City officials on Tuesday night took a step to annex nearly 100 acres of property in Columbus Township.
Columbus City Council members voted 8-0 to pass the first reading of an ordinance to annex 96.97 acres into the city.
Ordinances must be passed on two readings to be approved. Council member Jerone Wood, D-District 3 was absent.
The request was made by Force Holdings, LLC, along with Gordon and Barbara Lake — the original annexation petition was submitted by only Force Holdings but the Lakes joined after an invitation by the planning department, according to a memo sent to council members by city/county planning director Jeff Bergman.
The Lakes would have been surrounded by the city limits had they not joined, according to planning staff.
While no rezoning or development of the property is currently being proposed, Bergman said, “One of the things that I know the applicant had mentioned was they may be looking for some clarity and some assistance with some trespass issues that are on the property.”
The annexation area is located at the eastern terminus of McKinley Avenue, east of its intersection with Marr Road. The area has one home on a half-acre lot owned by the Lakes and five parcels of undeveloped ground owned by Force Holdings.
All but six acres of the annexation area is located in a mapped floodway “and likely has no development potential,” according to a report by planning staff.
“The very western portion of the property is in the mapped floodplain where there would be some development potential, but somewhat limited there as well,” Bergman said.
The Columbus Plan Commission during their meeting on Aug. 14 forwarded a favorable recommendation to the city council on the rezoning. The area is primarily zone Agriculture: Preferred (AP) with 20 acres zoned Residential: Single-Family 4 (RS4)
“Our main objective here is to kind of clean up what’s a messy definition, or line that jumps back and forth between city and county jurisdiction,” Harold Force, of Force Holdings, told plan commission members on Aug. 14.
“We’ve had great response from both county officials and city officials relative to some of the vagrancy issues that occur on the sites. So it’s not that we’re trying to correct the problem, but it’s a little bit like Ghostbusters, so we know who to call when something comes up, and that’s really our driver here.”
Council member Chris Bartels, R-District 1, asked Bergman if the annexation would open up the potential for further development on the east side of the area across from Clifty Creek.
“Some potentially, and there’s a couple areas there that aren’t shaded with the orange, mainly because they have been previously divided into those small lots. But I think the vast majority of that area is large-lot residential at this point, so some potential yes, not sure how much.”
