Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Driveways Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves two driveway permits despite discrepancies; orders drainage checks
Summary
The Evansville Board approved two driveway permits for a new subdivision after finding discrepancies between submitted plans and in‑field construction widths, and directed staff to verify drainage calculations and pipe sizing to reduce flood risk.
The Evansville Board of Public Works voted Aug. 8 to approve two driveway permit applications for a new subdivision even after staff and board members identified discrepancies between the site plans submitted and driveways constructed in the field.
City engineer Mister Wall introduced permit applications 1841 and 1842 and said the original site plans showed 18‑foot drives while the drives were constructed at 30, 34 and 37–38 feet. Applicant Jonathan Elpers, representing Gen 3 Contracting, told the board, "We submitted the site plan the way they wanted to see it, but put it in the ground the way that we felt would service the people best," and said his company would comply moving forward if the board clarified that 30 feet is required for front‑facing three‑car garages and 20 feet for two‑car or side‑load garages.
Board members and staff pressed for clearer enforcement. One board member said the issue is "we can't have stuff come through here" with inaccurate plans that are approved at review but not built as shown. Staff and an engineer warned that using the wider 30‑foot drive assumption increases impervious area and runoff; an engineer estimated that moving from a 20‑foot to a 30‑foot driveway could raise runoff on a given lot by "upwards as much a 10%," an effect that multiplies across hundreds of lots in the subdivision.
The board discussed pedestrian access where sidewalks cross driveways. City staff raised accessibility concerns and recommended tooling or grooves to make sidewalks detectable to people who are visually impaired; the developer agreed to implement tooling on the sidewalk edges to delineate the pedestrian path.
Despite those concerns, a motion to approve the two permits "as is" was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. Board members said they expect staff to increase scrutiny on future permit submittals and to require re‑submittal or recalculation if drainage reports rely on assumptions that understate driveway widths. One staff member later asked permission to assume a 30‑foot driveway width for stormwater calculations and to request resubmittals if drainage reports do not reflect that assumption.
The board’s action allows development to proceed while signaling that staff must confirm inlet counts, pipe sizing and other stormwater measures before final acceptance of public infrastructure.
