St. John Town Council held a public hearing Sept. 10 on Ordinance 18-70, a proposal to annex roughly 168 acres at 12863 State Line Road in unincorporated Hanover Township for municipal water and related development; the council closed the hearing after more than two hours of public comment but did not adopt the ordinance that day. Town Manager Billy opened the hearing by describing the site as about "100 and roughly 68 acres" between Stateline and Calumet with four viable wells and a development plan for residential housing. The council scheduled the ordinance for possible adoption on Oct. 22, but presenters and the town attorney said the annexation would not become effective until any municipal water withdrawal and treatment facilities were operational.

Why it matters: The annexation would change which government provides services, taxes and regulation for the parcels and is a legal prerequisite to St. John operating municipal wells that residents fear will cause private wells to dry up. Opponents said the town moved too quickly, that Exhibit A (the development plan) was not publicly available until shortly before the hearing, and that the proposal would permit very high density on farmland adjoining long-established rural properties.

Residents from Cedar Lake and unincorporated Hanover Township filled the council chamber and took roughly two hours to voice objections. Common complaints included lack of notice to contiguous landowners, late posting of Exhibit A (which opponents said shows 982 housing units on about 168 acres), traffic and road-safety risks on two-lane county roads, stormwater and drainage impacts in an area that floods, school-capacity and property‑tax implications, and the loss of rural character. Several speakers asked who would pay for new schools, roads, drainage or emergency services if the development proceeds. Many said they prefer to remain unincorporated and that they were never personally notified before the council adopted earlier steps in the process.

Legal issues and town response: State Senator Rick Neimeyer, who sponsored the 2014 statutory language the town cites, told the council he wrote the legislation to allow municipalities to annex noncontiguous parcels that contain an existing water or wastewater facility but said his intent included tight safeguards and county plan‑commission oversight when a site is converted to a municipal well field. Ned Kovacevich, executive director of the Lake County Plan Commission, was cited by speakers and in a letter read into the record arguing that the property does not currently meet the statutory requirement (that noncontiguous annexation be tied to an existing municipal water or wastewater facility) and that the proposal raises legal questions.

Town and developer attorneys said the ordinance complies with Indiana law. Tim Oakes, attorney with Ice Miller representing the developer and the town's presenters, told the council the statute invoked (Indiana Code 36-4-3-4 and related provisions) permits the annexation as drafted and that the annexation cannot be used later to establish contiguity for further annexations. He said site test wells were drilled to assess resource capacity and that if the town establishes a significant water withdrawal facility it would be subject to Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reporting and enforcement; the DNR can investigate complaints, declare a groundwater emergency and require the facility owner to remedy wells shown to have caused problems.

Process and transparency concerns: Multiple speakers said the town's public documentation was incomplete or delayed. Several residents and the town clerk-treasurer said Exhibit A was posted only the day before the meeting. The clerk-treasurer said documents were released to requesters as soon as the office received them; residents said the late release left them insufficient time to analyze the plan. Several residents asked the council to delay further action to allow more public review and technical studies (traffic, drainage, school-impact) and to address notices to adjoining property owners.

What happened next: After public comment the council closed the hearing and continued with other agenda items; no final vote on Ordinance 18-70 occurred at the Sept. 10 meeting. Town officials repeatedly told the audience the annexation ordinance is a step in a statutory process and said the council can set the effective date to occur only after water infrastructure is installed and operational.

Looking ahead: The council had the ordinance on a future adoption date (Oct. 22, per the timeline discussed at the hearing). Residents said they plan to seek additional legal review and said they would pursue county and state channels to challenge the annexation if it proceeds without more detailed studies and broader notice.

Ending: The meeting made clear the proposal is legally contested and politically fraught; the council will decide whether to adopt the ordinance at a later meeting after the public hearing record closed.