persons that don’t responsibly abide by the covenants and restrictions.

Dixie Wagner: So, right off hand do you know how many people would share responsibility for that?

Bill Jeffers: I’ve given you my copy, or I would count them for you, but the lake is clearly shown on that copy, and you can count the lot lines across it. The lots are–

Dixie Wagner: Like about 15, it looks like.

Bill Jeffers: Oh, maybe 15 or so.

Dixie Wagner: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: It’s on there. It’s nice to see you, Dixie.

Dixie Wagner: Thanks for the copy.

Bill Jeffers: Yes.

Dixie Wagner: The pizza at Rounder’s is not as good as it was either.

Bill Jeffers: And the north side girls ball league will never be the same.

Dixie Wagner: That’s right.

President Fanello: Are there any other remonstrators?

Tim Adler: My name is Tim Adler. I live directly across the property, or the north side of Mohr Road right by the train tracks. I feel like I’m going to be affected probably as much as anybody. Most of the points were touched upon already, so I want to say a few things about the flooding, in particular. If this property is raised, I would have to agree with Dixie, I mean who in the world would want to build in a flood plain. The majority of this is flood plain property. It’s natural retention for Locust Creek. If this is built up, even with this big basin, where’s the water going to go when it’s full and it’s raining 4", and 5", and 6", which it has done. My property, the front by the road has been flooded within 20' of my driveway. So, where is it going to go. I mean, it’s going to have nowhere to go. It all goes through the ditch underneath the train tracks, and that’s a natural levy there, them tracks. I mean, it make no sense. It’s in a hole, you know. Then it’s going to be coming over the road, and it’s going to be a serious problem. That’s why it’s coming around a second time, because, you know, it didn’t fly before. Being in a flood plain, it makes no sense. I mean, there’s so much development around there, it’s gaining more and more water coming down Locust Creek. It’s not just from what’s coming off this subdivision. It’s all the properties from out to the north towards Darmstadt, east towards Kuebler, it all is going to be coming down this way. So, I think there’s some serious flooding issues that are there now, and they are going to be intensified, you know, tremendously. A flood plain is just no place for development. So, I just think there needs to be a serious, serious look at it.

Bill Jeffers: The DNR Division of Water has reviewed and approved the flood way study for this particular piece of property. Mr. Adler’s concerns are valid and well founded, but the review by the DNR Division of Water showed that the lines had been established past which this development cannot fill. If the development is restricted to those lines, it will not raise the elevation of the 100 year flood in this valley greater than 1/10 of a foot. That’s the demarcation line right there. So, while it’s possible, but I don’t envision it, that the water could get an inch or an inch and a half deeper in this valley, that is the limitation set by Indiana state law, and they have set a line of demarcation past which this project cannot fill.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Bill Jeffers: No, thank goodness. INDOT did the Lloyd.

Tom Norton: Good evening. My name is Tom Norton, and I live east of this property, and uphill, and, I guess, I’m the guy they are all going to gripe about dumping water on them when things start getting wet down there. I am a practicing attorney, but I’m not here representing anybody tonight. So, I have a fool for a client. What, my first question, I guess, that I would have is, and you all are aware, it was addressed earlier this evening, and this question is probably directed to Kevin more than anybody else. I would like to get kind of an answer on this one. About a year ago this body approved another drainage plan for a more aggressive subdivision attempt, 272 lots I guess it was, and there was a different plan with that one. That particular plan crashed and burned at Area Plan, and was turned down. That is, to my knowledge, is not weaving it’s way through the court system. My concern that I have, probably addressed here this evening, is any action taken by you guys this evening on this particular plan have the effect of superceding that prior plan, or vacating that plan? Or do we potentially have two drainage plans here that we need to address? In my limited research, I can’t find a good answer to that question. I don’t know that there is one, but I thought I would at least, if this has come up before the board, it might at least be worth addressing at some point. Because I could see two, if this comes back from the court of appeals mandating approval of that prior subdivision plan, now we’ve got two competing interests. Which one is going to get their approval, I guess, is the question I ask.

Commissioner Mosby: Did you ever sell the property to the other people?

Teddy Stucki: No.

Commissioner Mosby: Sounds to me like that man right there owns it.

Tom Norton: Okay, but I want to let the Commission know I attended a hearing about less than a week ago that was arguing that case on appeal before Judge Heldt, and Judge Heldt will probably rule sometime in mid-May, I believe, as to perhaps mandating that prior plan coming back on effect. Now, I understand, maybe he...I don’t know all the ins and outs of the legalities of who’s obligated. I’m saying from the standpoint that we do know, you know, is does this have the effect of superceding that plan? I guess, that’s the question I have.

Teddy Stucki: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Madelyn Grayson: Mr. Stucki, can you please come to the microphone so we can get your comments on record.

Teddy Stucki: I just said I’ve got a letter from Highland Pointe where they gave up their rights to the ground, when they got turned down by Area Plan.

Tom Norton: Okay.

Bill Jeffers: I think Mr. Stucki could bring the same plan that Highland Pointe brought to the drainage board last year, and I would make the same recommendation that it be passed, and this board would act upon that recommendation. Again, thank goodness he’s brought back a plan that has much lower impact on drainage, and I’m getting ready to make a recommendation for it at this time.

Tom Norton: I just want to know which one we’re going to get here tonight. That’s why I raise the question. Just so that we’re on board that we know which direction we’re headed, if this, but, I want to know, if possible, there was a legal conclusion as to the impact of the finding for this one upon the other one. I don’t know that anybody’s willing to stand up and challenge that issue at this point.

Commissioner Mosby: I would probably ask you that question.

Bill Jeffers: Well, I’m not a lawyer, and you’ve already got me confused.

Tom Norton: Good. Just looking for experience out there that I haven’t had, and I appreciate any input you might have, or that the County Attorney could have on that subject. Watershed area, I think we’ve talked about this detention basin, I will be very quickly about it. I know that you have a plan in front of you, and what I would really be asking Mr. Morley to elaborate on, I think we have two different standards here in the county, if I understand this correctly. We look at the 68 acres, which this is being subdivided on, which I kind of call the little bowl here, and we take how much water is going to come out of this thing and get down into this area, and, basically, I guess, the theory is he’s got to hold that water back, and not allow it out on anybody else’s property at the same rate it currently discharges. I guess that’s a fair statement. That’s probably what we have to look at first. The second question, I think the global issue that was touched on by everybody else, is how big is this watershed. I guess, and that I would call the big bowl theory. Maybe we can address that too by their presentation in how they came to these determinations, how much cubic feet this detention basin is going to hold? How much it needed to hold, and some of those questions. Because, I think what gets into the theory here, is at least between the little bowl and the big bowl, we know the little bowl is going to be developed. So, we can take co-efficients that come off run off , off of rooftops, driveways, roadways, those kind of things. What we don’t know is the big bowl is did we count that developed, or did we count it undeveloped? Because that’s going to affect run off rate it gets down here. It’s going to affect how much water ends up at this detention basin, I think, any stretch of the imagination we put to it. That becomes an important question to me, because Mohr Road is sitting there at that very low point, right at the tone. Everything is going to come focusing there, as far as I can tell. The detention basin is gonna take water off of that 48" pipe up there under the railroad right-of-way, and it’s going to handle it until it gets filled. It’s going to dump it back into the detention basin, it’s going to fill, and it’s going to head north until it gets to the spillway up there. If it’s got to go over that, then it’s going to feed into Locust Creek once again, or that tributary that leads to it. But, that’s where the impact is, because we have all these headwaters coming southwest, meeting up with any of that overage out of the detention basin, we’re going to have a flood at Mohr Road like it or not. I think the other thing that needs to be looked at from the drainage plan is very carefully how they pile up that dam or that berm that’s going to be down at that end, and what impact that may have on just those immediate waters that come out of the flood way and splash up against it. That being said, I think that needs to be addressed before you this evening, and to get very certain we have sufficient quantities in that detention basin to handle this stuff. I probably agree that, I think somebody threw around the term tonight seven times on the little bowl, but I’m not sure we’ve addressed the big bowl, and whether it’s going to have an impact there. The other thing, the slopes we talked about maintenance for those and that’s a very good question. I think it was commented that that’s un-buildable property, and I hope if that’s what it’s going to be it be designated as such. What I know about real estate development is that I’m not certain that that is un-buildable property, even though it’s inside this subdivision. I look at this thing maybe eight years down the road when all those lots get sold and developed, and somebody says, why, we’ve got, you know, three acres back up here I bought. I would like to sell that off, and cut an easement through my land, and allow somebody to build up here. Is there going to be any restraint there? You’re very correct, that can be bought, sold, traded by anybody, it doesn’t matter who it is. We can talk about maintaining that here tonight, but, I mean, it could be a grass field, or it could be a house. I mean, that comes the question. Just because it’s inside this subdivision, and it’s not called a lot, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some future building potential. Maybe as the drainage plan we need to address the question of whether that has to be regulated. In other words there cannot be, as part of this drainage plan, any construction in that area. This is one I throw out for food for thought. Down to the detention basin itself, this was another one that there was some discussion here this evening about maintenance of that, and what I know about real estate has been fairly well covered here this evening. I guess, probably the question that was being asked by the neighbors is there any outside enforcement to make sure that that detention is kept and maintained, and would that be a county prerogative, or is it the neighboring owners? I guess, if they’re getting too much water, they could probably come in and raise that question. One thing I saw about the maintenance issue on the detention basin was the lots extend out west, and they’re subordinated to a drainage easement, and the lake maintenance, or the lake easement and all that, but they don’t have any rights in there beyond, I don’t think they could fill it is what I’m trying to say. They have to maintain drainage in there. To get to the other side of the lake, they would have a maintenance obligation on the other side over there, because the lots do come out of the water over there. There is no way that I can see on the current plan that allows or provides for any kind of easement for them to get back and maintain that area. I don’t know if they are going to have to get over there by canoe or what to mow those sides of the lots. So, that might be one question, and if that would impact on drainage, it would probably be something that might want to be considered. I’ve already touched on the concern I had about Mohr Road about those headwaters all meeting there, but I think that’s probably, from the standpoint of where I sit, as the citizen up the street, I’m uphill, I’m not going to get any of this water. It doesn’t bother me, I don’t stand in Mr. Thomas’ position, I’m not going to be flooded, I’m going to just sit up here and watch all this calamity take place. I do have one concern about getting in and out of my home, and westward through Mohr Road may be one. That’s principally my concern here this evening. Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: The only issue I wish to address, or respond to from Mr. Norton is the access to the backsides of those lots is of concern to me as well. Generally we require that the lot lines be configured in such a way that two lots meet in the back, and those two lots have the responsibility for half the shoreline, because they’re the end two lots, and they meet in the back. But, this is such a long detention basin, and I hate to make them shrink it down to the size that that would be the case, and that is an issue that we’re going to have to work out legally, and with cross easement language. We’re going to have to work out a system whereby anyone that owns a lot in this lake could go down to the pump station, and there would be a cross easement from that point. They could take their mowing machine or whatever down there, and attain a cross easement all the way across the backside of this lake. Other than that, I think the city has a 9" weed ordinance now. I’m not sure what the county’s weed height ordinance is, but those could be built into the covenants and restrictions. You’re asking for is there an outside enforcement power. I’ll have to look through the drainage code. I think there is to some extent, but we’ve depended upon the covenants and restrictions, the fact that it’s clearly stated on the plat exactly what the mowing, maintenance, litter control, and all that is, is on the plat. Generally it’s been enforced between the property owners. There’s at least a majority of property owners that will enforce those covenants on those that don’t wish to comply voluntarily.

Tom Norton: I mean, I know this has happened. I’m involved in a case that’s in Boonville, and you and I have had this discussion, they don’t try to enforce anything up there, but we’ve actually had, I’m in a case where they actually filled in one of these drainage easements, and the neighbors upstream are all, you know, sitting there in standing water. Trying to force that issue is very difficult. That’s one of the reasons I raised it. Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) I will just say at this time, the other issues that Mr. Norton raised, I would prefer the engineers to respond to. Whenever the remonstrators are finished.

President Fanello: Are there any other remonstrators? Seeing none, I guess, it’s the engineer’s turn.

Jim Morley, Jr.: Jim Morley, Jr., Morley and Associates. I took some notes, I tried to address things as they were brought up. Starting with Mr. Thomas’ comments. Bill touched briefly on this property is clipped by flood way in the corner for Locust Creek. That flood way study was done January 11, 2001. So, it’s a current study that reflects current conditions out there. I’m unaware of any major developments in that area in the last two years. So, it’s an up-to-date, current study. The flood way depicts the line in which anything you fill outside the flood way will not raise water substantially. Like Bill said, 1/10 of a foot, about an inch and a quarter upon any of the other neighbors. For that reason the water outside of this project, and that existing ditch should not get any deeper for anyone. The max by law can go up is an inch and a quarter, but because of the fact that our retention basin holds about a million gallons of water, I would guess that it doesn’t go up any at all. So, therein lies the idea of water raising up to hurt other people. That’s just not going to happen. He touched briefly on the terracing system. Bill mentioned the HUD grading plans. I would also like to mention that all of these lots have a perimeter ditch that run around them, and we placed the ditch on the lots, verus on the area that is to remain farmed. That way there is no danger of the farmer plowing under that ditch line, or whatever. They are on the lots. So, the lots themselves are self-sufficient. If the guy planted wheat, or if he planted row crops, or whatever he planted would not affect the lots and how the drainage system works. The lake has two outlets. The 48" pipe underneath the CSX railroad tracks, which was mentioned earlier, and I think somebody was concerned about it possibly being blocked, the other outlet is at the Locust Creek end, in which it is an overland weir, which is basically a channel leaving the lake, which is, I don’t know how you would block that. Let’s see, we touched base on something Kevin Snodgrass asked, he wanted to know where the dirt would be, and where it comes from. The intent is that this project will be balanced. Nobody likes to truck in dirt, because it’s real expensive. Teddy owns an additional 20 acres in the immediate area, that if he needed to he could go to get dirt from, but it is our intent that this project will balance within itself. It’s a very large basin, and a lot of dirt can come out of there. Let’s see, Dixie was concerned about the flooding. As you all know, the local drainage ordinance prevents us from flooding people out. That’s why we’re here today to make sure that we don’t flood anybody else out. The ordinance makes it so we can’t discharge anymore than the existing ground does on the 10 year storm. In truth of it, because of the size of our basin, we’re going to choke that down as much as we can to help out the area as much as we can, and provide as much storage as possible. She was concerned about the 100 year flood elevations. Those are set off that January 11^th study, 2001. So, the current flood elevations, so, there should not be a concern about people being flooded out. Let’s see, Mr. Norton was curious how large the watershed is. Including the, I’ll just call it 70 acres, because it’s like 68 or something, including the 70 acres it’s a 239 acre watershed. So, to use his terms, the big bowl is 239 acres. How does that relate to this retention basin? If we develop this exact same project over the entire 239 acres, our retention basin would still be oversized. For the off-site ground, we took into account all the houses, all the rooftops, all the driveways, all the existing terrain. We used existing county contour maps to get elevations. All of that stuff to make sure it comes through. Like I said, they could develop the whole thing and our retention basin would be big enough. However, if they do develop upstream from us, they also will be required to come before you with a drainage plan, and put their own retention lakes in. The lake maintenance and storm detention easement, I’ll be honest with you, I would have to read that language. I think though that it allows for ingress/egress across other lots. So, if you own the middle 80' of that dam, you can cross across the other people’s properties to get to your area to maintain. If it doesn’t, I don’t...I’m pretty sure that’s the way it reads. If it does not, that way, I believe, that’s something we can modify. The drainage basin, a lot has been made as to the maintenance of this drainage basin. There’s not a whole lot to maintain on a drainage basin. Once you get it built, and you get it planted and established, which will happen prior to people moving in to this development, grass grows on it, and that’s about it. I mean, you know, you’ve got to mow the grass, but other than that, you know, there’s not a lot of maintenance that happens on one of these things. They are built to be “idiot proof”, if you will. So, there’s nothing people can do to go mess them up, and especially with an overland weir, there’s not a whole lot, I can’t imagine there’s anything that could happen. The majority of the people that came forward to speak with you today all live much higher than what these houses are. So, if there are any flooding problems in this area, I assure you it will be people that live in this subdivision that come complaining first, and they can only complain to themselves, because they all will sit underneath a covenant that says they have to maintain it. People within that subdivision, anyone within that subdivision can call them onto the carpet, so to speak, and bring them to court and legally force them to do what they said they would do voluntarily. I believe this is a good project. I believe it helps drainage in the area. The retention basin, Mr. Stucki has generously oversized it. I think it’s 4 ½ times what the 100 year storm requires. Seven and a half or eight times what the 25 year requires. I think it’s a good project, and by all means it will work nicely from a drainage standpoint, and I ask for your approval.

President Fanello: Are there any other questions?

Bill Jeffers: Here’s the checklist that shows the items required on a preliminary drainage plan, and I reviewed the plan, the County Surveyor reviewed the plan with staff from Morley, and found that the checklist was complete. I look at this as an opportunity, this is actually the first subdivision I have ever reviewed, other than Cambridge Golf Village, and Eagle Crossing Golf area, where....this has nothing to do with recreation, yet this man brought in what I consider a low impact drainage subdivision, where there is a lot of open space around the outside of the subdivision on the critical slopes, and a very large interior drainage easement for the creek, and then an even larger one for the drainage basin. All I am going to ask Mr. Stucki to do is to tell me tonight that he will let me, and Mike Thomas and his company and with his engineers go out and look at these springs and identify them in an expedient manner, so that he doesn’t have to pay Morley and Associates a lot of hours to go hunt them up themselves. Okay, I would ask Mr. Stucki to go to Darrel Reis and ask him about conservation tillage on the hillsides, and I would ask you to look into the grass filter strip program along that interior creek, because that will be, in a future phase that you’re going to develop, that you won’t be developing that for a year or two, I would like for you to go talk to Mr. Reis at Natural Resource Conservation Service. They have, while you’re still farming that they have a farm set aside program to establish grass filter strips, which are far better than silt fencing. So, when you do get back there in that phase, you won’t have to erect expensive silt fencing, you’ll already have a grass filter strip established back there along that creek. I would ask you to look, to talk to the urban forester, and to, or horticulturalist, Larry Caplan, about things you might do to beautify the basin over a period of time. Or that you might put into your restrictions, so that those people will observe those practices when you turn over ownership to them. I may in Area Plan Commission add a condition to the approval of the plat, if we haven’t worked out something between now and next week on a cross easement, that would be added to the plat to make it absolutely certain that each of those property owners, that their acceptance of the deed is based upon each of the other property owners ability to cross their land and maintain the back side of that dam. Okay? If we can work that out before next week I’m not going to bring it up in Area Plan Commission, but that’s essential. In closing I would say that at the bottom of this checklist the board itself shall decide the sufficiency of the preliminary drainage plan, and any conditions or additional requirements that the board would apply to the preliminary plan. So, if the board has any other comments to make at this time, you do reserve the right to add conditions to the approval, and with that the County Surveyor recommends approval of the preliminary drainage plan for Spring Lake Valley.

President Fanello: Are you recommending approval of that, any additional conditions?

Bill Jeffers: Without any conditions. Based on the sufficiency shown by the completed checklist, but I’m just making the board aware that if they’ve heard something tonight they’re concerned enough about that they want to add conditions, they may. Or you may simply say, work all this out before the final plan, and if you don’t work it out before the final plan, we’ll add them at that time.

President Fanello: Anybody have any questions?

Commissioner Mosby: I don’t have any questions. I’ll make a motion to accept the Surveyor’s recommendation. I really do want to thank the developers here. I remember sitting here a year ago voting on this, and I’m not sure that I felt as comfortable then as I do today, but from what I’ve heard, and the size of the detention pond, and cutting back from about 280 houses, to 150, I feel a whole lot more comfortable today. I’ll make a motion to accept.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: And I’ll just remind everyone, this is preliminary approval. So, we have plenty of time to address everybody’s concerns. That’s what this meeting is for. So, hopefully, everybody will get all their concerns worked out.

Unidentified: Can I ask one question?

President Fanello: Uh-huh.

Unidentified: You talked about doing things–

Madelyn Grayson: Could you please come to the microphone, sir.

President Fanello: Yes, we need you to come to the microphone.

Richard Moll: My name is Richard Moll, and I live directly north of the development that is coming on. You talked about doing things in phases, and what happens in between the phases if all this drainage isn’t in effect? That’s the one question I have. You said they are going to build higher ground first, and is this retention pond in place? If we get another 25 or 50 year storm that we had spoke of, and we had heard about before, which, again, was sitting up on the hill like Tom does, we’ve witnessed that this whole area was a lake. So, what I’m looking at is what happens, or in the phases, and how we direct it there? Then what happens when that 25 or 50 year storm hits, and that whole dam is flooded? Because from what I have seen, we probably would have flooded whatever retention area that we had, and we had two of those storms in the last eight years.

Bill Jeffers: Mr. Moll, the phasing of construction for a major subdivision is very common. Each phase has to provide it’s sufficient detention before they move on to the next phase. They have certain critical elevations shown on this plan and on the previous plan as to the depth of the 100 year flood. The berm they are raising is above that elevation. The 100 year flood would not come into this (Inaudible), except through the overflow pipe. If they exceed the 25 year storm, they still have plenty of (Inaudible) the 25 year storm. I believe, if I’m not mistaken, and we can verify that in the final plan, that there will not be any water leaving this overflow weir (Inaudible. Mike not on.), but as they move back through their phases, they will have to make excavations (Inaudible) to acquire the fill to build the home. I would think each phase would be (Inaudible) out of the detention basin to build homes on to accomplish the detention required (Inaudible). (Inaudible) verify that with the design engineer (Inaudible) cuts and fills maybe. If that’s not the case, we can make it (Inaudible). (Inaudible) explicitly explain in black and white who has (Inaudible) cuts and fills (Inaudible) 30 days (Inaudible). Is that your plan? (Inaudible) APC approval, they will be starting their cuts and fills (Inaudible). If that still remains a concern, that should be incorporated (Inaudible) phase one (Inaudible). I encourage (Inaudible).

President Fanello: Thank you. So, I’ll say, we had a motion and a second, so I’ll say so ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Your next drainage plan is actually the Roth Road Bridge plan (Inaudible) Barnett Ditch. Because Barnett Ditch is a regulated drain in Vanderburgh County, it requires approval of the County Surveyor. Today our Deputy Surveyor, Doug Mc Donald, who is a licensed (Inaudible. Mike not on.) conferred with Valerie Harry, who is a (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Verified the sufficiency of the Roth Road Bridge plans, and recommend approval at this time.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, under New Business, your Recording Secretary holds a copy of a petition from Paul and Rose Stofleth to remove an obstruction. I would ask that you receive that at this time, and order the County Surveyor to promptly investigate whether the obstruction exists. Then set a date for a hearing that is not, that must be greater than 30 days from tonight, and not less than 90 days from tonight.

Commissioner Mosby: I make a motion that we receive the petition, and have the Surveyor look at the obstruction. We can set a date for our meeting in June.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: So, Mr. Stofleth, what just happened is they received your petition. I must come out and promptly investigate and make a report to them at their next monthly meeting. Then at their meeting in June they will have a hearing where you and the lady who you filed the petition against will each give your sides of the story, and they will refer to the Vanderburgh County Surveyor’s report, and they will make determinations and findings at that time, and act upon your request that they order the removal of the obstruction. So, I will stay in contact with you, and you will get a copy of the report the same time the County Commissioners do. Thank you.

Paul Stofleth: Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: Your Recording Secretary holds a check for $3,000 which represents a grant, or a gift–

President Fanello: Do you want to go shopping?

Commissioner Mosby: It says that I accept.

Bill Jeffers: –from Big Creek Drainage Association with the specific caveat that it be used on the Barr Creek embankment repair, to offset some of the cost on the Barr Creek embankment repair for which you let a contract for $25,000 this year.

Commissioner Mosby: Do you need a motion?

Bill Jeffers: Just a motion to accept the $3,000 grant.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to accept the check for $3,000 to be used on Barr Creek drainage.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: 5/3 bank is encroaching a drainage easement in Eagle Plaza Subdivision out on the west side, and asks that you enter an easement encroachment agreement with them. Am I holding a copy or the original, Madelyn?

Madelyn Grayson: I have the original here.

Bill Jeffers: Okay, your Recording Secretary has the original, which the County Surveyor recommends you sign, however, the owners are asking that they be allowed to record this after they assume ownership of the property for 5/3, on behalf of 5/3 Bank. I don’t find any problem with that.

Commissioner Mosby: Upon the recommendation of the Surveyor, I will make a motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: Now comes Regency Club Consolidated Residential, LP, requesting the relaxation of the legal drain right-of-entry for Williams Ditch, which is located on the county line, between Lincoln Avenue and I-164. The parcel affected by the legal drain right-of-entry is Regency Club Apartments located at 8300 Lincoln Avenue. At the time of construction, at or about 1980, and as currently exists, there are encroachments into the legal drain right-of-entry by the apartments to reduce the extent of the existing encroachments. Regency Consolidation Residential LP is requesting that the legal drain right-of-entry on the west side of Williams Ditch be reduced from 75' to 25'. I brought copies of the statute, which I’ll pass to your attorney and let him pass you copies. IC-36-9-27-33 (Tape flipped to other side) titled right-of-entry over private lands. Subsection (e) applies to urban drains. The board may reduce the 75' requirement to any distance of not less than 25' from the top of a bank of an open ditch. The County Surveyor recommends at this time that the west, that the right-of-entry along the west bank of Williams Ditch, as it crosses the property of Regency Consolidated Residential LP, commonly known as Regency Club Apartments, be reduced from 75' to 25' as measured from the top of the west bank. That you sign this so that they have a document acknowledging that.

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to approve drainage encroachment.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: They just want this for their records.

Bill Jeffers: Questions and comments by board members, or your lawyer at this time.

Kevin Winternheimer: No, I just want to get out of here.

Bill Jeffers: Well–

Madelyn Grayson: Just one quick thing, can we have approval to stamp these contracts for the regulated–

Bill Jeffers: Right, contracts came back today all signed....this is for the maintenance of regulated drains, all the contracts for this year. If you would, is there a motion that they can make, Kevin, whereby they, on recommendation of the County Surveyor they approve all these contracts and have them signed at their leisure.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes.

Commissioner Crouch: So moved.

Commissioner Mosby: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

Bill Jeffers: We’re at the last bullet, next to last.

President Fanello: Any other person wishing to address the board? Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Mosby: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Fanello: So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.)

         Those in Attendance:

         Catherine Fanello           David W. Mosby             Suzanne M. Crouch

         Kevin Winternheimer      Bill Jeffers                       Madelyn Grayson

         Michael Thomas             Kevin Snodgrass            Dixie Wagner

         Tim Adler                        Tom Norton                    Teddy Stucki

         Jim Morley, Jr.                Richard Moll                   Others Unidentified

         Members of Media

         VANDERBURGH COUNTY

         DRAINAGE BOARD

         Catherine Fanello, President

         David W. Mosby, Vice President

         Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

         Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.