Commissioners OK Monroe County zoning overhaul, 13 possible remaining topics to be tackled in 2025
On Wednesday night, Monroe County commissioners voted 3–0 to adopt the county development ordinance (CDO).
The CDO includes all the zoning regulations for the unincorporated part of the county.
Two days earlier, on Monday night, the county plan commission had voted 6–1 to forward the most recent draft CDO to the commissioners with a positive recommendation.
The adopted CDO replaces a document that has been on the books for almost three decades, since Jan. 8, 1997.
This week’s two meetings, which combined took about 90 minutes, made for a relatively quiet denouement of a process that started around 2018, and was then restarted in 2020.
This fall, the plan commission held public hearings on Sept. 24 and then Oct. 1 that drew standing-room-only crowds. On Wednesday, the Nat. U. Hill Room at the historic county courthouse was mostly empty of the rank-and-file public.
But at Wednesday’s meeting, the draft CDO did get some criticism from the public mic, from representatives of local organizations that have been involved in the process since the start.
Christopher Emge, who is director of advocacy for the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, went so far as to ask that the commissioners send the draft CDO back to the plan commission to address various outstanding topics.
The approach that the plan commission took, in order to get a recommended draft over the finish line, was to make a list of 13 topics that need to be addressed sometime next year in potential amendments. The list is included at the end of this article.
Emge put it like this: “The proposal to reduce high-density acreage and expand rural zoning could exacerbate some shortages, make it further difficult for workforce housing,” he said. Emge continued, “Additional changes in commercial and business zone designation may hinder potential economic growth.”
But Emge pointed to the uncertainty for developers, caused by the 13 remaining items, as the biggest concern—which led him to recommend asking the commissioners to send the draft back to the plan commission. Emge said there is reduced confidence in the development process, when developers are unsure of the rules and future changes.
Also taking up the topic of the 13 outstanding items was Jen Pearl, who is president of the Bloomington Economic Development Corporation (BEDC). Pearl put it like this: “I just want to especially express our support for addressing those items at the earliest stage possible.” Pearl pulled out some of the 13 items that are of particular interest to the BEDC—the sliding scale subdivisions, impervious cover, 50-foot setbacks, landscaping requirements, open space requirements, delegation of variances, cluster development, sewer options and karst delineation.
About the work that will be done to address the outstanding 13 items, Pearl said, “On behalf of the BEDC, we look forward to participating in the public process.”
Wendi Goodlett, who is CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County, led off with compliments for the planning staff throughout the process, describing planning director Jackie Jelen as “incredibly responsive, professional and transparent.” As for the CDO itself, Goodlett was less complimentary. She put it like this: “By proactively opting for predominantly large-lot zoning, you are sending a clear message that unless you can afford an acre or more of land and a single-family detached home, you are not welcome outside of city limits.”
Goodlett continued: “It is not about developers, many of whom have been unfairly villainized in this process. It is about our community members and the opportunities that are being denied to them.”
Goodlett added, “An updated comprehensive plan is necessary, and the door needs to be left open for smaller lots and a variety of housing types that are desperately needed in our community.”
The county’s comprehensive plan was adopted over a decade ago, in 2012.
At Wednesday’s meeting, county commissioner Lee Jones said she had been involved in the most recent iteration (2012) of the comprehensive plan—which she noted was supposed to lead to the creation of the CDO. About the draft the commissioners were considering that evening, Jones said, “No document ends up perfect. I am very impressed by this document.” Jones praised the usability of the document, including the hyperlinks.
Commissioner Penny Githens also praised the usability of the document, and praised the simplification of many elements.
The new CDO consolidates the number of zones, reducing the number of different zones from 40, down to just 16. Permitted uses are also getting consolidated, reducing the number of uses from 372 to 174.
County commissioner Julie Thomas responded to the idea of an updated comprehensive plan by saying the plan would be amended based on the adopted CDO. Thomas then talked about one of the ideas in the comprehensive plan. She said, “One of the key principles is: Keep urban, urban and rural, rural.” Thomas continued, “ Because if somebody moves into a rural area, they move there because it’s a rural area—and we have to appreciate the residents that are here and those that we have, and listen to them as well.”
Thomas responded to Goodlett’s remarks by saying, “This entire county cannot be small lot subdivisions. We do not have the built environment, nor the natural environment to support it. This whole county cannot be the city.”
About the 13 still outstanding topics, Thomas acknowledged that it’s not clear how amendments to the CDO related to those points might turn out. She pointed out that the topics aren’t simply missing from the CDO—they are, in fact, covered in the document. Thomas put it like this: “Yes, there is a little bit of uncertainty there, but it doesn’t mean that there are holes in the CDO that have to be filled.”
Thomas summed up her view of the CDO by saying, “I think this is a good document.” She added, “It has a lot of compromise in it, and things I don’t like about it, but I’m happy to support it.”
When the 13 still outstanding topics that need to be addressed are tackled near year by the plan commission, and eventually wind up in front of the board of commissioners, it will be a different group of three who make the decision. Commissioner-elect Jody Madeira will be sitting in the District 3 commissioner seat, instead of Penny Githens. Julie Thomas and Lee Jones will be returning as county commissioners in 2025.
Responding to a written B Square question, Madeira first praised the effort that went into the CDO document: “I so appreciate the hard work that everyone has put into the new CDO. The current draft makes progress in simplifying zoning categories.”
But Madeira was critical of a certain lack of balance in the CDO.
She wrote: “In October’s public comments, I listened as many residents requested revisions that would enable sustainable development and affordable housing in appropriate county locations, attract new employers paying a living wage, and encourage IvyTech and IU grads to make this county their home.”
Madeira continued, “Unlike the 2012 Comprehensive Plan (which could have been revised first), the draft CDO doesn’t strike a balance between ensuring ample property for sustainable housing and economic development and conservation and environmental protections.”
Madeira put the CDO in the context of the overall economic climate in the state, writing: “Growth across Indiana is forecast to stagnate; communities that don’t embrace sustainable changes will be hardest hit.” She added, “Monroe County offers many social services and has a rapidly aging population; for both to thrive, we need support from younger residents and a vibrant economic base.”
Madeira then addressed what it takes to attract younger residents: “But younger residents need viable housing, viable jobs, and quality of life measures.”
Related to Thomas’s point about keeping rural, rural and urban, urban, Madeira wrote: “It’s definitely possible to promote sustainable development and protect the environment without losing our rural character.”
Madeira wrapped up with a nod to some uncertainties about how much of the county the CDO will actually encompass. The document covers just the unincorporated part of the county, and some of that area could wind up inside Bloomington city limits, depending on the outcome of pending litigation involving Bloomington’s annexation efforts.
Madeira wrote: “The future will certainly bring new realities to our attention, and I look forward to helping to make the CDO more responsive to these needs, especially after the annexation litigation resolves.”
Responding to an emailed question from The B Square, Bloomington’s development services manager Jackie Scanlan wrote about the areas subject to current litigation: “We will not look at zoning until we know if areas will be annexed and which areas those will be. With that being said, we don’t anticipate large changes to existing zoning for residents.”
Topics for Potential Future Amendments
1. Sliding Scale requirement for 25-year reservation of the parent parcel
2. Review impervious cover maximums proposed in the AGR zoning district.
3. Review the new 50 foot front setback from the Lake Lemon normal pool elevation
4. Review the new landscaping requirements under the CDO and see where changes need to be made.
5. Amend the lighting chapter for applicability to residential development
6. Review the PUD open space requirement of 25% and related PUD standards
7. Delegation of variances to a hearing officer
8. Review a potential new subdivision type for allowing “Cluster” development in return for preserved open space
9. Review requirement for sewer vs packaging plants for subdivisions
10. Review standards for “Collection Container Facilities” specifically the setback from residential properties
11. Re-assess the combination or separation of: RV storage, boat storage, and convenience storage
12. Review the proposed 50-foot Karst Conservancy Area (KCA) delineation
13. Track changes identified by Planning Staff and the Legal Department
