Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planners: major subdivision proposal will need design waivers, driveway and septic studies
Summary
An applicant presented an informal review for a proposed five‑lot subdivision of a roughly 53‑acre parcel. Staff said the project must proceed as a major subdivision, may need shared driveways if waivers are denied, and must resolve pipeline, wetland and driveway separation issues before final approvals.
Charlie Ray, representing the applicant, presented an informal review of a proposed subdivision described in the record as the "Brand on" subdivision, a roughly 53‑acre parcel proposed to be divided into five lots. Ray said each lot would be larger than 10 acres; one lot is roughly 11 acres.
Susan of the planning staff explained the project was routed to a major‑subdivision review because the parcel had been subdivided in prior actions and because five lots exceed the county’s four‑lot limit for a minor subdivision. “Minor subdivisions are capped at 4,” Susan said, so the application requires major‑subdivision procedures and several design waivers.
Engineering and stormwater staff reported they have reviewed portions of the project. County engineering said driveway permits will be required, noted that prior stormwater approvals appear to have been obtained, and advised that if the project is reconfigured to share driveways the engineering review would need an additional step. An engineering reviewer said that, as shown, “I would have no comments related to your driving waste,” but cautioned that shared access could change that.
Multiple staff raised site‑specific technical constraints. Dan (health/soil review) noted that lot E’s soil borings place potential septic fields on the opposite side of a pipeline, which would complicate installation and could require additional borings or permission to run a delivery line across the pipeline. Staff also discussed wetland areas on the south portion of the parcel and emphasized that development and drainage must not be routed to those wetlands without appropriate approvals. County staff flagged culvert sizing (plans show 12‑inch culverts on driveways) and said culvert and driveway calculations are typically reviewed during driveway permitting.
Staff advised the applicant to document the utility and right‑of‑way relationships with the Indiana Toll Road and County Road 1000 North, noting there may be historic fence lines and right‑of‑way discrepancies to resolve before final dedication or roadwork. Several staff members encouraged the applicant to obtain and include stormwater/advisory‑board approvals, driveway permit information, soil boring updates where needed, and recorded survey evidence of adjacent right‑of‑way lines.
No final action was taken at the informal review. Staff described this as a preliminary step prior to filing design waivers and appearing before the county’s land commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
