Lebanon resident urges board to exempt 3‑lot split from Marion Blanton drain reconstruction; board requests technical and legal review

Michelle Steele of Lebanon addressed the Hamilton County Drainage Board during public comment on May 11, asking the board to waive a condition that would require her to reconstruct roughly half a mile of the Marion Blanton Drain as part of a three‑lot split on 10 acres.

Steele said she is not seeking a variance or special treatment but that, based on a study by Tom Adams of Adams Environmental Corporation (field work April 28), post‑development runoff from the parcel would decrease for the 2‑, 10‑ and 100‑year storm events by approximately 48%, 37% and 29% respectively. She also told the board the project would fall within the construction‑stormwater general permit exemption for residential developments of four or fewer lots with proposed impervious surfaces of 10% or less (citing Section 4.1(a)(9)(d)). "We are 3 lots on 10 acres...Our projected impervious surface across all homes is approximately 20,400 square feet, about 4.68% of our acreage," she said, and asked the board not to impose drain reconstruction or post‑construction detention requirements that she says the permit does not require.

Staff acknowledged receipt of Steele’s emailed materials and said they are still evaluating the claims. Staff explained two technical and procedural matters that must be resolved before a final determination: county detention and release‑rate standards (county flat‑release/detention rates) and the capacity of the existing tile. Staff noted county standards for detention and downstream discharge may differ from the state permit and indicated the county must ensure the board is not creating future downstream liability. Staff also said if the Steele parcel discharges across land owned by others before reaching an adequate outlet, written permission from downstream owners or a separate engineering solution (private outlet or detention) would be required. The staff member advised Steele to obtain a project‑specific legal opinion and offered to meet with her engineer, and the board agreed to continue technical and legal review rather than deciding the matter at the meeting.

Board members raised the possibility that satisfying local release‑rate standards without detention could require a variance or subsequent filing, even if the state permit exemption applies to post‑construction stormwater. Staff said no formal county legal opinion had been issued at the time of the meeting and that additional analysis of downstream capacity and potential impacts to other landowners was needed.

The board did not take formal action at the May 11 meeting. Staff and Steele agreed to additional technical follow‑up and one or more meetings with the engineer to provide the data the county requires for its analysis.

Next steps: staff will review Steele's calculations and the tile‑capacity questions, meet with Steele’s engineer as offered, and provide a written technical and legal recommendation to the board; Steele may seek a private outlet or detention if required or obtain a project‑specific legal opinion.