The Zionsville Town Council heard a first reading July 1 on amendments to the town’s stormwater drainage code. The update is proposed to the code, last amended in 2013, to provide regulatory and nonregulatory updates.
Stormwater Management Division Supervisor Michael Susong said the revisions were developed with Christopher B. Burke Engineering, LLC.
The ordinance serves three purposes: Compliance with EPA and Indiana Department of Environmental Management regulations; orderly development and redevelopment of land with regard to stormwater quantity and quality; and specific regulations such as permits, closeout steps and drainage easements.
“There are specific things that come from the EPA and IDEM that we simply have to comply with, and they are really relatively worthwhile and very important to have. But it’s very regulated and we’re trying to make sure we’re complying with those things that are very important,” Susong said.
Director of Public Works Lance Lantz said the revisions also call for the removal of the drainage easement encroachment process. Under the current ordinance, residents can ask the town council to allow them to build or place something within the easement.
“We are one of the very few if any municipalities or counties in this region that put that expressly in an ordinance,” Lantz said. “Most of us in the northern tier of Indianapolis work with Christopher Burke Engineering and use their model, and we’ve not run across any other ordinance that still has this opportunity within it.”
Lantz said although the process was added to the code to mirror similar easement encroachment processes in planning and zoning, growth of the town has led to an increase in requests, which are usually denied.
“It’s not formally recognized in the (proposed) ordinance,” Lantz said. “When people read that, it would suggest to them that there is a good chance, perhaps, that they could get what they want. This says, ‘The rules are the rules, drainage easements exist for a purpose and reason and there is nothing allowed in them.’”
Councilors discussed the removal of the process, noting that also on the agenda July 1 was a request from a resident to build a fence in an easement, which was approved. That request came from a resident of Spring Knoll who asked to place his fence within a drainage easement to keep his special needs child from leaving the yard.
“When there are situations like this, we are removing that appeals process,” Councilor Tim McElderry said. “I understand that other communities have already done that, and this would be in conformance with them, but I kind of like the idea of being able to have someone who has a situation very unique to be able to come forward. Ninety-nine percent of the time, we’re going to say no. But for that 1 percent, we’re literally voting on an ordinance that would remove that opportunity.”
Councilor Jason Plunkett, however, said he didn’t want to focus too closely on that portion of the amended ordinance.
“From my perspective, I actually appreciate it,” Plunkett said. “I think it makes it more cut-and-dry and gets it out of our hands, which is not necessarily a bad thing.”
Councilor Sarah Esterline Sampson proposed language that specifies types of encroachments that could potentially be permissible, such as on a swale, rather than striking the encroachment process altogether.
Lantz said public works would be willing to listen to the council’s suggestions and incorporate them if the councilors prefer.
The ordinance will return to the council for further discussion.
