Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Draining Wildlife topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise flooding, access and wildlife concerns ahead of Michigan City petition hearing
Summary
Multiple Crestwood Drive residents told the Michigan City Planning Commission on March 24 that recurring flooding, a landlocked wetland parcel and nuisance wildlife are central concerns for the planned development; staff directed residents to city departments and scheduled follow-up ahead of the April 28 hearing.
Several Michigan City residents used the March 24 public‑comment period to press the Planning Commission on persistent drainage, land access and nuisance‑wildlife issues near a parcel that is set to return to the commission on April 28.
"My concern is that we have water problems out there," Mark Simmons told the commission, identifying his address as 121 Crestwood Drive and asking how new construction would direct storm water so it does not flow toward existing homes. Simmons said street flooding and water entering homes have been recurring problems.
Guy Carl of 122 Crestwood Drive described a substantial grade difference between his property and the road, saying the property boundary sits "6 feet below the road grade" and that spring runoff can leave the area as a temporary lake that takes weeks to drain. Carl also told the commission the parcel under discussion includes designated wetland and is landlocked with only a single easement for access, raising concerns about emergency access and site viability.
Anthony Greenway, who said he maintains multiple plots in the area, told commissioners residents were told they would be given "first opportunity" to buy the land but that he was not informed when the property was sold. Greenway also said wildlife, including coyotes, have been seen near children's play areas. At one point he estimated the value of unpaid maintenance he performed at roughly "$184,000," a figure he framed as his own calculation rather than an official accounting.
Several residents pointed to a nearby parcel and operations at a business they identified as Calumet Pallet on Ohio Street as a source of raccoons and related messes crossing into the neighborhood. The commission advised those concerns fall to city departments such as code enforcement, and staff offered to speak with residents after the meeting to provide contact names and next steps.
The commission did not take substantive action on these neighborhood claims at the March 24 meeting; the petition cited on the agenda was continued to April 28 so the applicant can supply additional information. Staff and commissioners encouraged residents to compile documentation and bring technical concerns to the appropriate city departments ahead of the next hearing.
