HANCOCK COUNTY — A developer is one step closer to rezoning more than 146 agricultural acres to an industrial business park classification, further frustrating residential neighbors over how quickly their once-rural landscape is changing.
Indianapolis-based Ambrose Property Group is seeking to rezone an area at the southeast corner of County Roads 400W and 300N, just north of Interstate 70.
The company doesn’t have any specific plans for the site, at least not that it’s discussing publicly. Scott Sanders, vice president of development at Ambrose Property Group, told the Hancock County Area Plan Commission on Tuesday, May 26, that the rezoning gets the company ready for when a client is looking to occupy the site.
“Literally the first question on every survey for any piece of land when they’re looking for a home is, ‘Is it properly zoned?’” Sanders said. “…We feel that this site, specifically, really aligns itself for an industrial development.”
The site is southeast of one on the north side of 300N where Ambrose Property Group is developing four large industrial buildings, one of which will be a distribution center for Amazon.
Ron Pritzke, an attorney with Pritzke & Davis in Greenfield, represents Ambrose Property Group in the proposed rezoning.
“What Ambrose is doing across the street and hopefully what we would like to do on this site is really part of what I’m calling the great Hancock County success story,” Pritzke said at Tuesday’s plan commission meeting.
He noted county officials have been identifying and even rezoning much of the area near Ambrose Property Group’s latest site for industrial uses through work on the county’s comprehensive plan dating back to 2005.
Tsuda and University Loft Co. operate in large buildings west of the site Ambrose Property Group is looking to rezone. Between the two sites, San Francisco-based Prologis plans to build two speculative buildings, both more than 500,000 square feet.
Mike Dale, executive director of the Hancock County Area Plan Commission, said at the meeting that the site Ambrose Property Group wants to rezone is located in an area addressed in the county’s comprehensive plan for business park uses. That area, he added, spans between County Road 200W and Mt. Comfort Road north of I-70.
Lisa Bayne, who lives near the area Ambrose Property Group is eyeing, spoke in opposition to the proposal at the plan commission meeting. Bayne said she understands the need for the county to grow and prosper but that it shouldn’t be to the detriment of a single residential area.
She first became aware that the area has been designated for an industrial corridor several years ago, she said, adding leaders have not been taking into account the feelings of residents ever since.
“Since 2014, our constant message to leaders has been to incorporate industry into our neighborhood with respect for current residents,” Bayne said. “That’s not an unreasonable request and it can be easily achieved by selectively identifying industries that fit well within the current environment.”
Plans like the future Amazon building and Ambrose Property Group’s latest proposed rezone don’t fit well within the current environment, she continued, adding she feels they reduce privacy, residential property values and quality of life.
“This is not a success story for those of us who live here,” she said.
Tim McCarthy, who also lives near the site, sent a letter to the plan commission outlining his objections and voiced his opposition at the meeting as well. McCarthy said he’s lived there since 1993 and raised his family there, where they’ve enjoyed the rural environment. He asked those present if they would like to live close to a large, industrial property. McCarthy also said officials have not been forthcoming enough about their plans for the area and that nearby residents should have been personally told.
The Daily Reporter in 2004 reported on several open houses for the comprehensive plan that were held at schools throughout the county.
Bill Bolander, a plan commission member and Hancock County Council member, referred to the public meetings on the comprehensive plan and said they were also advertised on fliers distributed throughout the county.
“No we didn’t call you,” Bolander told McCarthy. “…It’s not our job to go door to door.”
McCarthy disagreed.
“You know that’s underhanded and sneaky,” he said.
Brian Jarman, who lives near the Ambrose Property Group site, said he’s not opposed to development there, but does object to any kind of development similar to the nearby building for Amazon. He also asked the plan commission to require that it review and allow the public to review any future proposed development on the site.
Tom Nigh, president of the plan commission, told the Daily Reporter that before a development can occur there, plans called primary and secondary plats would have to be submitted and considered in public meetings. The plan commission posts its agendas at hancockcoingov.org under the “Planning & Building” tab.
Shaun Hollering, who lives near the land Ambrose Property Group wants to rezone, shared his opposition as well, explaining he and his family moved into their house last year and have invested a lot of money into it.
“We’re not unmindful of the neighbors’ concerns, but this situation did not happen overnight,” Pritzke said after the residents spoke, referring to officials’ plans over the years. He also encouraged plan commission members to keep in mind the landowners’ right to sell the property to Ambrose Property Group for a use the county has endorsed for more than a decade.
Randy Sorrell, executive director of the Hancock Economic Development Council, expressed his support for the rezoning, calling it consistent with what’s happening to the west of the site. It’s also, he said, consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.
The plan commission voted 4-1 to send a favorable recommendation for the rezoning to the Hancock County Commissioners, who will vote on it during their meeting scheduled for 8 a.m. Tuesday, June 16, in the Hancock County Courthouse Annex, 111 American Legion Place, Greenfield.
Plan commission members Brad Armstrong, Bolander, Michael Long and Nigh voted in favor while Wendell Hester voted against. Hester declined to comment on his vote after the meeting.
