The Hancock County Plan Commission narrowly approved a controversial minor subdivision on the southern edge of the county at its Sept. 24 meeting.
The subdivision, petitioned for by TC Johnson, is at 5800 S. CR 300E, which is just north of the Shelby County line.
The subdivision received a positive recommendation from staff, but county Planning Executive Director Kayla Brooks noted that complaints from nearby residents and farmers were valid, saying that her “hands were tied” by existing county ordinances, all of which the petition complied with.
The main concerns cited by those opposed to the development, of whom around six were present at the meeting to speak but only three actually spoke due to to time constraints, were the loss of farmland that would occur, inconsistency with the county’s comprehensive plan and the potentially poor water quality due to industrial development just across the road, also the county line, which includes a landfill and a composting site. Attorney Brian House, speaking against the petition, heavily emphasized the Shelby County industrial development, noting that in addition to the existing landfill and composting facility, an anaerobic digesture plant, which is used to breakdown biodegradable waste, was also planned to be constructed. This was consistent with minutes from the Shelby County’s Plan Commission’s July meeting. Those minutes also showed that House was the representative for the petitioner looking to build the plant, Burnham Sev Shelby, LLC.
The minor subdivision being considered at the meeting was at one point paired with another minor subdivision immediately to the east, a plot which is also owned by the same petitioner. The eastern subdivision plans were dropped, but House suggested that the two minor subdivisions were a way to circumvent the process for a major subdivision, which the two minor subdivisions would qualify as if combined and would require a more strenuous approval process.
Registered Land Surveyor Philip Going, who was speaking on behalf of the petitioner, noted repeatedly that everything they were doing was within the letter of current county law. He also noted that the land parcels were divided over 20 years ago, using that fact as evidence that the initial two minor subdivisions being separate was not part of a “ruse” to get around current ordinances.
The county’s comprehensive plan was referenced several times throughout the hearing, as the plan keeps the area within the proposed subdivision zoned as agricultural. The plan, however, is not binding law, and while the county is currently developing a new unified development ordinance that would bring the law up to speed with the plan, the plan commission and any developers currently petitioning it are bound by the current law.
Plan commission member Byron Holden went on to criticize the other members of the board for placing too much emphasis on the comprehensive plan, going on to say that he was concerned the board was stepping on the property rights of the petitioner.
Area farmers Linda Conner and John Sparks also spoke against the proposed subdivision, with Conner highlighting the issue of disappearing farmland while Sparks noted that “People are more of a threat to [agriculture] than industrial [development] is.”
In the initial version of the subdivision, the land extended further to the north taking up the entirety of a ditch which is currently being used by the farmer who neighbors the subdivision, but Going said that the petitioner and the northern neighbor had agreed on a land sale allowing the farmer to acquire all the land up to the midline of the ditch should the subdivision be approved, noting that the subdivision plan before the commission did not include the northern side of the ditch for that exact reason.
After a long deliberation period, board member Lacey Willard moved to approve the subdivision with the condition that the plan commission and plat committee review any further developments on the adjacent properties with additional scrutiny. Her motion was seconded by Holden. The subdivision ultimately passed 5-3. Notably, both of the plan commission’s elected officials, County Commissioner Gary McDaniel and County Councilman Scott Wooldridge voted against the subdivision.
