MINUTES

WARRICK COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD

COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM

107 W. Locust St. Suite 303

Boonville, In 47601

897-6170

October 12, 2005

 

 

The Warrick County Drainage Board met in regular session with President Carl Jay Conner presiding, also in attendance was Phillip H. Baxter, Vice-President; Jim Niemeyer, Surveyor and David K. Zengler, Attorney for the Board. Also present was Sean Owen, Deputy Surveyor. Don Williams, Secretary came in after the meeting had started.

 

Minutes recorded by Cheryl D. Embry.

 

Attendance in the audience was Gerald Klein, Bruce Lothamer, Harold Harkins,

Pam Trickey, Jeff Gill, James Biggerstaff and Bruce Miller.

 

President Carl Conner called the Warrick County Drainage Board session of October 12, 2005 to order.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

Carl Conner: The first order of business on the agenda is the approval of minutes from September 28, 2005, is there any additions or deletions or changes to the minutes as presented?

 

Phil Baxter:We may have to wait on that as I will have to abstain.

 

Carl Conner: Okay, you were not here that day. I would make a motion that we table the minutes of September 28, 2005 until the next meeting, whichÖ..

 

Phil Baxter: Iíll second that.

 

Carl Conner: Which would be October 19th, I believe, no October 26, 2005. The next agenda items are Drainage Plan Approval and the first one listed is Bruce Miller, Barrington Development Group, Lexington Subdivision.

 

DRAINAGE PLAN APPROVAL:

 

LEXINGTON SUBDIVISION-BARRINGTON DEVELOPMENT GROUP:

 

Bruce Miller: Bruce Miller with Barrington Development Group. Iím here to give you an update and not ask for an approval this afternoon on the drainage plan for Lexington Subdivision. The Drainage Board has determined that it cannot proceed forward on approval until it has documented evidence of the flood plain acceptance by DNR and

its also my understanding of the floodway. I would ask if Mr. Niemeyer has any documentation from DNR regarding flood plain?

 

Jim Niemeyer: I have a copy of a letter that was written September 27, 2005 and it was replied from DNR as requested by Sherri Rector of the Planning Commission.

 

Bruce Miller: Does that satisfy the Drainage Board of Surveyorís requirements as far as the flood plain?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Well, what it says in here is under the consultants, developers and realtors, so forth the division staff will only survey in a review capacity and you or your engineering company must supply all of the data and engineering data and once that is done, then you will submit it back to them. If they reject it then you have to re-submit it and if you fail on the second one, it says that they will not honor a permit.

 

Bruce Miller: It was my understanding through my Engineer that that letter coming back from DNR did indicate that they agree that the flood plain is established at 383, that was accepted. So, additional documentation for us weíll just use that existing established 383 as the flood plain. The other request that, itís my understanding that the Drainage Board had, is that you need to have a documented established floodway, I do not have that documentation today, that information has become available to my engineer as of this afternoon through INDOT, who has done a study on County Road 550 and also the new proposed highway 66 running under Cypress Creek. So, we will have two established Governmental floodway document studies that we will then present to you for hopefully your acceptance that, that has established a study showing what those floodways would be.

 

Carl Conner: Bruce, are you through? Would you like for us to just table this issue until sometime in November and when would you like for us to have it rescheduled on the agenda?

 

Bruce Miller: I would like, if the next meeting is going to be in November, I would like to be on that.

 

Carl Conner: We do have another meeting in October, but I donít know if youíre going to have sufficient time.

 

Bruce Miller: I would like to be scheduled for that October meeting, I feel confident that I can have the information to you as I say within the last hour, I have had confirmationfrom my engineers that hard copies of that documentation that I have just discussed on floodways is being mailed to my engineers. So I feel confident that I will have that information available to us within the next 4 or 5 working days and we can get everything prepared. One thing I would like to ask the Drainage Board and I do understand that you do not want to make any temporary kind of decisions until you have all of the information, but I also have a small area in the subdivision that we have to find through environmental studies that is a wetlands area. That area is less than an acre, it is a .5 and an excuse me a .065 and a .55 acres, less than an acre, that we have to find and submit to the Corps of Engineers for their consideration. We would like to use the green space as we exit Lexington, youíll see that on the drainage plan, to not have retention within the subdivision, but to set that existing space aside as submitted to you on our drainage plan as a wetlands area, a protected undeveloped area within the subdivision. So, I will discuss that further with you when I come back before you at the October meeting.

 

Carl Conner: And the Corps of Engineers has been involved with that situation?

 

Bruce Miller: Absolutely

 

Carl Conner: I would move that we table the request for Lexington Subdivision drainage plan until the October 26, 2005 meeting.

 

Phil Baxter: Iíll second that.

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes two to zero. Thanks, Bruce.

 

PARADISE LAKES SUBDIVISION:Lot 36:

 

Sean Owen: (explaining to the Board) This is one whole lot and theyíre splitting it right there in the corner.

 

Carl Conner: Is this going to be minimum sized lots of 2 Ĺ acres.

 

Sean Owen:Yes.

 

Carl Conner: Is there anyone here who would like to address this issue, if so please come forward. Just please state your name for the record and who you represent.

 

Pat Janney, Ron Janney and Jim Biggerstaff introduced themselves.

 

Jim Biggerstaff: What this is, is they originally had 5 acres and they are dividing it up to give their other 2 Ĺ acres to their daughter and thatís what the purpose of t his is for.

 

Pat Janney: Before we die (laughter) unplanned.

 

Carl Conner: Looking at both of you, Iíd say your going to live for a long time, so based upon that assumption, should we just deny this request?

 

Pat Janney: I think weíd have some opposition on that one; youíd have a younger version of us in here.

 

Carl Conner: Okay, Do you have any questions, Phil?

 

Phil Baxter: I was just trying to see where it is?

 

Jim Biggerstaff: On the corner of Jenner & Center, there was one tract that cornered and it was 5 acres and they have frontage on two roads.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, do you have any comment?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No.

 

Carl Conner: Whatís the will of the Board?

 

Phil Baxter: Iíd move that we approve the request.

 

Carl Conner: Second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes two to zero. Thank you. Next item is Warrick Place 4A & 4B requests.

 

WARRICK PLACE 4A & 4B:

 

Sean Owen: They want to split the parcel behind McDonaldís; it is already an existing parking lot and has drainage. They are requesting to have it approved with no additional drainage plans.

 

Carl Conner: All thatís in regards to the car wash?

 

Sean answered that it was and that he had a site plan for the car wash.

 

Carl Conner: State your name for the record and who you represent, please.

 

James Biggerstaff and Doug Given introduced themselves.

 

Carl Conner: Who do you represent, yourself?

 

Jim Biggerstaff: Yes, well Newburgh Associates, LLC. Doug is a partner of Newburgh Associates; he is one of the owners.

 

Sean Owen: The drainage will not change as the car wash all drains into the sanitary sewer because the state regulates them because of the soap and etc.

 

Carl Conner: its right behind the McDonaldís, isnít it?

Sean Owen: Yes

 

Phil Baxter: I have no questions.

 

Carl Conner: No questions, Jim, do you have any comments?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No, everythingís fine.

 

Carl Conner: Anyone here who would have any comments in regards to this request. Okay, whatís the will of the Board?

 

Phil Baxter: Iíd move that we approve the request.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve the request, second that motion, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes two to zero. Thank you. River Ridge III Lot 59 Vacation of Drainage Easement.

 

RIVER RIDGE III LOT 59: VACATION OF DRAIANGE EASEMENT:

 

Carl Conner: State your name for the record please and who you represent.

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Jim Morley, Jr. of Morley & Associates, project engineer. Iím just here answering any questions, I believe. Mr. Niemeyer was out at the site and took a look at the easement.

 

Jim Niemeyer: We reviewed it and everything is within bounds, so there should be a print there for the Board.

 

Phil Baxter: I have no questions.

 

Carl Conner Jim, do you have any comments?

 

Jim Niemeyer: No, everything is fine.

 

Carl Conner: Is there anyone here who would like to address this issue? What is the will of the Board?

 

Phil Baxter: I move that we approve.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve the request, second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye, passes two to zero. Thank you. Are you going to take care of this Edwards Ditch next?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Yes, Iíve got some stuff to give to you though.

 

EDWARDS DITCH:

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Iím here kind of in advance trying to get something taken care of before a project gets to you in its entirety. My client is going to be picking up this 80-acres bounded by Libbert Road on the west and Bell Road on the east and 66 on the south, itís the 80 acres piece there that has the Woodard Realty sign on it now. They are going to be picking that up to use as commercial property, it still has to go through the re-zoning process and has to go through a subdivision process and so on and so forth. The initial thought is the southern half of it will have a frontage road that goes across it and it is kind of shown there and from the records provided by the County Surveyorís Office, the area highlighted in pink there is the legal drain for, I believe it is Edwards Ditch that goes all the wayÖwell, basically it wraps around three of four sides of this property. The Edwards Ditch along the highway isÖwell, actually the ditch on all three sides falls inside either County Right-of-Way and/or State Right-of-Way. The ditch alongBell Road, if you remember was the one that was re-done when part of the northern half of it was redone when Kenny Ubelhor and the County worked together to upgrade Bell Road, the southern half of it was just redone as part of the highway 66 plans. The entire southern line was just redone as part of 66 and then coming up Libbert it was redone for maybe the southern hundred feet or so until it goes back to its natural condition. But, all the way around I believe it is inside the Right-of-Way. I guess I come before you tonight to see about having that Right-of-Entry relaxed and I would think that we would make it subject to a plat being filed, the reason Iím here to ask today instead of once the plat is done, as you can see the roadway that goes there runs parallel to the highway, those lots would be roughly 250-feet deep going towards the highway, but they need to be roughly 250-feet of unencumbered ground. So, depending on where the Legal Drain is at kind of drives where that frontage road would be on that ground. So, if the Legal Drain stays in its entirety, we would need to move that frontage road north so that we would have 250-feet of frontage or 250-feet of unencumbered depth. If that Legal Drain can be relaxed, then we then we would keep it probably closer to where it is, you know and for the 250-feet of depth. I know there has been some discussion in the past about Legal Drains, how much is too little or how little is too little. I spoke with Henry Bigge, who I believe has the contract to clean the ditch just on the south side of the road, I spoke with him about, I call them the three ditches, but itís one ditch, but these three portions of this ditch and I asked him how much working room do you need? And he said that 25-feet was ample working room for him to use. He said that he didnít see ever in the foreseeable future that he would ever go in and do work on those ditches, but if he did need to, that would be ample room for him to work from and 25-feet is the minimum allowed by State Law. The 75-feet, there roughly 4,000 lineal feet of ditch that affects this property and 4,000 feet at 75-feet set back encumbers roughly about 6 acres of ground. This ground is obviouslyÖgoes for a premium price so the lesser amount that can be encumbered, obviously better for the development and the more ground thatís going to be available to be sold and taxed and to generate taxes for Warrick County. I definitely do not want to ask for anything less than what Henry felt was required to maintain the ditch, he said 25-feet was ample, so I used 25Öso I asked for variance or relaxation to 25-feet which is allowed by State Law. I would think that you would want this to be subject to this becoming a project or a plat being filed because if itís just a corn field or bean field forever you know then thereís no necessity to relax it.

 

Carl Conner: Any comments, Jim?

 

Jim Niemeyer: I do have a few, I took some pictures this afternoon before I came up to the meeting to show what it looks like now and its all in riprap. I just wonder whether 25-feet is to small or too little. If we need to work on that with all that riprap in there we may need more room, Iím not really sure, but I think we need to consider that and insofar as cleaning it, the only thing that we can do right now, or looks like we can do is spray and I was concerned about MS4 coming down the pipe. We donít know for sure what kind of requirements we will have to meet insofar as spraying ditches and waterways because the chemicals will eventually get down into the river and if we allowÖ.I just am concerned that if we leave too much go then weíre not going toÖ.weíll be held pretty tight.

 

Carl Conner: Right

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: When I was talking to Henry, we were talking about the riprap that was there and we were discussing this ditch first, the Edwards Ditch is on both sides of the highway through there and he didnít foreseeÖhe said that most of the problem or most of the ditches that he has to end up dipping out for the County, he said the majority of that silt is coming out of agricultural farm fields and to best of my knowledge there is only one forty acre farm field left in the watershed that drops into here. So, the amount of silt that comes into there would be minimal, actually this 80 acres doesnít even drain into those ditches, there is a berm all the way around that field that prevents this 80 acres from even draining into those ditches. But, I talked to him about that and he said that on the south side where it is developed, the 75-feet when it was originally done was set up so that when you went in to clean the ditches, they could scoop out the sediment, swing it out, put it in the field, spread it out and then the farmers would come through and theyíd just plow it under with the rest of their field. Once they become developed, people donít plow in a developed yard anymore, so what happens is they end up bringing in a back-up or aÖif they do have to scoop it out, they scoop it out and load it in a truck and drive it out. He said that that was what they would end up doing on the south side of the highway if they needed to, but he said even on the south side, he said they wonít disturb even 25-feet. He said his machine was 10 Ĺ -feet wide including the weights on one side and a typical dump truck is10-feet wide and he said basically what they do is they just come in, back to that corridor to wherever they load, his machine loads them and then they drive out. He stated that the excess width is not necessary, the riprap does prevent an interesting issue of exactly how you do clean a riprap ditch, because you canít scoop sediment out of a riprap ditch really, you know, I meanÖ.but thatísÖ. fortunately for Warrick County and for INDOT I guess, there shouldnít be much more sediment coming down that ditch because that water sheds basically developed in its entirety.

 

Carl Conner: Phil, do you have any comments or questions?

 

Phil Baxter: Iíd like to table this as Iíd like to at it before I make a decision.

 

Carl Conner: Would you like to make a motion?

 

Phil Baxter: Iíll make a motion we table until October 26, 2005.

 

Carl Conner:†† October 26, 2005

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Is it something that you would, that would be helpful to meet out on site or anything, I would make myself available to meet you on site if that would help any.

 

Phil Baxter: I may do that, give you a call, Jim.

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Okay

 

Carl Conner: Jim, I have a question, who is the developer of the 80 acres?

 

Jim Morley Jr.: Moore Holding Group.

 

Carl Conner: Moore Holding Group and who is a part of Moore Holding Group?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.:Greg Moore

 

Carl Conner: Thatís what I thought, it was a gentleman that is in residential.

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Heís doing a little bit of everything but heís did some apartments in Vanderburgh County.

 

Carl Conner Is that the intent for the use of this or is this strictly commercial?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: The intent is that it be, the part you see there (on plan) would be all commercial and then looked at doing some apartments. (He stepped up to the Board and showed them on the plan where the buildings were going to be) This would all be commercial across here and hopefully some commercial back in here and then maybe if we do quadrants, commercial quadrants here and then maybe some multi family apartments.

 

Carl Conner On Libbert Road?

 

Jim Morley, Jr.:Yes, they would jump to Libbert Road over here, because of the depth of the property, you know, obviously these lots are worth a premium on the highway. This back piece is a little more up in the air. The front piece is a little more sure that itís going to be commercial. The hope would be that you would get like a grocery store or a larger facility to come in here on this back piece and then some kind of maybe luxury apartments here.

 

Carl Conner: I drive by it 2-3 times a day, I probably need to be out there and take a closer look at it.

 

Jim Morley, Jr.:If I can be of any assistance, Iíd be happy to meet any one of you out there.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to table the request until the October 26, 2005 and I have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes two to zero. The next one is Maurice Webber Drain.

 

MAURICE WEBBER-WOODLAND DRIVE:

 

Jim Niemeyer: Mr. Webber is not here today, so Iíll have to speak for him. This is a problem that occurred off of Woodland Drive, which is about 3-4 blocks North of 662 and you enter Woodland Drive off of Frame Road. I have pictures here that shows the flooding of his yard after a heavy rain. What the problem appears to be isheís receiving drainage from the North from several home sites and the water runs downhill toward his yard and betweenhe and his neighbor there is a drain that comes between and it goes out to the street at Woodland and then turns and goes West towards a county storm sewer. The drain between his home and his neighbors is a 10-inch culvert and it maybe a partially rusted out, it is at the very beginning, it looks like. It may be silted and it may be collapsed, I donít know, anyway, he was wondering if he could get some help. I did check the aerials and there it is not connected with to the best of my knowledge connected with a regulated ditch at all.

 

Carl Conner: Do you have any comments, Phil?

 

Phil Baxter: Does the culvert belong to them?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Well, itís a county facility, he mentioned that it was a county easement between he and his home and the neighbors and Iíve not heard of that before, but itís a 10-foot easement and the drain is exposed on the North end. Thatís the entrance and it was put there by Kenny Ubelhor or he developed that some years ago and 10-inch is not large enough to handle all that water, cause it does drain a large area and it may be that that drain simply is plugged, I donít know. It may need to have the services of Roto-Rooter to go in there and clean it out. But, there is a problem and he said Iíve not had that problem until all these homes were built and as they increased, then the drainage became a problem because all the run off heads their way.

 

Phil Baxter: Would you be willing to have Jack look at it and see if heís got an opinion?

 

Carl Conner: Yes, I guess my concern is, itís not a legal drain is it, I mean itís on private property.

 

Jim Niemeyer: Thatís right.

 

Carl Conner: What I would probably like to do Phil, is why donít we have Jim just go out there and take a look at it and try to determine if in fact it is that private drainage or if itís coming from somewhere else and then take it up at the next meeting, because weíll have more information. If itís a private drainage, we really have no responsibility or authority to do anything with it, but at the same time, if itís coming from a source that we do have responsibility for, then maybe we can help him out. Do you feel like we have enough information, Jim to know exactly the source?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Well, I think we need to look at the entire aerial coverage and then using topographic maps we could do a drainage study on it?

 

Carl Conner:Do you want to make a motion, Phil? That we table it, can you have all that done by the 26th Jim?

 

Jim Niemeyer: Yes.

 

Phil Baxter: I make a motion we table it until October 26, 2005.

 

Carl Conner: Okay, got a motion on the floor to table until October 26, 2005, second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes two to zero. Thanks, Jim. The next item is Gardner-Webb Ditch, Gourley Place retention pond.

 

GARDNER-WEBB DITCH-GOURLEY PLACE-PAM TRICKEY:

 

Jim Niemeyer: Sherri, would you come up?

 

Sherri Rector: I you remember a few weeks ago, Mrs. Trickey appeared before you to get permission to leave a fence constructed within the legal drain of the Gardner-Webb Ditch on her lots in Gourley Place Subdivision and also across the retention area of the subdivision and at that time you gave her permission, however, there had not been any notice sent to the adjacent property owners. So, when Mrs. Trickey appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals there were remonstrator against the fence and these easements with concerns from the adjacent property owners with being able to maintain the retention area if itís fenced in and the drainage of the subdivision. So, the Board of Zoning Appeals asked me to have this placed on the Drainage Board Agenda for this evening for reconsideration, not saying to deny it. But, so that you could hear the concerns of the adjacent property owners and then have another vote whether the fence should remain or not before it goes back to them for the variance to be granted. I have with me the applications that are going before the Board of Zoning Appeals, this is the location of the fence (she is showing the Board a plan) on Mrs. Trickeyís two lots that she owns and when the variance is granted, it is granted on the application and the plot plan on file, so if she would ever want to, if you gave this approval and also the Board of Zoning Appeals, if she would ever want to move that fence and take in a larger area or another location than whatís shown on the plot plan, then she would have to come back before you and the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Carl Conner: Jim, do you have any comment?

 

Neither Jim nor Phil had any questions or comments.

 

Carl Conner: I have a couple of questions, Sherri, what is the depth of that retention pond?Iím sure itís on here but I donít see it.

 

Sherri Rector: Well, itís on the subdivision plat and I donít have that with me. I donít know what the depth of it is, there is an aerial photo, they may be able to tell you, it would be on the drainage plans but I donít have it.

 

Carl Conner: I guess one of my other questions is, originally it was on the developers property, is that correct? And then she purchased it?

 

Sherri Rector: Right

 

Carl Conner: What was the reason, is she here? Would you mind coming forward please and state your name for the record.

 

Pam Trickey: Pam Trickey

 

Carl Conner: I guess one of my questions is, why would you want to purchase real estate with a retention pond on it?

 

Pam Trickey:The two lots that I have purchased are lot s 18 & 19 contain that retention pond and I actually thought it was a nice body of water just from an appealing standpoint. It did not concern me from the standpoint of having it in my backyard.

 

Carl Conner: Do you know about what the depth is?

 

Pam Trickey:I can tell you that itís a 55-thousand gallon, I believe its on the plot plan, if Iím not wrong, itís 55-thousand gallon. I canít tell you what that represents though Iím not sure what that means.

 

Carl Conner: My understanding was that you erected the fence primarily for safety purposes?

 

Pam Trickey:Yes, sir, thatís correct.

 

Carl Conner: Do a lot of the children there in the neighborhood utilize it?

 

Pam Trickey:Yes, prior to putting the fence up there were many instances of unsupervised children, meaning that the parents were not with them from ages 2-12 that were fishing in the pond and playing in the pond.

 

Carl Conner: Thatís all the questions that I have. Is there anyone here who would like to address this issue, if so please come forward and state your name and address.

 

Mr. Conner was advised that from the minutes previously recorded it was stated that the pond was approximately 3-feet deep.

 

Gerald Klein: Iím Gerald Klein, I live on 7711 Jeremy Lane property owner adjoins the property of Ms. Trickey and I have a petition from all the owners that this property adjoins this on both sides. Our concern is the water that comes down our way, there is so much water that goes into this retentionÖto the ditch, the drainage ditch and we have a hard rain, I mean, itís a tremendous amount of water coming there. This development so far, there are 22 homes completed and 2 under construction now and there are 23 available lots to be built on, which is going to bring a lot more water our way. We have a tremendous amount of water now coming down that way whenever we have a hard rain and we need to make sure that the drainage easement/retention pond is maintained and in the past, the history of maintenance of the retention pond has been terrible. The developer at one time, I believe the gentlemanís name was Madden and he was on the Surveyorís Office and he got ahold of the developer and said Hey, you need to do something with this drainage ditch. It was grown up with weeds and the vertical standpipe has weeds growing around and I went over there numerous times and cleaned the holes out so the thing could drain out. Since then, Mrs. Trickey has gotten a letter where it was in pretty bad shape from the Surveyorís Office, I have a copy of the letter which was sent where the retention pond has been growing up with weeds and it just has not been maintained at all. If you would see the water that comes down through there, all of the five property owners that signed that all have property adjoining this and we just need, with this fence we canít keepÖ.we donít know whats going on and with all the water coming that way, we definitely need to maintain this and see to it that itís maintained.

 

Carl Conner: No disrespect, sir, but looking at that fence she has around that retention pond appears to me that there is easily that you can see whether or not that retention pond is being maintained to the standards that it should be maintained. It also doesnít look to me like that itís an obstacle to any water draining in there as it should.

 

Gerald Klein: Well, the variance she is asking for is not for the existing fence if I read the variance correctly. She wants to take in the drainage easement, it doesnít say nothing about the existing fence and with this it gives her the right to come all the way down and block the complete drainage easement and thatís what the variance sheís asking for, I see nothing in the variance about the existing fence.

 

Carl Conner: So if it is left as is, then are you saying you donít have an issue?

 

Gerald Klein: I would have to see what the other property owners that are with me, if they have anything to say.

 

Carl Conner: They are more than welcome to come forward and state their name and address.

 

Gerald Klein: Well, like I say, the way I read the variance she could move that fence at any time she took a notion.

 

Bruce Lothamer: 7699, whenever I purchased my property two years ago this coming November, one of the areas that I liked was that it was all open through there and I saw that according to the plot plan that was drainage easement, public utility all that was Right-of-Way that was to be left open and I knew that retention pond was there and I had not a problem with it. Since that time, whenever the mowing season began the following spring, I was one of several property owners that did maintain a large area back there including around parts of the retention pond that was accessible from our area just as far as mowing. Mr. Klein himself mostly worked to keep that drain, that standpipe clean, I have on occasions gone out there to keep it clean and that has been an issue with this, just trying to keep this area clean and keep the water flowing freely, because whenever it does back up, we do have water at this present time that does come into our backyards, we catch the bulk of it. Whenever it does, itís not able to flow out there freely, but in the past before it was fenced in, we did, I did mow around it on property that was adjacent to mine and up the west side of it. We did maintain, but now with it being like it is, we canít get to it and by evidence already presented, thereís been a history set forth that they have not kept it maintained, so thatís part of my contention, is that I personally would not even approve the fence where it is now. I do not believe that safety is an issue, we have three other retention ponds in the immediate area, two in Brooklyn Ridge and one in Julianne Estates and then also Talbert Ridge that are not fenced in. As far as the children, that are back there, yes, she is right, children have come back there and fished, I have not seen any of them play in it, I have seen them fish. But, I have not visibly, not saying that they havenít, but I have not seen any kids in it, but I have seen them fish. But, to your question on this existing fence, Iím opposed to this as well.

 

Carl Conner: Is there anyone else who would like to address the issue?

 

 

Jim Morley, Jr.: Iím consultant for the property owners, I went last night to take a look at it on Pamís behalf, we did not, Morley & Associates did not design this project, but she asked me to come by and take a look at the project. A couple of things that I noticed, the fence where it is placed today is 30-feet from the top of the bank of the legal drain and from the conversation that I had with Pam last night she has relatives that live in the area and they have never seen that creek come out of its banks. I cannot speak to that one way or another, however, the fence is 30-feet from the top of the bank, relative to it being a legal drain, when Irvin was the County Surveyor and I understand that was 2 administrations ago, but itís relevant to the extent that in Charlestown Square Subdivision over off of Stahl Road, thatís on Howard Ditch, I believe and Howard Ditch is a legal drain and they were allowed to fence up to within 30-feet from top of bank in Charlestown Square. So that has been previously allowed by the Warrick County Drainage Board to allow fencing within 30-feet of the Right-of-Entry top of bank. As Commissioner Conner said, the fence is open, roughly 40% of the fence is open allowing for anyone to clearly see into the fencing area. I think you see in the pictures, you see the fencing and you can see the neighbors house on the far side of the fence, so Iím sure that anyone would be able to see into the fence like you brought up. This allows anyone to look and see if there is any maintenance concerns and there was some discussion about the utilities along through there, the fenceÖbetween the fences there is about 15-feet of room for ample maintenance for utility so therefore, the utilities can get in there and they are not blocked out. The fence itself does not affect the drainage that I was able to see, I see Jim shakinghis head, so he agrees with me on that, there is nothing about this fence that will create more water, itís an existing condition. The fence doesnít divert any water, the fence doesnít block any water, the fence does not affect drainage to the best of what I could see when I went out there and the fence does not prevent maintenance. In truth the adjoiners areÖlegally cannot go over there to maintain that basin per the plat that basin is the requirement to be maintained by lots 18 & 19 on the plat and to the best of my knowledge, when a neighbor goes over there to work on it, then legally they are trespassing. The way I understand it, this variance is for the existing fence as it sits today, it does not allow for moving of the fence or anything like that. I heard talk of problems with drainage in the area, the one thing I did notice when I was out there yesterday, I donít know if it was approved or not by the Drainage Board, one of the downstream neighbors constructed a bridge across the creek, which I donít know if they got a permit to do. Some of the neighbors are dumping lawn clippings into the creek and if anything is going to affect drainage those two things affect drainage more than the fence and the legal drain affects drainage. I can understand a personís desire to limit liability, itís easy to say that no one will ever get hurt there, but if somebody does, they wonít sue the neighbor who says nobodyís ever going to get hurt there, theyíll sue Mrs. Trickey. So, I think that if she feels itís a liability, itís a liability to her and sheís the one who has to cover it from a liability standpoint.

 

Carl Conner: Thank you, Jim. Sir, did you have some other comment?

 

Bruce Lothamer: Mrs. Trickeyís husband has spoken to me and to other neighbors, but Iíll speak only for myself, that this fence that is existing is only temporary that he has stated that his wife wants to fence in the entire area and though the variance is requesting only for this existing fence, we feel they will be back wanting to go even further beyond this, this is per her husband directly to me, that this is only a temporary fence and that she does want to fence in the entire area back to the Gardner-Webb Ditch andas far as the utilities, speaking from the electric side of it, I have been in touch with Vectren on this and the existing fence as is does not interfere with any utilities in the area. However, that is with the existing fence and in speaking with Mr. Mark Riggs this morning from the Right-of-Way department that if another fence were to go in there as to where she has marked off with orange ribbon, painted stripes on the ground out there along with metal t-posts and string it all along the backside of our properties, that if she wanted to fence in, thatís at least one point that we believe she is wanting to go to and if thatís the case then that is going to definitely going to interfere with the utilities on one standpoint and therefore other issues involved are only a guess as to what they may or may not want to do. But, I do know and I can vouch for the fact that her husband has said that this is only a temporary fence and they want to go further.

 

Carl Conner: Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Hearing noneÖ..did you have another comment, Sherri?

 

Sherri Rector: No, I just wanted to make sure that they know that itís the existing fence and thatís it right now, if she wanted to move it she would have to come back again and from what he spoke the utilities would be going through it too.

 

Carl Conner: Thank you, any comments from the Board? If you will hurry please and this is the last comment in regards to this issue.

 

Pam Trickey: I just wanted to make a statement that the fence that you see in the pictures is the fence that we have requested is the final and only fence that is to be constructed on that property. All the orange lines that we were talking about in the previous discussion marks the property line, so from the property line to make sure that we were definitely 6-feet away from the property line, that is the only reason why that orange marking is out there is to indicate where the property line is. Thereís no further plans for any other fences.

 

Carl Conner: Any other comments from the Board? I would like to make a motion that we table the issue until the October 26, 2005 meeting because Iíd like to personally go out there and take a look at the drainage and all the ditch that presently runs through there.

 

Don Williams:Second

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

Carl Conner: Aye, passes three to zero. Moving on to claims. We have claims in the amount of $27,275.40, do I have a motion to approve as presented?

 

Phil Baxter: I make a motion to approve the claims.

 

Carl Conner: Have a motion on the floor to approve the claims, do we have a second?

 

Don Williams:Second

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all in favor state by saying aye.

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye passes three to zero. Is there any other business Jim that you want to bring before the Board?

 

IVY GLENN SUBDIVISION:

 

Jim Niemeyer: Iíll just mention this as it came up before, the folks in Ivy Glenn Subdivision have contacted me and I gave them a report of progress of what we are doing. You know they were flooded back there at the time of the big rain and I told them we donít know for sure but weíre working on Howard-Williams Ditch and weíre having a bid party next week to meet with contactors to bid on cleaning the ditch and removing the brush.

 

Carl Conner: Phil, do you have any comments?

 

Phil Baxter: None

 

Carl Conner: Don, do you have any comments?

 

Don Williams: Yes, I apologize to the Board for getting here so late, I had three hours of meetings in Indianapolis last night and this morning and I just couldnít get here any quicker, my apologizes.

 

Carl Conner: Dave

 

David Zengler: I have nothing.

 

Carl Conner: I have no additional business before the Board, do I have a motion to adjourn.

 

Don Williams: So moved

 

Carl Conner:††† Have a motion to adjourn, do I have a second?

 

Phil Baxter: Second

 

Carl Conner: Have a second, all those in favor state by saying aye.

 

Phil Baxter: Aye

 

Don Williams: Aye

 

Carl Conner: Aye meetings adjourned.