Contractor and board debate 'mass excavation' and as-built grading as contributor to drainage problems

At the Chesterton administrative hearing, board members pressed developer and contractor witnesses on whether the site had been mass graded in contravention of approved plans.

"May I?" a board member asked when viewing slides noting the red-boxed code language forbidding mass grading. Contractor Kyle Coats responded that construction means and methods — installing rear-yard drains, trenches for utilities, and moving heavy equipment — can produce areas that appear mass-graded after tracking and rain. "I thought we were on the same page with that when we were sitting there trying to discuss the plan," he said, adding that crews try to restore disturbed areas promptly.

Board members pointed to examples where as-built grades did not match the originally approved grading plan and to specific lots where elevations were off by inches or more; they said those deviations can change overland flow paths and contribute to localized flooding. Eric Gastvich said the developer delivered engineered plans and turned over storm infrastructure to the town but argued that approved as-builts and occupancy permits that do not match the grading plan also contribute to downstream problems.

Several board members asked staff to re-evaluate as-built performance of stormwater systems that influence Violation 2 and to move that re-evaluation into the stop-work order deliverables. Staff agreed to expedite the review with the developer’s engineering firm and to bring results back to the board for consideration.