Planning commission approves Sandy Trails plat with tighter HOA covenants, agency approvals required

The City of Portage Planning Commission on Aug. 4 approved a primary plat amendment for the Sandy Trails subdivision that relocates the subdivision entrance to comply with a request from the Indiana Department of Transportation and imposes several conditions on the developer. The action followed a public hearing and a separate vote to exclude an additional lot that the developer had proposed adding to the plat. The commission approved the primary plat with contingencies that the developer submit updated homeowner association covenants by Sept. 1, provide the Indiana Department of Transportation approval letter for the US Highway 6 entrance, provide an IDEM approval letter where applicable, and use a professional forester’s tree-species list in selecting trees for the subdivision. The vote to approve the primary plat carried in a roll call after discussion of covenants, management and INDOT’s requested road alignment. At the start of the hearing the petitioner’s representative said the entrance and driveway realignment were being made at INDOT’s request. Attorney McClure told the commission the change is driven by INDOT and that other prior approvals for the development “are still intact.” Applicant representative Chris Salaitis described the additional parcel the developer sought to add as an “engineering oversight.” Resident Lou Tirock, 3478 Debbie Lane, objected during public comment, saying the hearing felt perfunctory and that neighborhood input would not affect a project he characterized as moving forward regardless of resident concerns. “After due consideration, it occurs to me that this is a done deal, that input from local constituents and community members really do not matter,” Tirock said. Commissioners and staff discussed the status of restrictive covenants tied to a prior Board of Zoning Appeals approval and whether the covenants obligated a third-party management company to maintain common areas. City staff confirmed the covenants had been approved and signed by the city, and the commission asked the developer to tighten language requiring a declarant or third-party management company to manage snow removal and lawn care. The commission also separately considered—and voted on—a motion not to include the extra lot the developer had proposed after discussion that the lot had not been part of the original public hearing and had been omitted from earlier public notices. The commission’s primary-plat motion included four explicit contingencies: the updated covenants, the INDOT letter, any required IDEM correspondence, and compliance with a forester’s recommended species list for plantings. The motion passed on roll call with one commissioner recorded as voting no and the remainder voting yes. The decision allows the developer to proceed toward recordation of the plat, subject to the conditions the commission imposed. The commission asked staff to receive and confirm the revised covenants and the required agency letters before the developer proceeds to final recordation.