Submitted image
The development at County Roads 300N and 300W would consist of seven buildings.
HANCOCK COUNTY — Planning officials are recommending against a developer’s request to rezone over 300 acres for seven large industrial buildings spanning over 3.5 million square feet.
The final decision, however, rests with the Hancock County Board of Commissioners, and at least one member has already indicated his support for the proposal.
Indianapolis-based GDI Holdings is asking the county to rezone the site on the north side of County Road 300N and west side of County Road 300W in Buck Creek Township from its current agricultural zoning to an industrial business park designation. The firm plans to develop the property for build-to-suit and speculative industrial projects. A site plan filed with the county shows seven buildings. One is nearly 740,000 square feet; four are nearly 500,000; and two are just over 400,000.
The Hancock County Area Plan Commission voted 4-1 in favor of sending the rezone request to the county commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Byron Holden, Renee Oldham, Michael Long and Wendell Hester voted for the unfavorable recommendation, and Bill Spalding, also a county commissioner, voted against.
Bill Bolander was not present. Tom Nigh stepped down from the plan commission at the end of last year and has yet to be replaced.
The consideration follows GDI’s request to rezone nearly 200 acres at the site for a smaller proposed development last year. The plan commission also gave that request an unfavorable recommendation, and the county commissioners never considered it, ultimately resulting in a rejection.
Although Spalding voted for the unfavorable recommendation for GDI’s smaller request last year, he supports the developer’s latest, larger pursuit. He said his reason is the same one he gave late last year when supporting Exeter Property Group’s plans for a warehouse directly to the west of the GDI site. During that debate, he noted the area’s proximity to Interstate 70 and the Indianapolis Regional Airport.
“That area, to me, is ripe for industrial growth,” Spalding said.
He added that if GDI’s project goes forward, it will likely result in economic development agreements with the county that can help public safety agencies in the area keep up with the ongoing growth. The agreements call for payments to be made to the county that would be made available for public safety and schools.
Mike Dale, executive director of the plan commission, gave GDI’s request an unfavorable recommendation as well. He pointed out that the county’s comprehensive plan calls for industrial uses on the southern half of GDI’s site and institutional uses on the northern half.
Institutional uses include functions like government, education and civic facilities like parks and water treatment plants.
“The project is in that sense not consistent with our comprehensive plan,” Dale said.
The comprehensive plan is not a zoning document, but rather envisions future land uses throughout the county. Hancock County’s current plan was created in 2006 and updated about a decade later. An extensive update is underway but is not expected to be completed until later this year.
State law asks plan commissions to contemplate various criteria when considering rezones, one of which is whether it would align with the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan.
Briane House, a lawyer with Greenfield-based Pritzke & Davis representing GDI, expressed skepticism toward the likelihood of institutional uses ever occurring in that area. He noted the county’s comprehensive plan also states such uses should be near cities and towns, and pointed out all of the industrial zoning and industrial development near the GDI site.
“Although the current comprehensive plan has a portion of this ground classified as institutional, I think, and I submit to you that the institutional classification is no longer effective or prudent for this site,” House told plan commission members.
Holden, a plan commission member, disagreed and said he thinks there’s merit to the possibility of institutional uses in that area.
“A lot of things could go out there besides concrete,” he said, referring to the concrete-walled warehouses dotting the western part of the county.
GDI anticipates an overall investment of $180 million and additional funds toward upgrades to roads and utility infrastructure. House said exterior lighting would be directed down with little glare and spillage. The developer would also agree to install berms along both county roads in front of the development 6 feet high — 3 feet higher than what the county requires. The berms would follow county standards for landscaping as well.
Several residents living near the site spoke out against the proposal at the plan commission meeting, citing concerns about traffic and drastic changes to the rural atmosphere.
Melissa Hunt said she’s noticing a pattern of using the development extending east from the Mt. Comfort Corridor to justify more of it even farther east.
“I don’t care how many berms you put in, light filtering, expanding the road; I don’t want warehouses right outside my door. Just stop approving them,” she said. Her comments met with calls of “amen” and applause from the audience.
Keely Butrum, a county council member, also expressed concerns over the proposed development.
“My personal perspective is that we’ve still not solved the issues of public safety planning,” she said. “Despite putting together economic development agreements going forward, we’ve not even begun to hypothesize the financial need that’s going to need to be met.”
Jayson Combs, president of the Sugar Creek Township Board, shared public safety concerns regarding the proposal as well. He said the township’s fire department is feeling the effects of the Buck Creek Township Fire Department’s rising run loads and fears further development will only make it worse.
“There’s a crisis going on up there,” Combs said. “It’s pulling emergency services from all the other jurisdictions. Sugar Creek Township is just one of them.”
Mike Horrigan read letters from the landowners planning to sell to GDI if the rezone is granted — Jane and Roger Haverstock and WCH Farms, represented by managing member Derek Hayes. Both parties’ letters stated their land has been in their families for a long time and that the decision to sell was not reached easily, but that it was the right choice upon realizing the ongoing development in the area and intention for more.
“Property owners should have the right to sell their property for development if they so choose,” Horrigan said, reading from Hayes’ letter.
