Avon plan commission votes to forward 2025 comprehensive plan update to town council

The Avon Advisory Plan Commission voted Aug. 25 to forward CPA 25-01, an update to the town’s comprehensive plan, to the Avon Town Council for consideration and adoption. The commission’s recommendation follows months of public engagement and a series of steering-committee meetings; if the council approves, staff said the council would consider a resolution (not an ordinance) tentatively scheduled for Sept. 11 and the plan would then be recorded in the Hendricks County recorder’s office as required by state statute. The comprehensive plan update rewrites the town’s future land-use guidance, identifies six planning districts (Riverwalk, Greenway North, Greenway South, Midtown, Revitalization and LiveWork), and includes design principles, conceptual maps and an action-plan section intended to direct future zoning, capital projects and intergovernmental coordination. Rachel Christiansen, a planner with HWC Engineering, told the commission the plan is “a robust planning document” and said the draft is meant to be actionable rather than purely aspirational. Christiansen summarized the public-engagement results, saying the project received 607 online survey responses, a public workshop with about 616 participants, 27 focus-group participants and a pop-up event that generated more than 122 comments. Commission staff explained the adoption process at the start of the hearing. “Once you make a recommendation tonight, the secretary of the plan commission, which is me, would certify it to the town council,” Linda (staff member) told the commission, describing the statutory steps: council consideration by resolution, possible council amendments, and a 60-day reconsideration window for the commission should council amend the draft. Commission discussion centered on how the plan should be used after adoption, how quickly staff and council would prioritize action items, and whether the plan represented a major policy shift. Commissioners said they want the plan to guide petitioners and staff, not only zoning cases, and raised the long-standing issue of scattered municipal boundaries (described in the hearing as “Swiss cheese” pockets) and the need for better coordination with Washington Township and Hendricks County. Christiansen said the draft provides a “substantial step in the right direction” for discussions with state transportation officials about improvements on U.S. 36 and other corridors. The commission formally moved to forward an approval recommendation. The meeting minutes record a unanimous vote in favor: Paul Guggenberger (yes), Greg Susan (yes), Jennifer Spencer (yes), Andrew Rochabrand (yes), Bill Reed (yes), and Katherine Ransberg (yes). Dave Kaufman was absent. The motion was recorded as carried and the certified recommendation will be transmitted to the town council. Commissioners and staff discussed next steps if council accepts the recommendation: staff said the plan is intended to generate more-specific action plans, ordinances and funding requests and to inform other boards and commissions (for example, the Redevelopment Commission and the Economic Development Commission) as implementation proceeds. Commissioners suggested that staff prepare a prioritized list of initial action items and that the commission and council identify owners and timelines for high-priority projects. The plan’s future land-use map expands guidance beyond current town limits so the town has a framework if annexation occurs. Commissioners also discussed revising the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) after plan adoption to align zoning with the new land-use guidance and to address zoning “loopholes” that staff said were closed by earlier ordinance changes. The commission closed the public hearing on the plan after no members of the public registered to speak and moved on to other agenda items. The certified recommendation and supporting materials will be transmitted to the town council for its resolution-based consideration, tentatively scheduled for Sept. 11. The commission’s action was procedural: it recommended the plan to the council. Final adoption requires council resolution and any statutory recording steps.