Subdivision Ordinance Discussion and "Illegal Board" Debate Highlights Plan Commission Meeting
- Jacob Dufour | Publisher
- Oct 8
- 9 min read
On Tuesday, October 7, the Washington County Planning Commission met at the courthouse to vote on recommending a new subdivision control ordinance to the Board of Commissioners – a topic that has been the source of local controversy for the past several months.
"The way this is going to work, is we're going to give everyone who wishes to an opportunity to speak and voice their opinion, questions, and concerns," began Commissioner Todd Ewen, who also serves as President of the Plan Commission. "Once everyone in the audience who wishes to speak has finished... we will address your concerns and questions."
Public Comment
Upcoming 2026 sheriff candidate Max Greene was the only gallery member to come up and speak, and urged the Planning Commission to reject the proposed subdivision control ordinance, saying it fails to meet requirements under Indiana Code 36-7-4-702.
"A subdivision control ordinance must contain minimum width, depth, and area of lots in the subdivision; public way widths, grades, curves, and the coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned public ways; and the extension of water, sewer, and other municipal services." Greene said, quoting Indiana Code. "The old subdivision control ordinance that is currently in effect spells all that out."
Greene then argued that the new proposed document relies too much on outside interpretation instead of “concrete standards" required by state law and case precedent. He also noted that the one-acre minimum lot size should not be treated as absolute, since some land may be too steep or unsuitable for development.
He recommended the county revise the existing ordinance instead of replacing it, adding that the current version already includes detailed requirements on runoff, easements, and driveways. “I'm thinking we need to go back, look from scratch, and do it right in accordance with what the state says," concluded Greene. "It's not ready. It needs to be."
Response to Public Comment
After Greene's time ended, Ewen invited surveyors Conner Barnette and Daniel Blann of Foresight Land Surveying to address concerns about the proposed subdivision control ordinance.
Barnette explained that the ordinance sets a minimum lot width of 150 feet and a one-acre minimum area. "It's of my opinion – it's apparent the Greenes don't agree with this – that the minimum lot depth would be implied off of your minimum acreage and minimum frontage," said Barnette, who went on to say that a specific depth could be added if the board felt it was necessary.
Commission member Lucy Brenton asked where the minimum width was established. Barnette said it appeared in each section of the ordinance (administrative, minor, and major subdivisions) and confirmed that family subdivisions of five parcels or fewer qualify as “administrative.”
Brenton expressed concern about how the ordinance might affect families wanting to build a second home on their property. Barnette said the rule limiting one house per parcel already exists in current county code.
Brenton said she wanted to ensure the county wasn’t “burdening families or forcing undue costs because somebody sitting at a desk somewhere thinks they should do something.” Barnette replied that surveys prevent far costlier problems, such as homes accidentally being built across property lines.
Brenton argued that requiring a full survey could be too expensive. “A lot of families can’t afford it, and they shouldn’t be forced to do a survey on property they already own,” she said. Barnette said prices varied widely – typically between $1,800 and $10,000 – but added that unclear boundaries have caused serious legal and financial issues in the past.
Brenton said she preferred that families be advised, not forced, to get surveys. “I’ve been a real estate investor for over 30 years.” she said. "I'm a fan of surveys. I’m not a fan of forcing people to buy a product they don’t want.”
"I agree you should be able to do with your property what you want," replied Barnette. "But if you don't get a survey and we don't know where the property lines are, and then you build a home and it's over the property line, and now it's on your neighbor's property, that's creating an issue."
Blann added that boundary errors are a recurring issue in Washington County, citing a recent attempt he made to compile a list of real-world examples. “In about 20 minutes, I had close to 100 examples over the last 18 months,” he said. One homeowner, he recalled, skipped a $1,200 survey in favor of paying a lawyer $600 to write a four-sentence legal description of their property. Later, they discovered their $85,000 garage straddled the neighbor’s line, costing $20,000 to fix. “For many people, it ends up costing tens of thousands because it wasn’t done properly the first time,” Blann said.
Brenton acknowledged the desire for accuracy, but rebutted that the fault may have lied with the person in charge of laying out the garage or doing the excavation work rather than with the lawyer. “We’re plugging the dam with our fingers,” she said.
"The thing is, there is no one – including myself – there is no one who can tell you where a legal description lies on the ground without a survey," replied Blann. "It is impossible. No legal description. You do not know where any legal description physically lays on the ground without a survey, no matter who writes it, even if I write it. Even if I was to write a legal description without a survey, I could not accurately tell you where that falls on the ground. It just cannot be done."
Real estate agent and commission member Lori Gilstrap added that even recorded surveys are often missing from property records. “Over and over we sell property where the seller says, ‘Dad had that done, we've got a survey somewhere,’ and it was never recorded,” she said, "and they've had to turn around and redo it again."
Blann agreed, saying the ordinance would help ensure plats are properly documented. “Every one of these plats are here forever,” he said. “That’s another really important reason for this subdivision control ordinance.”
Board Questions/Concerns
Ewen proceeded to go around the table and hear questions, comments, and concerns from the members of the board.
Commission member Danielle Walker raised mostly technical concerns, saying she wanted consistent terminology throughout the document, such as choosing either the term "plat" or "platting", instead of alternating between terms. She also questioned whether the ordinance should refer to the county’s "planning director" or "building commissioner", noting that one person – Travis Elliot – currently serves in both roles but may not always.
Barnette explained that either term would be accurate and that the position’s title could be adjusted for clarity. Lucy Brenton added that Indiana Code specifies board structures and appointments, which the group could consult to confirm correct wording.
Walker also asked about the process for reviewing major subdivisions and the difference between a plan commission meeting and a public hearing. Barnette explained that applicants first present preliminary plans for review before moving to a public hearing for final approval.
The subject ended with clarification of a minor typo in the proposed ordinance, changing a parcel limit from “five” to “eight” under letter "c" on page 6. Walker said her main goal was accuracy and consistency, adding, “I just want it to be as perfect as absolutely possible.”
Lucy Brenton was next to speak, and cited concerns about the Plan Commission itself. "I'm a little bit concerned that we might be operating an illegal board, and that I might have some sort of personal liability or exposure to lawsuits as a result of that. So I would like some clarification on the legality of our board. The first one that comes to mind, actually is Lori Gilstrap, because –"
Excuse me, just a minute," Ewen interjected. "We are not going to discuss this for the one-thousandth time. This has been going on for six, seven years, we keep getting accused of [being] an illegal board when we have documentation. I believe she [Gilstrap] knows what party affiliation she is."
"What party affiliation are you?" Brenton asked Gilstrap.
"Democrat." Gilstrap replied.
"Okay, but you voted Republican in the last election on the primary?"
"I sure did."
"Okay, so the current law after June 23rd is that you have to have voted in the primary of the same party twice," Brenton said.
Gilstrap's microphone cut out as she replied.
"You were voided out in January and you retook your oath in February, March of this year," Brenton continued. "Is that correct?"
"I was appointed prior to that," Gilstrap responded, "and I believe, does the law not say the last two primaries?
"Yes, it does, and you have a [unintelligible] in the last two primaries."
"So then, my understanding was that you go back and you look at the person's history," said Gilstrap. "I have always been a Democrat. I voted for Republican because I was a Democrat. That's a strategy, a personal strategy –"
"You know, that might be a felony in the state of Indiana, and you just admitted to it," Brenton said. "You're not allowed to vote in the opposite primary specifically so that our elections are not –"
"In Indiana, I am allowed to choose what ticket I want to vote on in the primary," said Gilstrap. "Republican or Democrat. That's by Indiana law."
"And then full faith says that you vote for that same party –" Brenton began.
"Excuse me," Ewen again interjected, "we are not going to enter into a conversation –"
"Well, I just don't want to be voting on something if there are other members that are voting illegally," said Brenton.
"That's your choice," said Ewen.
"And, well, there's exposure for all of us there, and I'm also concerned –"
"I'm not concerned because I know she's been a Democrat as long as I've known her," Ewen replied, leading to a heated and unintelligible overlapping exchange.
"She showed up at the polls and voted as a Republican," Brenton said, "so her private behavior when she's, you know –"
"I voted on the Republican ticket," replied Gilstrap. "I did not vote – I did not change my party affiliation."
"So you were affiliated as a Democrat, you went to the polls at a primary, voted Republican –"
"That is the law. I'm allowed to do that."
"Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me!" Ewen said emphatically. "This is ending right now."
"Alright, it's on the record," said Brenton.
"We're going to talk about the subdivision control ordinance," Ewen said. "This is why we're here. We're not here to argue about someone's party affiliation. Do you have anything in regards to the subdivision ordinance that you would like to address?"
"Yes, I'm completely against anything that would place an undue burden on any of our citizens, and I think that people should have the maximum freedom to be free of just the kind of discussion you're hearing here this evening," said Brenton. "So I'm completely opposed to all of it. I want to go back to the old one, make the necessary, very small required changes, and leave it at that."
"Can you tell me what you like about the old ordinance that is better than this current ordinance?" asked Danielle Walker.
"Yes, it's very small, less restrictive, and puts less burdens on citizens."
"It's also outdated," said Ewen.
"Freedom and liberty are never outdated," replied Brenton.
"It also puts your neighbors at risk," said Gilstrap.
"I'm not putting any of my neighbors at risk," said Brenton. "If somebody does that, they can be dealt with individually."
As the discussion continued, Emily Rodman emphasized that property boundaries are fixed and finite, and that landowners need to know exactly what they own to avoid encroaching on neighbors’ property. She stressed that surveying and properly dividing property protects everyone and prevents disputes.
David Lyles raised concerns that the ordinance’s limits on lot divisions might be unfair to families with more than four children, questioning whether smaller lot sizes could accommodate larger families. Conner Barnette replied that the ordinance doesn’t prevent larger families from dividing land, but such divisions may fall under minor subdivision review by the Plat Committee or Plan Commission to ensure proper drainage, access, and easements.
Marsha Dailey argued that the current system isn’t working and that a new ordinance is necessary. Lori Gilstrap agreed, noting that the existing ordinance puts property owners at risk, and while the new ordinance might not cover every scenario, it can be updated as needed.
Kevin Baird expressed that the board’s intent is not to take away property rights but to do what’s best for the county and its residents. He emphasized starting somewhere and making adjustments later if needed.
Finally, Emily Rodman reiterated that the goal of the new ordinance is not to restrict property rights but to provide clarity and protection. Proper surveying and planning prevent costly disputes, ensure fairness among neighbors, and ultimately save time, money, and frustration in the long run.
Ewen made note that the proposed ordinance is a concise 17-page document addressing current county concerns, while other Indiana counties’ ordinances are typically much longer. He cited eight examples provided by Emily Rodman, who clarified that her examples came from a quick online search and might not be exact.
According to Ewen and Rodman, the lengths are as follows:
Fulton County SCO – 103 pages long.
Shelby County SCO – 369 pages long.
Brown County SCO – 47 pages long.
Randolph County SCO – 53 pages long.
Vermillion County SCO – 33 pages long.
Franklin County SCO – 193 pages long.
Parke County SCO – 169 pages long.
Pulaski County SCO – 255 pages long.
David Lyles took a moment to praise Travis Elliot for his professionalism and responsiveness, highlighting his decades of experience and helpfulness in county planning matters. "Everyone on this board is aware of that," Ewen agreed. "We don't give him enough 'attaboys', I can tell you that."
Ewen then called for a vote to recommend the subdivision ordinance to the Board of Commissioners, noting that it included the corrections previously discussed. The vote passed six in favor and two – Lucy Brenton and Danielle Walker – opposed. Walker explained her vote, re-emphasizing her desire to ensure any additional technical details are correctly addressed and reviewed before final adoption, while also agreeing to go along with the majority decision.
Ewen then concluded the public hearing on the subdivision ordinance and announced a brief recess before moving on to discuss the Miami County Solar Ordinance, which will be the subject of a later article in The Washington County Times.
Comments