Business owners voice concerns at zoning and annexation committee meeting

Hillsboro City Council members heard from concerned citizens and business owners regarding potential changes to zoning and annexation in a committee meeting prior to their regular monthly meeting Tuesday.

Several business owners who received a letter from the city attended the zoning and annexation committee meeting to voice their concerns and ask questions regarding the annexation of unincorporated properties surrounded by incorporated properties (referred to as “unincorporated islands”) within the city.

Safety and service director Todd Wilkin told the crowd that the Hillsboro Planning Commission had recommended “to clean up … lands that currently have a home on them, lands that are vacant and that are completely surrounded, and we would be bringing them into the city.”

Mayor Drew Hastings said the proposed legislation came about due to what he called “unwanted intrusions” in the city, as administrators met with developers “that want to put a large subsidized housing unit on the corner of Pea Ridge and 73.”

“They want to really badly, where we don’t really want it there,” Hastings said. So now they’re saying ‘how about this property, how about this property?’ and we’re saying ‘no, I don’t think we’d like to have one there.’ If they really want to do it, we can do what we need to do to prevent something of that nature that citizens maybe don’t really want out of the city.

“But if someone comes and says ‘Jason [Brown]’s got a piece of land, we can build a six-story subsidized housing place there’ … we can’t do anything about that. We have no control whatsoever.”

Business owner Jason Brown told the committee, comprised of chair Tracy Aranyos, Justin Harsha and Claudia Klein, and other council members that he sees “no benefit” in the proposal. Brown said that he feels his utility costs would not improve, the value of his land would decrease and the matter of police vs. sheriff jurisdiction was irrelevant.

“There’s no benefit that I can see as a property owner, having that brought in,” Brown said. “To me, it hurts the value of my property. Right now, I have unrestricted land and can do anything there. Now, I understand that’s probably why you want it cleaned up, so you don’t do anything there, but for me, that’s like asking me to write you a check for $20 or $30,000 because now my land is not as useful or valuable as it is not in the city limits.

“The police jurisdiction, that’s not beneficial. The utilities is not beneficial. The value’s not beneficial. There’s absolutely nothing beneficial to me to do that.”

Brown said that he was concerned for any future buyers of the property, as he uses the unincorporated land to test motorcycles and four-wheelers.

“Anyone who’s going to buy a property is going to abide by whatever ordinances or laws are on the books, whether they like them or not,” Aranyos said. “That’s just how it is.”

“But those laws aren’t on the books right now,” Brown said. “We have land that’s in the county, not in the city, and you’re just saying ‘hey, we’re taking it.’ Why is that any different from saying ‘hey, I want my house moved out of the city?’”

“You do have benefits, though, to being in the city,” council member Ann Morris said. “Your location. Your business is located in the city, which gets you a lot more business than if you weren’t in the city.”

“I’m already in the city,” Brown said.

“You’re part of the city, and you get to enjoy all the city’s amenities,” Morris said.

“I pay for them already,” Brown said. “And if I want those ‘amenities’ on my county land, I’m going to pay for them.”

“But I just mean you said there weren’t any perks,” Morris said. “That is a perk, though. Being in the city is a perk in its own, for just location.”

“Whether I’m in the city or if I’m left in the county, I’m still in the same spot,” Brown said. “I still have to pay the same amount to get utilities.”

“Well, you just asked what a perk is,” Morris said.

“I still haven’t heard how it’s beneficial for me,” Brown said.

Wilkin displayed a map with the “pockets within our city” that are unincorporated.

“There’s no zoning regulations based upon your next-door neighbor,” Wilkin said. “So, anybody could come in and say ‘you know what, in the center of town, right behind your property, I’m going to build a pig farm.’ I’m not trying to use scare tactics, I’m trying to use reality.”

Another example Wilkin cited was that anyone could build a house and implement their own septic system in the unincorporated land.

“Technically, right now, they could put a septic system in,” Wilkin said. That would be in your backyard, and that septic system could fail. It’s not a scare tactic, it’s just reality.

“We’re OK with development, but since it’s in our city, we’d like to be able to say ‘this is the development that’s going to go in, this is where you have to hook up and this is how you have to build.’”

Wilkin said the meeting Tuesday was to consider “special circumstances that each individual has in order to continue forward in the right direction for the city of Hillsboro to get these pockets of land annexed in.”

Several suggestions were made on items to be grandfathered in the zoning legislation. Brown asked to be able to use the property behind his business to test motorcycles, while Brian Mycroft asked if the city could include future family transfers in the legislation. Willie Crago also brought up the issue of city income tax.

“My employees don’t pay any city income tax,” Crago said. “Will that be grandfathered, whether they have to pay city income tax in the future? I’ve got six or eight employees, they don’t pay any tax now, they’re low-wage people and they can’t afford extra money.”

City law director Fred Beery said all of the property owners brought “perfectly valid concerns that need to be addressed.” He explained that the statute has a “wide range of issues” that can be included. 
“What we have to follow is what’s in the statute … that says we can reach an agreement with the township trustees to cover a wide range of issues, including development, economic development, all kinds of issues,” city law director Beery said. “Because that’s pretty broad, I thought it would be a good idea to find out from everybody who might be annexing in what their issues were. Tell us what might go into that agreement with township trustees.”

“So you’re saying there’s going to be one agreement that fits all of these properties?” Mycroft asked, to which Beery agreed.

“It’s an agreement that allows us to say what we’re going to do with any properties annexed so it doesn’t hurt the township and it benefits the city,” Beery said.

Mycroft and Brown indicated that they were under the impression that each individual would get a separate, specific agreement.

“How are we going to come to an agreement on all of that?” Mycroft asked.

“You tell us what it is that concerns you,” Beery said. “If it’s something that’s real important to you that for some reason we can’t get the township and the city to go along with, then we’ll come back to you and say ‘I don’t think that’ll work, you still want in?’

“This may end up that everybody’s so uncomfortable with it we don’t do anything, but we’d like to, for the reasons the safety and service director said, clean it up and have our borders contiguous and not have pockets of unannexed territory.”

Mycroft said that made sense but that he also didn’t “see the benefit for myself.”

“I love this city, and I want the city to move the way it’s going right now, but I don’t see how putting my property in the city limits is going to benefit me or the city,” Mycroft said.

Beery asked Mycroft what his “main concerns” were for being annexed into the city.

“You having control over how I make improvements on my property, and in the future, like [Brown] was saying, when I want to sell it,” Mycroft said.

“This wasn’t intended to frighten anybody or get anybody upset,” Beery said. “It was intended to inform everyone.”

“Am I correct that 100 percent of property owners would have to sign this for this to go through?” Brown asked.

“No, any property owner has to sign it,” Beery said. “Any property owner that signs it gets in on the deal. If they don’t, they don’t. We could have just one of you guys say ‘OK, we’ll do that,’ or none of you or all of you. Once we get this agreement with the township hammered out and you or whoever is interested in it is OK with it, and the township’s OK with it, then we’re ready to move and present it to the county commissioners.”

“What about if there’s someone that’s not good with it?” Brown asked.

“Then they’re out,” Beery said.

“They don’t come in the city limits?” Brown asked.

“No,” Beery said. “We can’t force you to.”

Beery said the meeting Tuesday was a means for the city to “see what we can work out” with the property owners to get any interested parties to voluntarily come into the city limits.

“We’re just trying to get everything together and see if we can something worked out,” Beery said. “If we can’t, then this thing is done, but I think it’s a good opportunity to get things squared away, solve our zoning issues and the planning commission can actually do its job.”

Mycroft asked for the city’s timetable on the project, but Beery said it would depend on the owners’ input as well as the trustees’ response.

“I’ll try to stay in touch,” Beery said. “We’ll just keep on it and work it out. I was hoping after the first of the year sometime to have something to ask the trustees to look at.”