Commissioners want more resident input before moving forward with county’s growth plan

Local News X Brown County officials are still trying to decide how much more public input is needed before moving forward with an update to the county’s comprehensive plan, after a joint meeting Tuesday night, April 28, between the Brown County Board of Commissioners and the Brown County Area Plan Commission focused on public engagement, zoning education, infrastructure and the county’s future growth. According to Commissioner Tim Clark, the plan commission began working on the comprehensive plan update in fall 2024. He said there was a short period of time to gather community input through a survey, social media and two public meetings held the same day in Van Buren and Nashville. Working groups then reviewed the survey responses, public meeting feedback and information from the consultant before a final draft of the plan was prepared. Clark said commissioners reviewed the draft plan but had concerns about whether enough people from across the county had been heard. “Our concern was the need for more community engagement,” Clark said. He said the question was whether the county had gotten “the voice of everybody in the county” before adopting a plan that would guide future development and planning. Because of that concern, commissioners tabled the plan and looked for ways to pay for more public engagement. Two grants were applied for, but the county was denied both. Much of the joint discussion last Tuesday night centered on what Brown County is now and what officials want the plan to say about its future. A major point of the meeting was whether future public meetings should be held by township or by geographic area, instead of relying only on countywide meetings. Clark said one option would be to hold a “prototype” meeting in one township, such as Van Buren, gather feedback there, and then use that model in other parts of the county. He said the goal would be to find out what people in different areas want, what they do not want and where they think growth should or should not happen. Clark said each part of the county has different needs. Jackson Township includes Helmsburg, Bean Blossom, Fruitdale and Needmore. Hamblen Township includes Gatesville, Cordry and Sweetwater lakes, and areas near Yellowwood State Forest and Camp Atterbury. Washington Township includes Nashville and Brown County State Park, while Van Buren Township includes areas such as Pike’s Peak, Stone Head, Elkinsville and Browning Mountain. Clark said those areas do not all have the same character or the same views on growth. The meeting also included a long discussion about zoning and whether residents understand what is allowed on their own property and nearby properties. Clark said one goal of public meetings should be to help people understand how their land is zoned, what zoning district they are in, what uses are allowed there and how special exceptions work. He said residents are sometimes surprised when they find out what can be allowed near them. Some APC officials cautioned that the county should not confuse the comprehensive plan with the zoning ordinance. Planning Director Kayla Robertson said officials may be getting “too far into the zoning ordinance stuff” and putting “the cart before the horse.” The point was made that the comprehensive plan should come first, and the zoning ordinance should follow. Others said zoning education still matters because residents cannot give useful input if they do not understand what is already allowed. Commissioner Kevin Patrick said the county should use public meetings not only to collect opinions, but also to explain basic information to residents. He said when people come to rezoning or appeal hearings, they often say they did not know what could happen near them. Several officials said the county should make zoning information easier to find. There was discussion about using the county’s GIS system to show zoning, flood maps, rights-of-way and possibly infrastructure. Plan Commission member Andy Voils said putting zoning and flood information into GIS would be “a game changer.” He added if that could be done, “We would almost be up to date with all the other counties.” The future of small businesses in rural parts of the county also came up. Officials discussed the difficulty of balancing home-based or small rural businesses with neighbors who want to live in quiet residential areas. The recent Clarke Electrical case, on Greasy Creek Road, that was denied General Business zoning, was mentioned as an example of that tension. Clark said some businesses operate in the middle of nowhere with little impact, while others bring employees, vehicles or traffic onto narrow roads and upset neighbors. Infrastructure was another major issue. Officials said growth is difficult without water, sewer and broadband. Several people said development should follow infrastructure, rather than allowing homes or businesses where services are not available. Septic systems were discussed as a major constraint in Brown County because of soil conditions, clay and past failure rates. Commission member Voils said if the county wants growth in places such as Bean Blossom, it needs sewer, water and broadband, and then private development may follow. Some people at the meeting warned against expecting too much from a comprehensive plan. Plan Commission member Randy Jones said the plan should not become so detailed that it stops being useful. He said a comprehensive plan is more of a road map for county government and planning officials than a zoning document. Plan Commission member Carol Bowden said the county should keep the language simple enough for ordinary residents to understand and avoid wording that is too complicated. The question of whether to start over or improve the existing draft was also discussed. Commission member Voils asked whether, instead of hiring another company and creating a completely new plan, the county could take the existing draft, gather more public input and then add or subtract from it. He said Veritas had already been paid for the current plan and the information belongs to the county. Clark said he had asked Rundell Ernstberger Associates (REA), the firm that worked on Nashville’s comprehensive plan, to outline how township-based public engagement meetings could be done. He said they suggested that kind of approach could work by geographic area. However, it was noted the county has not hired REA for the county plan. Near the end of the discussion, some suggested that the commissioners first ask for public input on the current draft before spending more money. Plan Director Robertson asked whether a public input session could be held at a regular commissioners meeting as a starting point. Commission member Jones said it may be difficult to ever get enough public participation to satisfy everyone, because many residents do not get involved unless an issue affects them directly. Phil McKown, who was in the audience, pointed to Nashville’s process as a possible model. He said the town held two input meetings that drew about 75 people at one and 100 at another. He said the town’s comprehensive plan made clear that it was not rezoning property but gathering public input for a long-term plan. He encouraged the county to consider the town’s process as it decides what to do next. No firm decisions were made at the meeting with the plan commission and commissioners agreeing to meet again next month at the plan commission’s monthly meeting. To view the current draft of the county’s comprehensive plan, got to www.browncounty-in.gov/DocumentCenter/View/726/Brown-County-Comprehensive-Plan-DRAFT Featured Local Savings