South Bend holds public hearing on Lafayette Falls voluntary annexation for about 45 acres of southern lots

The South Bend Common Council held a public hearing on Jan. 13 on a petition by Lafayette Falls LLC to annex roughly 44–45 acres on the city’s south side for a proposed 100–110‑lot single‑family development. The council took no final action; the ordinance will return for a vote in two weeks after the required notice and appeal periods.

The annexation area lies south of Lafayette Falls Phase 1 and west of U.S. 31 in Council District 5 and, according to city planning staff, meets the state contiguity requirement. Skim Morrell, principal development planner, told the council the site is currently vacant and has existing water available from Stewart Drive and Greasy Lane; no city capital improvements are planned at this time. “The proposed annexation area is approximately 44 acres and meets the state law contiguity requirement,” Morrell said.

Attorney Richard Nussbaum spoke for the petitioner and described the project as a private, single‑family subdivision that the developer expects will produce “between a 100 and a 110 lots.” He identified Lafayette Falls LLC’s principal as William Loudon and said the developer is in discussions with regional builder Allen Edwin; Nussbaum described the builder as known for “building affordable homes.” Nussbaum said the petitioner is optimistic about entering a mutual aid agreement for fire protection with Center Township and that many construction trades on the project will be unionized.

During the public portion, residents asked about open space and housing affordability. Resident Sukhasom (4022 Kennedy Drive) asked whether the plan includes green space, calling the proposed layout “really compacted.” Dr. Robert Bennett (1845 O’Brien Street) asked what, if any, affordable housing or Section 8 provisions would be required for the development.

Nussbaum and city staff responded that the project is privately financed and therefore not subject to a local requirement for affordable housing tied to public funding. “This is gonna be a private development, so there is no public funding for this development, so there are no requirements for affordable housing,” Nussbaum said. He added that the builder has a history of producing lower price‑point homes and that the development is expected to increase housing supply in the southern part of the city. On Section 8, Nussbaum said the project will be privately owned housing and “this will not be a Section 8 project.”

Morrell and the petitioner said there is green space south of the site owned by the developer and that the developer will work with the city to meet city green‑space requirements within the subdivision. Councilmembers asked about timing; Nussbaum said the statutory process includes an appeal period and staff expects site work could begin later in the year subject to those timelines.

Because this session was the public hearing only, the council accepted a substitute for the ordinance and held the hearing; the council will consider final action after the statutory waiting period and required notice.