Some developers are swine.

[BravoXray]

My only suggestion would to carefully read your townships master plan. Find all the ways that this proposed development is a poor fit for the master plan (preserving farming, nature, avoiding negative impacts on ground water table, stream quality (septic fields), road traffic concerns, etc. You can generate a list of very real impacts that are negative for the township quality of life, and put their own master plan's document's words in their own faces as proof of what should guide them. They'll likely use some word salad to talk around your concerns, but if a room full of 100+ people is angry enough, they have to at least listen.

Thanks, we will be looking into those areas.

 

[deezler]

More RVs are built in Elkhart County that in the rest of the country.

I've heard about the trailer industry in elkhart IN, but man, zooming around the map a little, thats kind of crazy. "Forest River plant #59", for example? And all the supporting industries - axles, wheels, dometic coolers, and so much more.

 

[WinterDeere]

... the developer has no interest in the area whatsoever other than making a bunch of money off the destruction of more farmland.

And this is going to be your biggest problem. But you'd at least hope the sellers of the property had some interest in preserving the character of the area.

We live in an old farm house that became a development, but the developer lives in the house directly across the street from us, and so has a vested interest in the neighborhood. He kept all lots large (12 - 30 acres), and wrote bylaws that disallow the subdivision of anything under 6 acres, and prevented the building of any house less than 6000 sq.ft. or with less than a 3 car garage. It ensured that all lots remained large and value of the neighborhood remained high, as lots sold off and folks built on them.

My family, who owned most of the land south of New Hope (@daugen and @kenmbz's neighborhood) up into the 1990's, broke most of our farm land up into large individual 6 acre lots and sold them under contract to individuals, with conditions that they must build a single family home on the lot within something like 24 - 36 months, or forfeit them back to the family trust. It was one method of ensuring no developer could collect lots and plan a high-density development upon them, and it may have been an act of leaving some money on the table, but they still made plenty while keeping the semi-rural nature of the area intact.

 

[BravoXray]

And this is going to be your biggest problem. But you'd at least hope the sellers of the property had some interest in preserving the character of the area.

That's the problem. The family that owned the farm put covenants or restrictions on the property prohibiting it being developed. After it was passed to the daughter, she hired a lawyer and had the restrictions removed. So here we are.

 

[paulsharvey]

Made it about 10 or 12 posts down, but not all the way through.

So, your commission is looking out for the good of the entire county, and 62 acres of vacant farm land vs 72 homes; its clear cut that the 72 homes are better for the community.

Adding conservation easements to a property really destroy all future value, and are terrible for the owner/their heirs; and bad for the local government as well, as its just wasted, valueless land.

You/your neighbors will get to speak on the rezoning, but its not a vote.

If you are smart; speak at the rezoning, but about landscape buffers, road improvements, ecr; get something from it; take your greatly increased property values, and consider relocating if this bothers you that much.

The former property ownera/heirs owe you nothing; they are looking out for their own interests.

With all that; yes, it sucks; but if you are Smart, speak about the impacts, and how they will prevent some of the negatives; if you just are the crazy old anti development guy, you'll be ignored. Towns/communities either grow or die; there isn't really an in-between. Talk to people who fought interstates, and asked for bypasses to dodge their towns; those are dead communities now.

 

[BravoXray]

I've heard about the trailer industry in elkhart IN, but man, zooming around the map a little, thats kind of crazy. "Forest River plant #59", for example? And all the supporting industries - axles, wheels, dometic coolers, and so much more.

All the supporting industries for RV manufacturing are present here.
I have a friend that I used to haul lumber for, that he cut to dimension for the RV manufacturers. He opened his first plant in 2005 in a small building, maybe 3,000 sq.ft. Now he has to huge plants with rail sidings serving them. I think he did over $50 million last year. And, he's not the only big supplier of lumber in the area.
A year or so ago, I went for a drive around the area one Sunday afternoon, and found a couple of large industrial parks with dozens of factories that I didn't even know were there.
Forest River it a major player in the RV supply chain. Dexter Axle supplies huge numbers of axles, rims, tires and suspension parts, as does MorRyde that specializes in rubber spring types of suspensions. I remember when they were just a small operation off Hammond Ave. in Elkhart, now they have two large plants that I know of.

If the RV industry ever goes to pot, the industries in this county will be in a lot of trouble until they can diversify into other type of products, if they can.

 

[paulsharvey]

Ive also heard the argument to not allow farms to subdivide; with people Thinking it saves farms... It actually kills them, and prevents farming. To farm you need money; to get money you need loans; to get loans, you need land value. That value is based on it being able to be divided and used. Take the ability to divide or sell off a piece, and the farm lacks the ability to do capital investment that make it work.

 

[EscapedSuburbia]

So, your commission is looking out for the good of the entire county, and 62 acres of vacant farm land vs 72 homes; its clear cut that the 72 homes are better for the community.

It's not clear cut to me at all. My county's zoning master plan specifically calls out that rural and agricultural land are of great benefit to the community as a whole and a lot of people agree.

 

[EscapedSuburbia]

Ive also heard the argument to not allow farms to subdivide; with people Thinking it saves farms... It actually kills them, and prevents farming. To farm you need money; to get money you need loans; to get loans, you need land value. That value is based on it being able to be divided and used. Take the ability to divide or sell off a piece, and the farm lacks the ability to do capital investment that make it work.

That doesn't mean the land has to be sold to developers to further subdivide into 1/4 acre lots with McMansions. That's why a lot of counties allow 5+ acre homesteads in agricultural areas. Those people understand and can coexist with ag operations. The McMansion crowd are the ones that complain about the smells, sounds, and agricultural traffic on the roads.

 

[MossRoad]

This county is unrecognizable from what it was 20-30 years ago. ...

I'll agree with you on that. If you'd have left for 30 years and come back, you'd not recognize the place. Midway? Midway to what? It's all one continuous strip, and that's just on that one road. The amount of RV factories and plants is astounding.

That being said, back in the 50's my dad bought 20 acres on the very edge of town and subdivided it into 17 lots, sold the lots, and payed for his house, where I was born.

Go back to his mom's age, around 1902 they lived waaaaaaay out in the country... on Johnson St., 2 blocks north of Lincolnway West.

 

[paulsharvey]

It's not clear cut to me at all. My county's zoning master plan specifically calls out that rural and agricultural land are of great benefit to the community as a whole and a lot of people agree.

Which brings in revenue? That's how you determine Value, and vacant farm land is doing nothing for anyone.

So, lets say we have 72 acres of low grade ag land; its likely taxed at 20 mils at $10k per acre. Vs, 72 homes, at 20 mils at $300k per home. One clearly wins on tax revenue.

Yes, before someone points it out; 72 homes has 72 trash bins, 50 kids to go to school; about 650 vehicle trips per day; ect. But you also are instantly bring in $504,000 in impact fees; probably about $1M in permitting fees; to off set the impact to schools/transportation.

On wells and septic tanks; county may force them to extend existing mains, add a lift station, ect. Or possibly install a small package water treatment plant.

If those are concerns; speak intelligently on those items. You mention properties butting up to you; not unreasonable to speak about a 20-40 ft landscape buffer. Vehicle trips; maybe the community upgrades the road.

The county commission is more likely to act on those kind of things than blanket "not in my back yard" type stuff.

 

[paulsharvey]

Dont get me wrong, I understand the frustration, but development makes the world go around. I really would attend the rezoning meetings, and make realistic, informed, requests to mitigate the worst of your worries. You likely will get some of it, and after constructed, its just a bunch of houses, it won't really be the end of the world.

 

[kenmbz]

Dont get me wrong, I understand the frustration, but development makes the world go around. I really would attend the rezoning meetings, and make realistic, informed, requests to mitigate the worst of your worries. You likely will get some of it, and after constructed, its just a bunch of houses, it won't really be the end of the world.

until is becomes apartment and condos with 50 kids in the space of a few houses paying a fraction of the tax a house pays.
It's what happened in my old town and they are still building, by the 100's
They promised this would lower taxes, but the taxes go up a lot each year, on the houses.

My taxes were going up $1000/year at that point.

 

[1 Old Man]

In many areas communities depend on the aquifer for
irrigation, manufacturing, municipal water etc
Uncontrolled development can and is detrimental to natures
ability to replenish many aquifers. Open land and open spaces
are necessary. More development, more wells drilled, more
surface contamination ..... reduced aquifer levels, reduced water quality.

As stated by EscapedSuburbia, agricultural and rural lands are of great benefit....

 

[deezler]

It's not clear cut to me at all. My county's zoning master plan specifically calls out that rural and agricultural land are of great benefit to the community as a whole and a lot of people agree.

Same in my township in Michigan, with some urban areas but majority rural landscape. We've preserved thousands of acres of farmland and natural areas and prevented many developments.

 

[EscapedSuburbia]

Which brings in revenue? That's how you determine Value, and vacant farm land is doing nothing for anyone.

Revenue is your definition of value. It's not everyone's. And the farm land doesn't have to sit vacant just because there's a death and the heirs don't want to farm. In my area that land is snatched up by other farmers or by seed companies.

 

[paulsharvey]

Zoning maps often have a Current, and Future zoning class. Also, zoning is designed to be changed when it benefits the community, and as patterns/times/demands change. It's not written in stone.

The rezoning meetings are designed to bring local input, before they vote on it. Likely if they are even scheduling a rezoning meeting, they have atleast a weak commitment from the BoCC to consider the rezoning.

Every rezoning meeting has some raving enviro nuts, that speak against everything, every time, anywhere in the county. Those people have a right to be heard, but they are generally ignored too. Try to set yourself apart from them. Most commissioners are fairly normal folks, but they are also generally leaders in community, business men, developers, ect. So, they are likely by default somewhat pro development, But they also can absolutely include requirements as a condition of rezoning to address local people affected by the rezoning. Thats you. It costs the commission nothing to require more buffers, roadway improvement, ect; as long as it doesn't make the development unfeasable. The developer needs to make money, and on 72 homes; they probably can spend a couple million to keep people happy, but not $15m.

 

[kenmbz]

Revenue is your definition of value. It's not everyone's. And the farm land doesn't have to sit vacant just because there's a death and the heirs don't want to farm. In my area that land is snatched up by other farmers or by seed companies.

Not as much farming around here as there used to be, but plenty of fields get leased , so many fields are hay/corn/soybeans around us. Love to see the growth.

 

[paulsharvey]

Also, as an important note; just because it has 72 home lots; does Not mean it magically has 72 homes. In rural areas, its not uncommon for a new subdivision to slowly build out over the coarse of 5-10 years. It may be phased, but thats a pretty small development, so I would expect them to do all the roads, water/sewer, storm water management and clearing in a single phase. Then, depending on the developer, either sell the lots off to a builder, to future home owners, investors, or possibly spec build the homes themselves. It is highly unlikely they will start work on 72 homes in a single year, but your area may just have that much demand?

 

[sandman2234]

I haven't read the whole post, but are hog farms or chicken houses allowed on your property? Might be a way to get the builder to move some of the houses, if you build your pens on your property line. Especially if you invest in a fan system to keep the critters cool, and it happens to blow the wrong way?
I am not against developments but I don't want them shoved down my throat! We had a 20 home development built up against my property in Switzerland Florida and it didn't bother me a bit.
David from jax