Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pleasant Meadow Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton County drainage board tables Pleasant Meadow subdivision review pending easements and drain verification
Summary
The board tabled review of Pleasant Meadow subdivision drainage in the John Hoffman Watershed after hearing a presentation and neighbors’ concerns; members asked for easements to be shown on revised plans and verification of existing drain pipe material before proceeding.
The Clinton County Drainage Board tabled the Pleasant Meadow subdivision drainage review for the John Hoffman Watershed in Ross Township after members identified missing easement documentation and questions about the condition and composition of existing drain pipes.
A presenter (Speaker 2) described the roughly 20-acre site north of Edmond Mills near the county line and explained topography that slopes from the southeast high point toward the northwest. The presenter said a developer from Lafayette is proposing two additional homes and that a northwest corner had been designated as wetland and left without development on the plat.
Board members asked for easement locations to be shown on a revised plat so the board can confirm where existing subsoil drains enter each lot and how the new lots will discharge. Speaker 2 said the developer agreed to create an easement for the existing drain and that discharges would go to a Tippecanoe County drain; the transcript records that some existing drains may be "illegal" and under Tippecanoe County jurisdiction.
A neighbor, who identified himself as a resident adjacent to the site (Speaker 5, Ned Yangmore), expressed concern that adding a second house could disturb an existing surface overflow from his pond, saying he worried the construction "would disturb this area." Speaker 1 responded that the plat includes a note that "existing surface flow to remain as pond overflow," and that obstruction would be subject to drainage-board enforcement to correct any interference.
Technical issues flagged by the board included verifying whether recent perimeter drains tied into the legal drain and whether previously installed pipe meets the board’s standards (the board indicated it will not accept single-wall pipe for a legal drain). Soil mapping discussed during the presentation showed about a 15-foot elevation difference across the site and an available depth to the water table near 42 inches, which factored into discussion of house placement and crawl-space concerns.
Given the outstanding items — recorded easements, confirmation of discharge point jurisdiction, and verification of pipe material — the board approved a motion to table the Pleasant Meadow drainage review to allow staff and the developer to provide the requested information. The motion to table carried 3-0.
