Annexation plan for 168 acres draws sharp resident opposition and procedural dispute

A proposed annexation and planned-unit development tied to developer John Lawton prompted extended public comment and an on-the-floor procedural dispute at the Town of Saint John council meeting on Sept. 24. Residents raised concerns about density, potable water impacts on private wells, transparency and potential legal irregularities. Council members attempted a motion to deny Ordinance 18-70 but the town attorney said the matter was not properly on that night’s agenda.

Why it matters: The annexation would bring unincorporated land into Saint John and enable large-scale housing development. Residents and some council members said the plan — described in meeting materials as nearly 972 units — could strain water, roads, schools and emergency services and that the town and several advisory boards were not given adequate time or documentation to review the proposal.

Council discussion began when a council member made a motion to deny Ordinance 18-70, which the transcript records passing in a voice vote of 4–1; the town attorney then stated the item was not on the agenda and therefore not properly before the council. Council members then discussed procedural options, including suspending the rules to take immediate action; town counsel advised that unanimous council consent would be required and the suspension did not have the required support.

Public comment during item 6 filled much of the meeting. About 15 people spoke; speakers from Saint John and neighboring unincorporated areas described prior interactions with Lawton, asserted that boards (including the Water Works Board) had been “blindsided” by recent filings, and emphasized worries that new municipal wells or new waterlines could lower nearby private wells. Several public speakers referenced Indiana statutory requirements for annexation and described plans to seek outside legal review.

Residents and community leaders used pointed language. Donna Fasky, identified in the record as living on Maple Lane, told the council: “Water is just the Trojan horse that will accomplish that.” Katie Hague, a resident on Calumet Avenue, said earlier comments made at a Sept. 10 meeting signaled some council members were not aligning with resident concerns. A number of speakers referenced prior actions by Lawton and litigation history, and several asked the council to reject the PUD or to require additional studies (hydrogeologic testing, traffic and school‑capacity analyses) before further action.

Town officials and some council members emphasized a separate point: the town needs long‑term water capacity as it grows. Council member Christian Jorgensen and others said acquiring water sources and extending service into currently unincorporated areas is expensive and complicated, and that the town has an obligation to plan for potable supply for future residents.

Legal and process issues were raised from multiple sides. Rose Kleiny asked the council to seek outside counsel on Indiana Code 36‑4‑3‑4, and resident Patricia Chorba said she believed the town’s interpretation of the statute had been incorrect; she also said the Water Works Board had learned of the proposal by reading news coverage. Multiple speakers said they were organizing to pursue legal options if their concerns are not addressed.

Next steps: The council did not finalize a binding denial because of the procedural objection; members said the annexation and related water plans would return for future hearings and further review by the Water Works Board, sanitary and water boards, and by staff. Several residents said they would continue organizing and may pursue outside legal review.

Ending note: The meeting captured a sharp divide between resident opposition focused on density, wells and process and council members who stressed long-term utility planning. The council agreed to additional internal review; any formal action on Ordinance 18-70 was deferred for proper agenda placement and board review.