Development Review Committee - Regular Meeting

We have three cases on the agenda, but before we start, under correspondence, the last case, ZO2026-12, she designs LLC, care of Todd Leith at Leith Law LLC, is being removed from the agenda. Petitioner, at our request, is going to work with staff more to work out more details before they appear before this body, okay? So for today, we just have the top two cases. The first case is MI 2025-28, Raymond Goff. The Goff South Minor Subdivision, North County Road 250 West, Valparaiso, Indiana, Center Township, currently zoned R1, low-density, single-family residential, acreage is 14. The request is a primary plot group for a proposed three-lot subdivision. Do we have a representative, Goff? Yes. You come up to the table and state your name, address, and why you're here.

Is the green light on the microphone? It is. Okay. Thank you. My name is Arnie Goff. My address is 254 West 456 North Valparaiso, Indiana. We're here to receive approval for primary plat for a minor subdivision.

And this property has some history to it, does it not?

It does. This is the second time it's been through the primary plat.

Uh-huh. Susan, maybe if you could come to one of the microphones, please. What I'd like to do for this one here, since it has been here before, it's had a long trek to get here. Yes. I would like maybe Susan, for the record, kind of explain how they got here and exactly what we're doing today.

Yeah. So, as Arne said, they did previously achieve primary plat. However, they did not achieve secondary plat within the two-year timeframe and it did expire. They reapplied in 2025, went through a series of planning and engineering reviews. They did not have to reappear for variances because variances were granted in November of 2020 during their first run through primary plat. However, they were able to achieve planning conformance both Gulf North and Gulf South on May 14th of this year.

And as far as the access, that was a discussion during the process. Did that get worked out?

They did receive variances in November of 2020 relating to access through the minor subdivision rules.

Is there a way you can verbally describe that?

I believe they asked for relief from the requirement that private roads serving four or more lots need to be built to a higher standard as well as provide access for connectivity. However, the parcels to the north are part of the subdivisions and the part, I'm sorry, to the west are part of a subdivision and to the south has a single family home on it. And that was one of the things that they requested variances from was those standards.

Very good.

Before we go to the members on the panel, I want to read in the record Kevin Britsky could not attend today. And for your, I don't know if you got notepad, take some notes. For some reason, the token player was left off the copies that were emailed. So in other words, I'm assuming there's contours and other features on the site. I suggest that the applicant commit to a driveway agreement for maintenance and upkeep of the access of all the lots for both the north and south, which we'll talk about next. Likewise, I believe the petitioner should have a document for all lots committing to shared expenses for maintenance and upkeep of the pond in addition to operation and maintenance. I would suggest aeration such as a fountain be included. Finally, do we need a centerline drawing of County Road 250 wets for site distance at the drive entrance? I'll let the highway engineer address that. Since I don't have a drawing with contours, I can't be certain. Also, I would suggest the Liberty Fire Chief have an opportunity to comment on the plan of private drive access to the high five houses. Finally, can we be certain that mail, newspaper, waste management, et cetera, will use the private drive? Will school buses be willing to be dropped off by kids by the private drive in any event? Excuse me. Where am I? In any event, I suggest the drive at the very least have tapers for acceleration and deceleration. We'll address that in the comments. Because today could be an approval. So the board members know it's not an informal meeting. So with those questions in there, if you guys want to build on Kevin's comments, we'll start with David.

Yes, thank you for Goff South. Again, this has already achieved engineering conformance back under its prior submittal. We received the updated submittal on October 9th of 25, and after a series of three engineering reviews, an engineering conformance letter was written by myself on April 28th, 2026, included in the comments of I believe the ingress egress has already been established in the submittal. I know that was a common comment on the engineering letters was to get all that established. I would note that staff had inspected under the primary primary conformance. and found that there were still aspects of the common infrastructure that needed to get buttoned up. Do you know if that's taken place, if those corrections have been made since then?

On the drawing or physically?

Physically. On the property? Yes. Okay.

I can't remember exactly which.

Those are comments that would have come from Tom McNabb. He's still with our office, but in a different role. He had done an inspection a few years back. Was that for the drive? Predominantly, it was related to the drive. That's correct.

Okay.

That would be something that staff would inspect again once you were going for secondary. Essentially, it's something that verifies that somebody's not being sold a lot to nowhere. It just shows that dimensionally, all that is. The dimensions, the highway department would look at the area within the right-of-way. Myself or Kelly would inspect the area beyond the right-of-way to make sure that dimensionally there's conformance, the depth of the sections. Do you all have details related to the materials and the depth used for the drives?

We have details on the drawings and then Yeah, so we either used 53s or recycled asphalt.

Okay. Let's see. Another thing that came up pretty often in the comments was division clearance triangle. I'm assuming that would be something, again, that would be inspected upon secondary with you being here. I wanted to point that out to you.

Dave, can we go back to that recycled asphalt comment?

What was that regarding? The private drive. It's saying that's what it was used. Well, I haven't done the inspection yet, but there was inspections done prior and there were comments from Tom about what I think most of Tom's comments were related to dimensionally what it already had done so far. And there were some things that needed to get updated. Are you inquiring? I'm assuming you're inquiring about the area within because there was two different details. There was a detail that was used for the area within the right of way. And then a detail related to the area outside of the right-of-way on the private drive.

So the private drive still needs to be processed stone. Mill asphalt is not acceptable for that as a surface.

Okay.

I mean, it would differ from what they have in their plan as well.

Okay. And I believe, if I remember from the photographs from Mr. McNabb's report a couple years ago, I... I think it was stone, but it's been a long time since I've seen that report.

There is stone, and then there are some areas that are touched up or have been leveled off with recycled asphalt, well, ground asphalt, so.

Okay. So again, that's not what we're discussing today, just putting it out there to you that that would be, that we would need to make sure the details were followed for the road that are there. But again, that's prior to secondary conformance. Again, a vision clearance triangle, make sure that those requirements are being satisfied. I'm not saying they're not. That's something that you'll want to look at prior to, and we'll let you know when our office is going to be doing the inspections for the common infrastructure. Let me make sure I didn't have any other comments on sales. Yeah, most of our comments are related to the current condition of those drives.

For the record, David, you have not issued full conformance yet.

Only primary conformance, that's correct.

Okay.

That's only a single drive, right?

It, yes, it kind of meanders north into the other subdivision, but we made sure that the verbiage included addressed the fact that it was to serve all of the lots in both subdivisions. This was, if I recall correctly, I think this was being done right around the time that I got to Porter County. I think that If some folks had a mulligan again as to how this was classified, I think they would take that opportunity. But again, it is two separate subdivisions that are adjoining each other, but there is one common private drive that services all of them. And it did complicate the language in the agreements, but I believe both now do address the fact that all of the included homes use the private drive. And looking at this, yes, at this time, that's all the comments that I have.

Just to clarify for the record, Dave, is you're looking at your last review letter of 2026? Yes. And you say in there, it appears to conform to uh esc standards stormwater management and design and construction standards yes um and then you go on and talk about that they're for both properties and all so is really what you're saying is you need to address other things before the secondary flat is approved

They would need to do things prior to secondary conformance, correct? We would have to inspect to make sure that those were done, and we have not done those inspections.

Well, it's simply the inspection. You're not saying he hasn't done anything. He has to get those done before.

Right. Okay. Right. Just for the record. I believe, again, it's been claimed that it's done, but we have not taken a follow-up inspection yet in light of this meeting today. Very good. Thanks for clarifying. Yes. Anything else? Not at this time. I might jump in again if something else comes up, but I think those were the predominant things that we were looking at.

Very good. Thanks, Dave. Thank you.

Dan? Yeah. So... Soil warnings were completed on the property. We've conducted onsites for all the proposed lots. We've provided specs and everything will be, you know, soils will support septic systems. It appears like there's enough fall for drainage on the lots. Yeah, there's some things with maybe the front lot, that first lot in the front with the building on it outletting into that pond, but we'll address that when they apply for a permit for septic, but I don't really have any other concerns, major concerns.

Thanks, Dan. Martin? I'll echo what Kevin Bradesky brought up in his email that the due to the the amount of traffic on this roadway, an axle-decel lane would be, having tapers for axle-decel would be my recommendation on this. Could you clarify what that would look like, Mark? So that would be per standard, our county standards drawing for acceleration-deceleration lanes. On the county road? On the county road. Is there?

I think they're pretty close.

I think on the north side, definitely.

They appear to be outside of the right of way that it would be within.

Okay, so they could do that within the...

It appears to on the paper, but I can't say for sure. You'd have to look at your wetlands report.

It was standing water like a couple weeks ago, but with the lack of rain, it's probably gone down. Yeah.

Yeah.

So with the XLD selling just be on their side of the property where they do on the right away.

Correct. Yeah.

Not adjacent to their property.

Correct. On the west side of 250.

And there is a deed of dedication or has that already been taking place? That is included in these flats. Because I can't see this. yeah on both subdivisions they have dedicated right away 40 foot from center line so that would be asphalt car standards correct that would be the county road standard so is that a condition that is a condition for me

And then without the contours, I can't tell for culvert requirements either. So I would like to see that included prior to .

Would you be willing to accept the primary plat and that be a condition of the secondary?

Absolutely.

Okay.

And then just a further comment Previously, when the variances were granted with the way that the plan review letter was stated, we do believe it conforms. We're following the advice that the plan review letter gave for which variances were required. I reviewed that with Susan. I had some concern about the 60-foot wide easement requirement, but per our letters that we gave, I do believe, I agree with Susan, that we're following the advice of those letters and direction that we gave. Yeah, that's all the comments I have at this time.

Very good. Thanks, Mark. Rich, do you have any comments?

I was only, I couldn't, when I read Kevin's email, the site distance thing caught me.

against the pavement i believe that i believe that's right having those contours on there will show us better yeah and just for the record to make sure that we're on the same page especially in light of what your family does for a living that would be for them to do that work they would come in to get a permit to work within the right of way to put that down correct

Yes, you would need a right-of-way permit in order to construct that XLD cell lane. Okay, very good. Thank you, Dave. Where's the drive? Right there. It looks pretty flat.

So I'm assuming you guys would be self-performing that work?

Yes.

Okay.

I imagine so.

Okay. Okay. Sometimes when folks do self-performance, they kind of forget that step that you know how to do it. I'm not saying you ought to do it, but just make sure that you come in and get that so all that can be coordinated with highway.

Okay. Anything else, Mark or Rich?

Oh, that was it.

Susan, anything else yet? Do you have any questions for us?

Not at this time.

Okay. So maybe I can recap because a lot was thrown at us. First, go ahead, Rich.

Are we doing, we kind of got, we started out with north. Are we doing both of these at the same time?

No, we're doing south. We're doing south first. And south's got the access to 250. All right. Process stone, no recycled asphalt for the driveway. We need to verify the vision triangle for entryway out on the 250 west from your driveway. Inspection has to be done by engineering to confirm that certain things were done before we go to secondary plat. Matter of fact, a lot of this stuff will be revolving around secondary plat approval, meaning they'll have to be done. But we'll need to confirm that all the required side elements are complete before the secondary plat. It's the request that acceleration to acceleration lane according to our standards for your driveway access on the west side of 250 being put in place. You will need a right-of-way permit to do any culverts or any approach work to your driveway plus these acceleration-deceleration lanes. And we'd like to see some contours as the surveyor and the highway engineer requested so we can evaluate especially at the roadway whether or not the adequacy of your culverts and ditches etc does that pretty much encapsulate what everybody said so there are no further you have any questions on those nope okay would someone like to make a motion and rather than repeating everything i said just make reference to that

Motion to approve subject to the just stated list of requirements.

Second. Any other discussion? All's in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Companion to this, and we've probably addressed kind of the heavy lift on that because it doesn't include the driveway except driveway access, a personal property. The next case is MI 2025-29. Applicant again is Raymond Goff. This is the Gulf North Miner Subdivision. Same location, 250 West, Valparaiso, Indiana, Center Township. Again, our one low-density, single-family residential district. This parcel currently is eight acres. Today, we're here for a primary and collateral approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision. Susan, anything else to add on this one before we start? It's pretty much the same story. Very good. Thank you. David?

Yep, so we are on North now. North, again, previously had conformance. The reapplication also came in on October 9th, 2025. A separate engineering conformance letter was written for Goff Minor North. Also on April 28th, 2026, all of my same notes as before related to the public and or common improvement requirements in order to move on to secondary would still stand. So that would include the dimensional requirements with this drive servicing both sides or both subdivisions. So, again, we'd be looking at dimensional requirements, entrance radii, vision clearance triangle, materials and details being followed for the roads. Basically, everything that we just said for south would also apply to this. That's all I have.

When you say the vision triangles, are you talking about each of the digital drives when they connect to spine, or are you just talking about... No, just the intersection with the county road. That wouldn't apply on this lot, because it doesn't...

we've created that baseline the drive is on the south parcel right yeah they're they're both mentioned they're both mentioned within the ingress egress but to your point yeah it's on one side of the line but yes again this this this did complicate the easement verbiage understood thank you oh that was go ahead anything else no sir

Dan? Similar to my comments on south, soil borings completed. We've done on-site soils will support septic and don't really have much else beyond that. Very good. Thank you.

Martin? I would just say that pretty much all my comments are reflected from the south minor subdivision because they would apply to this one as well for any dry requirements. And then I'll reiterate Kevin Bryski's point that a maintenance agreement amongst all the lot owners is definitely mandatory. We didn't add that in the conditions of the other one. Correct. So I think we should probably include that in this one. To Dave's point about how complicated the easement verbiage gets with this setup, It'd be very hairy for the lot owners to navigate this in the future if they didn't have something binding. I think it'd be in everyone's best interest if that happened.

Because right now, the plan is for all lots to be owned by family, correct? Correct, yes. Okay, so this may not seem like a thing now, but down the road when it may not be, that's going to be... Oh, trust me, I did that with my family.

I'm here to tell you it's a problem.

That's all my comments.

Thank you. Rich, do you have anything further to add?

I also, I believe that's correct. Okay.

So it's not a separate easement document?

No, it would be on like on the secondary plat, just similar to a utility easement or drainage easement.

And I believe it's stated on both. Yeah, I believe it's identical on both of them.

And Rich, is there a nexus between the two lots and combine them together? Yeah.

Okay.

But does each lot recognize the other ones? Yes.

Very good.

I'm not seeing it in there at this time, Susan, but I could be missing it.

I'm going through it.

Lots created with this instrument, agreed. Okay.

And that same statement. Okay. I think that's totally adequate.

Yeah.

To me, this has a little more strength than notes.

I would agree. It's commitments. I guess commitments are. It's pretty good.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So yeah, what's currently on the primary plan is Commitment 1, Lot 1 and 2 of Gough North and Lot 1, 2, and 3 of Gough South shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the entirety of Private Road 456 North. I'd say that's pretty clear-cut and covers the responsibility in the future.

Let me ask this question. We just did a case where we vacated a driveway slash utility easement. How are all these properties getting their utilities? Does that driveway easement also include a utility easement to get them? It does.

I just want to be sure. Yeah, that was actually a comment in the second review letter that I think what happened was with how long this project has been around that their consultant accidentally included something from a previous version and we caught that the language changed. I believe that all of them now are listed as utility as well.

Correct. And this one does have on the description in the plan view, 30-foot ingress, egress, and utility easement.

Very good. Just want to be sure. Susan, any additional comments? Rich?

The pond that's on that site.

I was just going to bring that up. Oh, pond maintenance. Great. Kevin brought that up, too.

And I'm not sure where the outlet is, but it's a tile. I just remember when they first started. We'll be back up. About eight years ago, I met with John Gast, who was to the north of the house that's there now. And it was relative to the water on either side of the road. And John claimed that he knew where... There was a clay tile maybe back, I think we walked onto the property that you and your dad own now. And he said that if that tile was fixed, that area would drain. When you guys started making the existing area into a bigger pond, a pond itself, both of those, I don't know if you remember, both of those wetland areas dried up water-wise. You remember that, maybe a year or two ago? Now, I don't know, I assume you're done with the pond and there may or may not be an outfall structure or connected to some pond or you guys remember if you hit any clay?

No, I'm not aware that we hit any clay or found any outfall structure.

That did come up in the review process as well. I'm trying to find the note. I don't have their, I don't have Abbott Marsh's response letters here. But I can tell you for sure.

Let's see if I can find that. Your pond doesn't drain into those two wetlands, right? Does it overflow? No. So your water level...

If anything, it would go to the south over...

kathy the property owner to the south driveway into her yeah and she was she was i was out on a on a plane she had made because that water had crept over beyond her fence where she kept her horses back yep and she was complaining about that that's when i i met with john okay and uh he had indicated he thought he knew where the problem might be.

I don't know the whole backstory of that, Rich, but I do know that on Golf Miner South Engineering Review No. 2, I had written a comment that said the note number two about the suspected drain tile had been removed during the prior application for this project, but it had been reinserted. So I believe that that drain tile work related to it is still a part of the project.

Well, then there might need to be a new .

Oh, okay.

That's pretty cool. Okay. And then another thing for the record, looking at this. Not only was it driveway utility easement, but also there's a conservation area and drainage easement that pretty much covers that pond. I think what we can tell from the record is anywhere that that pond touches any of the parcels, they are the responsible parties for maintenance of the pond.

Okay. So that would be more applicable to the south?

Yes. Anybody else have any other comments?

No.

Someone would like to make a motion saying it is similar conditions to the previous approved South subdivision.

Motion to approve subject to comments similar nature to those of Gulf South. Second, please.

Motion to second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And if I didn't read the record right, I think I read the wrong, did I read the wrong number? But it's MI 2025-29. I was confusing it with the one. All right. So the way it is, we'll approve the primary plan. And once you've satisfied all the conditions, there'll be an inspection done, the final review, and you can get your secondary after that. Yes, sir.

Does the 30 days, does that start ticking now or does that start ticking when the review?

Thank you. That was my next question.

That's just for public comment.

Monica, what were you saying? And what is the 30 days? That's for additional comment. Okay. But then the approval could be even beyond that until he satisfies the motions today. Okay.

That's the earliest you can do it.

But he could bond for those public improvements and still get a secondary plan, though, too, correct? That's correct.

So do those, can those travel along at the same time or what happens before the other one can start?

I think this is solely for public comment. Yeah, he can be doing the work. He can be doing the work if he got it all done. It's either the 30 days or answering the engineer, whichever comes last.

So they are kind of working the same time.

They could. Okay.

And then so after the 30 days, is that the start of the two-year shelf life so we don't see this mess again?

Well, no. It'll be today with those conditions. You've been that road beforehand.

Yeah. Make sure we don't do that again.

But the key is, if you want to move forward, get secondary plans. You could get a bond, post a bond for the improvements in the right-of-way, and then we could issue the secondary plan. If not, then we wait to do the improvements before you can get the secondary plan.

And there's a process associated with that. I'm assuming you don't want to go down that road, especially with you all self-performing the work. But if you did want to do that, you could reach out to me directly and we can get you started on that process.

Preferably not, but we'll see where it goes.

We'll work with you. Just keep us informed.

I appreciate you guys taking the time to review this again.

All right. Good luck. Thank you. Any other members have any other comments? Yeah.