Photo provided This graphic shows the property being proposed for annexation by Columbus.
The Columbus City Council has moved forward a request for annexation of property that includes a number of parcels owned by those who are opposed to the annexation.
The council passed the first reading of an ordinance on the matter 4-3, with several members expressing discomfort about how the annexation came together and others identifying the proposed annexation area as one of the few that would allow for continued city growth.
Council members Chris Bartels, R-District 1, Elaine Hilber, D-District 2 and Grace Kestler, D-at-large cast votes against the ordinance.
Council members Jerone Wood, D-District 3, and Jay Foyst, R-District 6, were absent.
The applicants, JOLI Development LLC (Joe Conner), Josh Aciukewicz and Lentell Properties LLC (John Whittington), are seeking to annex about 261 acres located along State Road 46 and State Street, southeast of the city limits. They’ve indicated that the proposed annexation “is for the purpose of long-term future residential development of their properties,” according to a report by planning department staff.
The request includes not only three parcels owned by the petitioners, but also four additional parcels owned by two non-petitioners — Mark Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm, LLC.
If approved, new housing would be built on approximately 64 acres already owned by the applicants — the additional nearly 200 acres of property owned by Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm were included to satisfy Indiana law requirements for the contiguity of the annexation area with the existing city limits.
Ordinances typically must be passed on two readings to be fully approved, but because property owners who don’t want to be annexed are involved, state law requires that the annexation be passed on three readings, city/county planning director Jeff Bergman told the council.
Tuesday was considered an introduction of the ordinance and state law requires that 60 days pass before the public hearing on the annexation, scheduled for the council meeting on October 1, Bergman said.
There are three types of annexation — super-voluntary, voluntary and involuntary, Bergman said previously. Super-voluntary annexations require a petition to have signatures of 100% of the property owners in an area to be annexed. Voluntary annexations are when 51% of the property owners in an area agree to be annexed and involuntary annexation is done by the city and not the property owners.
In this case, it would be considered a voluntary annexation because the area includes five property owners: Conner, Aciukewicz, Lentell, Clifty Creek Farm, LLC and Rediker, with the first three owners agreeing to be annexed, giving them the necessary 51%.
The Columbus Plan Commission on Feb. 14 voted to forward no recommendation to the city council by an 8-2 vote, which came after motions of favorable and unfavorable recommendations were deadlocked at 5-5.
The no recommendation was a result of the inclusion of the Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm parcels in the request, Bergman wrote in a memo to council members.
The first reading began with an in-depth presentation by Bergman where he described opportunities for and challenges to city growth, how annexation plays a role in that and how it relates to the matter council was considering.
Existing developments, barriers to providing city services and the fact that about one-third of the city’s planning area is located in the floodplain are the more prominent hindrances to city growth, Bergman said.
“One really important thing to keep in mind is that the single most important factor in the city’s growth is one that the city does not control — and that’s land availability,” Bergman said. ” …And really we see a significant area around the existing city limits, where there are barriers, where the city is effectively walled off in a lot of places from growing.”
The area southeast of the city limits, where the proposed annexation is located, is one of the few areas where elements align that make it palatable for city growth, based in part of the city’s strategic growth study, last completed in 2017. More specifically, it’s the petitioners’ properties where some sort of future development would be built that are described as one of the city’s most promising growth areas. The Clifty Creek Farm and Rediker properties, on the other hand, are partially or completely situated in the Clifty Creek floodway and floodplain. Development is prohibited in the floodway by the city’s zoning ordinance. Bergman did point out that part of the Rediker property is developable “if that was something that he chose to do.”
The proposed annexation would lead to seven properties being surrounded by the city limits while remaining incorporated. The planning department had contacted these property owners to see if they would be interested in participating in the annexation and none were, according to planning staff. The proposed annexation area also has three parcels that were excluded and includes the minimum possible number of non-petitioners at two — council member Bartels asked Bergman why that was the case.
“I think the goal in working with the petitioners was to minimize the number of people who would be annexed against their wishes, the path to complying with state law didn’t require those others, so they were left out,” Bergman told Bartels. “And then quite honestly, the other side effect of that is that it does increase the chances of a successful annexation by minimizing the number of people who could potentially remonstrate.”
If the city council does end up annexing the property, 65% of the property owners involved, or owners of 80% of the assessed value of the land could choose to remonstrate, defeating the annexation, according to Bergman.
Notably, the non-petitioners are eligible for a provision in state law that would allow them to not pay the additional city property tax rate if their properties were annexed. The non-petitioners will also still be allowed to hunt, have farm animals and do open burning on their properties as a result of changes to the municipal code that the council approved late last year. Those practices would be allowed as long as the properties remain at least 35 acres in size and are zoned agricultural.
Council member Hilber wondered what other restrictions would be placed on the property owners where they would lose the ability to do something they were able to do before the proposed annexation.
“I think the one that remains is you can’t recreationally shoot on the property, is something that council chose not to make an exception of,” Bergman said.
The planning department has been aware of some of the applicants’ interest in annexing and developing the land since 2016, according to Bergman.
Joe Conner of JOLI Development said the annexation was important because it would allow Columbus “to continue to grow to provide housing for people who want to work here and want to live here.”
“It would, in my opinion, minimally impact those two non-petitioners, they can continue to do what they’ve been doing like they want to do,” Conner said. “And, of course, there’s always this heritage thing. Well, ‘this has been in my family for a long time, we want everything to stay the same.’ But that’s not how cities grow, that’s not how the world progresses.”
John Whittington, the owner of Lentell Properties LLC, said he didn’t have “a really solid use for the property at this point” and that he would be willing to work with the city to figure out what would be best for it.
Aciukewicz, who is Conner’s son in law, said he and his wife have “a good amount of experience in rental properties,” mentioning some renovation work they’ve done on the corner of Eighth and Pearl streets. He also thanked those opposed to the annexation for “voicing their opinions last time,” referring to the February plan commission meeting.
“My personal motivation — the city needs more houses, as Jeff (Bergman) has outlined, as Joe has outlined, and from my perspective and (Aciukewicz’s wife Katie’s) perspective, we see rents skyrocketing and also new homes skyrocketing as well, so we believe this could help.”
Mark Rediker told the council that he was concerned about the impact of future development on State Road 7, calling it “a dangerous intersection,” and said some neighbors in the nearby Linwood subdivision would be “surrounded by the city” against their wishes.
“They’re going to have burn barrels, and they’re going to get a lot of complaints from the 100 homes that they’re looking at building right behind them,” Rediker said, adding that his family uses their property in the proposed annexation area as “an escape.”
Judy Pitman of Clifty Creek Farm spoke of her family’s history on the property and said she was “always happy to think that the city could not come any further unless we wanted to sell our property.”
She also said she felt as though that all nearby property owners should have been notified of proposed annexation, even though the law technically does not require it.
“To me, it may be the law, but it just doesn’t seem right,” Pitman said. “… The fact that we live in the county, and we have never been able to vote for any of you, and now you all are going to make a decision on our land, that just seems a little odd.”
