Tuesday, April 26, 2011

25 April 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

25 April 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Dennis Kraus Jr., Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Mike Hornbach, Jeff Hughes, Jake Hoog,and Dan Lansing.
ABSENT: Ken Nelson
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Arnie McGill, Attorney.

1. Request: Vacate a portion of Happy Hollow Road. Applicant: Rob Seig / Owner: David Lykins
Site Location: Happy Hollow Road
Township: Jackson & York Size: 5.169 Acres Zoning: Agricultural (A)

1. Request: Primary Approval with Waivers for a 15-lot re-plat of Whitewater Point Subdivision.
Applicant: JDJ Surveying & Engineering (Jeff Stenger) /Owner: Whitewater Point, LLC and Jeff & Beth Viel
Site Location: Chappelow Ridge Road Township: Logan Size: 127.629 Acres Zoning: Agricultural (A)

Mark McCormack presented the initial case:

1) The Whitewater Point Subdivision located within Logan Township, Township 7, Range 1, Sections 8 & 9 is situated within an Agricultural (A) District. This subdivision is located
between Barber Road and Chappelow Ridge Road.
2) The Primary Plat for this subdivision which consists of 8 “buildable” tracts was approved by the Plan Commission in September of 2008. Please refer to the enclosed meeting minute summary from the September 29th, 2008 Plan Commission public hearing.
3) The Applicants are seeking to re-plat the Whitewater Point Subdivision in accordance with Article 2, Section 288 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance so that the resulting development consists of a total of 15 “buildable tracts.” number, or location of individual lots, streets, or utilities. These changes are recognized as a typical part of the development process. In general, the Improvement Plan, and Secondary Plat should be the same in design and layout as the approved Primary Plat.
Any changes that are made to the approved Primary Plat shall be submitted to and reviewed by
the Planning Director or his designee to determine if these changes are major or minor in
scope. Major changes will require a new public hearing as identified in Section 208…”

5) The Applicants intend to construct a private street to serve as the primary form of ingress /egress into the subdivision. The private street, as presently designed, requires several waivers with respect to:
1. The length of the proposed the proposed dead-end private street—which exceeds the
1200-foot ordinance requirement by 1215 feet (see Article 3, Section 305N of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
2. The width of the proposed private street—which is 4 feet less than the 20-foot
ordinance requirement (see Article 3,Table 3.1 and Sections 305F and 305P of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
3. The size of the cul-de-sac—which is 10 feet less in both pavement diameter and right of way radius than the ordinance requirement (see Article 3, Section 305N and Appendix C of the Subdivision Control Ordinance)
4. The number of lots permitted on a private street—which exceeds the ordinance
requirement by 7 lots (see Article 3, Section 305P of the Subdivision Control
5. The percentage of panhandle tracts allowed in a subdivision—which is 12% higher than
the ordinance requirement for a Major Subdivision (see Article 3, Section 315 of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance)
6) Additionally, the Applicants are seeking to have the ordinance requirement regarding the
submittal of Preliminary Report(s) from the Dearborn County Health Department (that
demonstrates approval for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for each lot) waived or
deferred until such time that the re-plat concepts are acceptable to the Plan Commission, if
applicable. (See Article 2, Section 216, Item 11 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance)
7) Please refer to Article 1, Section 165 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control
Ordinance regarding Appeals and Waivers.

SECTION 165 – Appeals and Waivers
“…Upon written request to the Commission, an applicant can seek a waiver of any of the
Subdivision regulations in this Ordinance. The individual request shall be reviewed and
granted only under unusual or extreme circumstances or if an equal or better alternative can
be provided that is not in agreement with this Ordinance. The Planning Director or his
designee shall review the request and provide a recommendation to the Commission regarding
the merits of the request. The Commission shall approve or deny the waiver request.”
8) Please refer to the Technical Review Committee Report from March 21st, 2011. Please
note that the following item in this report remains in question:
 Restrictions regarding access to the proposed subdivision from Barber Road via River View Lane
9) Please refer to the Applicants’ statements and enclosures.

12 letters sent to adjoiners. Land use plan would look at this area for low density development. Topography and flood plain are factors. Road layout is substantially the same- except it is no longer a driveway serving 6-8 homes- now it’s a private street proposed. Developer plans to pave river View Lane this year possibly if approved. McCormack showed numerous pictures of the roadways and topography.
Randy Maxwell- said that when he’d told Jeff Stenger what they wanted to do, he had no idea it would get this complicated. They intend it to be a gated community. It’s a temporary gate now- and the first one had been demolished. The new one will be a nice looking punch pad controlled one. Chapellow Ridge is a mile and a half dead end road. We installed a cul de sac up there as part of the original design. They are getting rid of the panhandles at the bottom- no need for them now. He’d love to debate the private drive standards. The owners know what they are getting when they buy. 20 ft is too much for the private drive width. These lots are all over 5 acres- low density lots. If this were not private it would invite Chappelow Ridge residents to use this because it is considerably shorter. Panhandles are needed because of the way it is laid out.
Mike Hall asked about lot layout for old Lot 3 and also traffic allowed. Maxwell said there will be a height bar to restrict big trucks. Maxwell plans to put in 3 inches of asphalt in answer to Hall’s question. They are restricting the cul de sac size as he feels a 60 ft one is not necessary for the limited access and traffic here. The motion was limited the development to 8 lots. Stenger said that’s why we’re requesting the replat. Hall stressed that this was only to be 8 lots per the motion that was approved in 2008.
Jake Hoog asked about lot 22 and 28 – Maxwell only accessed from the top- not Riverview. Maxwell also answered that the school bus will not go onto a private lane. Kids have to go to Chappelow Ridge or Barber Rd. Maxell also said the gates are designed to be emergency breakaway.

Helen Kremer- noted there were a lot of waivers. She said the road shouldn’t be there. For over 2 years many studies were done on the issue of this road. The county made the decision not to allow the road- too expensive to maintain. In 2008 the 8 lots were approved as a replat with restrictions on access and maintenance and gating as private. She said if there is an accident on this road- considering the topography- who is liable?
She added that Eric Russo of the Hillside trust also said that it’s more than just steep roads and hills- it’s also about the stability of the road.
There is more information about the Whitewater River erosion and it calls into question the maintenance of Barber Road when the river erodes to it. We live on Barber road and there are several old farmhouses built before the Civil War. We maintain the area as it was- beautiful and pristine. Kremer went on to say she just wanted to point out that Barber Rd. is fragile. Kremer passed out pictures of the river in 2008 and also last week.
She also doesn’t know if it is reasonable to have 15 families maintain 8 football field lengths of roads. She answered Hall that she would be OK with the development if the road from Barber to the top were eliminated.
Kathy Scott- is concerned with the ordinances. Understands why the Maxwells want to increase lots to make this more affordable. She doesn’t like the road to Barber Road. She thinks the cul de sac is too small at 30 ft for adequate turnaround. She also is worried about this eventually becoming a county road in the future. The vandalism on the gate is a worry as this roadway in the woods will invite more. PC pointed out that the cul de sac has a 35 foot RADIUS- so it will be 70 ft across.

Public discussion closed.

Stenger answered some of the concerns. He said the old road was deemed unfeasible. There will be no liability for the county as this is a private road. The road that they built there is not new except the first few hundred feet by Barber Road. It has been improved by the developer with drainage structures etc. It was an old field road. His dad used to use it with cattle there.
Jeff Bier asked if it would be in writing for the road to be paved if approved. Hall said that is what is proposed by the developer.

Hughes said that if the road is meant to be private- we need to make it limited access. Who will own it. The physical road property is owned by two properties, but there is a 50 ft easement owned by all property owners. 150 trips per day depending on what visitors get access. Stenger answered. Hughes noted that Travis Miller – the former Planning Director- promoted interconnectivity.
Lansing asked if emergency vehicles would use this. That was questionable a sit would not be adequate- especially in certain types of weather.
Maxwell answered another question that only the gate at Chappelow Ridge would exist. There would be a 7 ft 6 beam across the area where the lower temp gate is now. Maxwell said a first responder vehicle may get up there- but can’t see other emergency vehicles on it due to liability. Maxwell said that they are not completely opposed to eliminating that lower road- it’s just a convenience for the homeowners there. They don’t want a 20 ft road- more affordable smaller and they have passing blisters on it. It also disturbs more land if you make it bigger.
Hughes said he voted against 20 ft road when proposed in ordinance. But if others get it then these people should too. Maxwell asked what you do to get that law changed. Hughes said- elect better people.
There are a couple lots that need a private lane name for their driveways.
Kraus Jr. asked if they have to address each waiver individually. McGill said yes.
Hall said they can eliminate the access to Barber by closing those two lots off. He said Fox Road got closed too – even though ATVs etc could make it. Hall said it would be better to not have a road up on that hillside. It would be a lot less intrusive to the neighbors to the south. That access road is 2000 ft. It would help preserve Barber.
Maxwell said one lot is sold up there and the husband and wife were counting on quick access to Barber Road. They chose not to attend tonight.
Hughes would waive panhandles and 1200 ft length, but keep the 20 ft width. He’s having trouble with Riverview Lane.
Hoog said that if they pave that road they’ll all go down it.

Hughes motioned to waive the 1215 ft, deny the private street one, no waiver on the width of the road, denied the cul de sac, approve the waiver for 7 more lots, approve the extra12 percentage panhandles, and allow the health dept inspections to be done later on septic systems until approved. The private drive Whitewater Pointe Drive also will be paved. Riverview Lane will never be publicly accepted. Beiersdorfer 2nded. 2 ayes- Hughes and Beiersdorfer- rest nayes. Motion failed.

Kraus Jr. motioned to waive the cul de sac, the reduction in width of street, the smaller cul de sac, the number of lots, the panhandles, and the septic inspection delay. The road must be paved. He’s not mentioning Riverview Lane. Beiersdorfer 2nd.

Lansing asked what happens to Riverview Lane. McCormack said the county controls the driveway permits. They need to get the permit from the highway dept. It’s not fair to say there is NO regulation on driveways. If it’s a public safety issue – you need to address that.

Kraus Jr. amended the motion to not allow Riverview Lane for ingress or egress because it is not safe. Beiersdorfer 2nded. All ayes.

1. The Happy Hollow item that is still tabled has a 90 day time period. They have all visited the site and are awaiting the next survey.
2. There is a link on the county’s website on the 208 water quality plan. This plan is tied to the sewage plans. St. Leon and LMH and DCRSD were not here in the 1970’s when the original water plan was done. This map is proposed to be changed. The next meeting is in a couple weeks- May 8 or 11. The draft will be discussed. At the 2nd meeting after that there will be a formal adoption. Amendments to this plan occur by petition in the future once adopted.
3. Financial guarantee report will be forwarded later- there is only one subdivision coming up- and he will send the letter out to get their financial guarantee updated.
4. Zoning committee meets again Wed May 18th. There may be no PC meeting in May unless the Happy Hollow is ready by then.
5. Purdue professor will be discussing the landscape and bufferyard section of the ordinance with him this week. He’ll send out revised text this week for the committee. He’ll get a series of people to discuss this- the biggest problem is the medium to low stock with complaints from developers on the difficulty of keeping them alive. Issues also exist with parking lot islands and stock that won’t affect pavement.
6. Hughes proposal on an ordinance on Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance was passed out. [NOTE: A copy of his proposed ordinance was posted on the blog last week.] He highlighted some sections to see if they are legally defensible. He thought it would be worthwhile to discuss it with the PC and Zoning committee on the 18th of May. Hughes said it’s not pro or anti development. He liked the handout that McCormack gave them on a reference on Planning Law. Hughes said he had talked to many people in 2008. He had talked to Alan Freemond who discussed a blast furnace that incinerated garbage. Hughes said- he doesn’t want a dump in Dearborn county. So he’s thinking that if the citizens need or want something then we should compensate people for their loss. McCormack showed there were only 4 categories for “takings.” There are 3 pages in the handout that cover this. An attorney with Indiana plan association would be needed for this also. It was decided to get the commissioners and PC discuss this on May 23, if the Commissioners can make that.
7. We got STP funding to get State Street done in West Harrison.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

1 comment:

Alan S. Freemond, Sr. said...

Commissioner Hughes and I had discussed plasma furnaces. These furnaces develop such intense heat that almost anything is reduced to a small volumn of ash.

The fact that we could incenerate even the contents of land fills is certainly desirable. A countryside without landfills is unfortunately just a dream for us.

Thse furnaces are in use in Switzerland and France. Tiny Switzerland has no land available for landfills.

Unfortunately thse furnaces are prohibitively expensive. A furnace that would process 3000 ton of garbage and trash can cost up to 450 million dollars. The Swiss seem to have a fee for disposal of an item built into the cost of almost everything.

I had hoped that we could get a departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency to underwrite such project for the KIO area to begin to eliminate our landfills.

Now with the Federal government essentially bankrupt a plasma funace is out of the question. It is however something that we ought to keep in mind in the event of better economic times and perhaps the decrease in the cost of these furnacs.