Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permanent Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitley County drainage board declines to approve storage-unit plan near Phillips Ditch; asks for clearing and access solutions
Summary
The drainage board declined to approve a proposed cluster of storage units near the Phillips Ditch, citing maintenance access, steep bank erosion risk, and runoff concerns; applicants were told to consider clearing, gutters, and returning with a revised plan.
The Whitley County Drainage Board declined to approve a plan to place multiple storage units adjacent to the Phillips Ditch, citing concerns about maintenance access, erosion and additional runoff.
The project, described by a presenter as three large rectangular storage buildings near Business 30, would have been located very close to the top of the ditch bank. An applicant representative said the units would extend about 5 feet from an existing chain-link fence and estimated the structures would be roughly 8 feet from the bank. Board members said the bank drops sharply in places and that trees and debris already obstruct the ditch.
Board members pressed several practical concerns. Speaker 4, the presiding member, said a permanent building so close to the bank could erode into the ditch and remove the board's only working side for maintenance. Speaker 3 noted that if the bank or an obstruction causes the ditch to slide, nearby permanent structures could be endangered. Speaker 1 said clearing and routine maintenance would be required before any such project could proceed.
Speakers also discussed stormwater and roof drainage. Speaker 2 asked whether roof runoff would be tiled into the ditch; Speaker 1 said the board would likely request gutters and tiling into the ditch to avoid sheet flow. The group discussed a customary 75-foot working distance used in other situations and suggested at least a 10-foot setback from the bank would reduce erosion risk.
No formal motion to approve was made; Speaker 4 stated that without a motion the item would not pass. Board members suggested the applicants could revise the plan (for example, owner-funded clearing of a workable access side or moving buildings further from the bank) and return. The board recorded "denied" or no action taken on the current plan, and staff were asked to relay concerns to the applicant.
The board did not adopt any permit conditions today; the item may be refiled with revised setbacks, access plans, or owner-funded clearing arrangements.
