By Nathaniel Smith, Editor

Update:

The February 4 meeting has been canceled and moved to Tuesday, February 18 at 6:30 p.m. at the Washington County Justice Center. Another meeting will follow two weeks later on March 4 at 6:30 p.m. The reasoning being "due to the anticipated high attendance and lack of public safety precautions at the Courthouse."

Original article:

Tuesday night, January 28 at 7 p.m., concerned citizens of Washington County packed together at Merica Auction Services with no sitting or standing room left to discuss the proposed zoning ordinance. Led by Chase Stanfill and Adam Dufour, the overall goal was to inform the public on what is actually stated in the ordinance, as well as ways in which the community can fight against it ahead of the 6:30 p.m. February 4 meeting on the second floor of the Courthouse.

The meeting began with a word of prayer and a brief introduction by Adam Dufour. Adam was on the planning commission from 2010 to 2017 and was the vice president for the majority of that time. He co-authored many plans and procedures, and he was nearly the sole author of the zoning ordinance established in 2016. 

“There was no opposition to the zoning ordinance that I wrote. There were only five people that showed up to that public hearing, and everyone knew about it. There was no opposition because the current zoning ordinance that is on the books is not offensive to anyone,” said Dufour. “Unlike this proposal, it is not a zoning ordinance that tells you what to do with your property, it is a patch ordinance to cover certain issues that the county was actually concerned about. This zoning ordinance is nothing like that.”

The proposed zoning map consists of mostly Agricultural zoning, Recreational, and a small, less than one square mile, section of the county labeled as Residential 2. Interestingly enough, Industrial and Commercial zones are not present whatsoever.

“There are a couple things that everyone needs to know about this,” said Dufour. “First of all, agriculture is a completely permitted use in recreational land. It is not affected at all. There is concern that once they get their foot in the door by passing this ordinance, they will be able to go back and re-zone the county however they want. However, that is not the case. In order to change the map, the committee would need to go through the exact same process – public hearings, etc – that the original authorship of the ordinance requires.”

Dufour then went on to address his main concern.

“My main problem with the ordinance is the definition section. The definition section is utterly vague. There are hundreds of things mentioned in the ordinance that are not included in the definition section. For example, churches are mentioned multiple times in the ordinance, but the term does not appear in the definition section,” said Dufour. “However, the definition section mentions something called ‘Rural Residential Zone.’ There is no such thing in the ordinance. There is a definition for it, but it is not in the actual ordinance at all. That shows me that the ordinance has been copied and pasted from another county’s website that has language about zones that Washington County does not even have. Furthermore, ‘veterinary services’ is mentioned in the ordinance, but it is nowhere to be found in the definitions section.”

Continuing on, Dufour explained why that is such a big deal.

“Here’s the danger with that: if they pass the ordinance as written without a clear definitions section, it essentially leaves the terms open to the interpretation of the board and BCA when you go before them and say you’d like to do or build something,” said Dufour.

A concerned citizen asked, “Did they try to slip this in without us knowing about it?”

The short answer is no, but it may go a bit deeper than that.

“According to state law, the planning commission has to comply with open-door law which requires them, under Indiana Code 5-3-1, to post the ordinance in a publication of the locale, and to post it on the Courthouse door as well as the door in which the planning commission meets and the office of the planning director. That’s all the law requires,” said Dufour. “Whether they tried to slip it in or not, they did comply with state law in doing so by doing the bare minimum.”

From here, the questions from the crowd began to ensue.

“How is this going to be enforced? How does this have teeth?” asked one citizen.

The office of the planning director is tasked with enforcing the ordinance. Specifically, Chapter 11 Section 12 of the ordinance states that a $2,500 fine will be charged for the first violation, and any subsequent violations could come at a cost of up to $7,500.

Dufour went on to explain that everyone is protected by the grandfather clause.

“Everyone is protected by a grandfather clause. If you have been doing something already, this does not affect you. The real problem is expanding your business, changing the nature of your business, or starting a new business,” said Dufour.

County Commissioner Todd Ewen stated in an interview that the zoning ordinance is required in order for the county to receive grants. Dufour went on to comment on that:

“It is my understanding that there are certain things that the county is ineligible for unless we have a zoning ordinance,” said Dufour. “Now, we have a zoning ordinance already. You can look at a map of the counties in Indiana that have and do not have zoning. There are 10 counties that do not, and we are not one of them because we’ve had an ordinance on the books since 2016, it’s just not offensive to anyone. So, I really don’t know what Todd is talking about.”

The ordinance also addresses another topic in an eyebrow-raising way. While many in-home businesses are allowed (with new regulations put against them), many others will be banned if the ordinance passes. Some of these restrictions are questionable at best. Here is what is stated in the ordinance (Section 10-2):

“The following uses, by the nature of the investment or operation, have a pronounced tendency, once started, to increase beyond the limits specified above for Home Businesses and impair the use, value, and quiet enjoyment of adjacent residential or agricultural properties. Therefore, the following uses or similar uses shall not be permitted as Home Businesses:

• Auto/Vehicle Sales, Service and Repair
• Barber/Beauty Shop greater than a two (2) chair operation
• Commercial Kennel
• Freight, Trucking
• Heavy Manufacturing
• Landscaping/Nursery, Plant Materials
• Restaurants, Eating or Drinking Establishments, including Bed and Breakfasts with public dining service
• Salvage Yards
• Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital
• Well Drilling/Contractor Storage Yard
• Medical, Dental Offices with the exception of telehealth services
• Houses of Worship
• Boarding House
• Trailer Rentals
• Welding Shops (not including private art studios)
• Private Clubs
• Canned or Confined Hunts
• Massage Parlor”

Another concern that many people have is in regard to the ability to own animals and livestock. Dufour explained that it only applies to the Residential 2 zone in the county, which makes up roughly one square mile. Here are the stipulations (Section 6-7):

• Domestic Hoofed Livestock - horses, cattle, mules, sheep, goat, and swine kept for non-commercial purposes.
  • Standards
    • Minimum Lot Size: Domestic hoofed livestock are prohibited on Residential properties of less than five (5) acres.
    • Maximum Density:

• • • Shelter: When Domestic Hoofed Livestock animals are on a parcel of land, a barn or shelter for their use must be constructed. All swine must remain sheltered.
    • Confinement: Although the entire lot may be fenced, a containment area must be provided where the animals are normally penned and supplementary fed. All corrals, stalls, and barns shall be at least 25.00 feet from any property line.
    • Waste & Manure Management: Regular removal or spreading of manure is required so that it does not become unsightly, emit an odor beyond the property boundary, or become a public nuisance.
    • Drainage Management: Adequate drainage facilities, swales, troughs, or improvements shall be provided by the property owner and constructed to protect any adjoining and adjacent properties from runoff containing contaminants, including sediment or organic wastes.

• Domestic Livestock, Poultry, & Fowl (The following fowl are prohibited in Residential Zoning Districts: Roosters and any other fowl whose calls are audible over similar distances.)
  • Standards
    • Minimum Lot Size: Domestic livestock, poultry, & fowl are prohibited on residential properties of less than one acre.
      • On lots from one (1) to five (5) acres in size, no more than 15 poultry, and/or fowl, and/or domestic small livestock are permitted. 
      • On lots greater than five (5) acres in size, there is no limit on the number of non-commercial poultry, and/or fowl, and/or domestic small livestock allowed. 
    • Containment Area:  A containment area for poultry, fowl, and domestic small livestock is required. The containment area for poultry and fowl shall be no closer than 25 feet to any property line. Domestic small livestock must be housed appropriately (for example, rabbits in rabbit hutches).

While many concerns were raised last night, such as only being allowed one residential home per parcel of land, those seemed to be some of the largest. The conversation soon shifted to how the community can fight the ordinance.

“I think the number one question that we’ve got is ‘how are we going to beat this,’” said Chase Stanfill. “I’m going to let Adam address that real quick, but it’s simple: we’re going to beat them at the voting polls.”

“There are two steps. The first thing is to show up at the February 4th meeting and to be prepared,” said Dufour. “They are going to have two minute time limits per person on speaking when we go there, but according to the rules of procedure, a group of people can designate a speaker to represent them so we won’t be reiterating the same points over and over and can have 10-15 minutes of speaking time. I am specifically going to ask them to define elements from the rules of procedure for me before they start the clock on my time because they are unclear. We will make our best presentation to try to convince them to drop this thing right now.”

Adam Dufour concluded by saying, if they do not drop it, the next option is simply to go to the ballot box and vote out those responsible. There were also various discussions of dissolving the Zoning Board due to “illegal membership” claimed by Rhonda Greene.

It is unclear what the outcome will be on February 4. However, one thing is certain: there will be an enormous amount of people packed into the Courthouse on Tuesday. Tensions will likely be high, but Chase Stanfill stressed the importance of being calm and orderly at the meeting.

“We are not going to get anywhere by yelling and hollering,” said Stanfill. “We have to focus on presenting our argument clearly and concisely.”

No matter if you are in favor or against the ordinance, it will bring about many changes to our county if it is passed. Some citizens will be affected more than others, and that could easily be in a very negative sense. We will discover the fate of the county and its residents in a mere six days… I would suggest arriving early if you want a seat at the table.

To view the proposed ordinance in its entirety, click Here.

Chase Stanfill

Devan Grigsby among the crowd of Washington Co. citizens.

Alan Bishop

Washington County resident voicing her concern.

Photos by Nathaniel Smith.