Boone County APC delays decision on 47 PUD after extended debate over water and permitted uses

The Boone County Area Plan Commission on a voice vote took a petition to establish the “47” Planned Unit Development under advisement and scheduled a special meeting for May 21 at 7:00 p.m., after several members raised concerns about water supply, permitted uses and potential long-term precedent for the county.

The motion to delay was moved and carried by voice vote; commissioners and petition representatives agreed to funnel suggested ordinance edits to staff member Deb for consolidation before the May 21 meeting. The commission also said it will keep a running draft of requested changes open and available to the public.

Why it matters: commissioners said the PUD could allow uses that would increase the number of private wells and septic systems in the area and that certain industrial or freight-related uses could set a planning precedent across Boone County. Commissioners repeatedly cited uncertainty about where and when municipal water or sewer service would reach the site as their primary practical concern.

Legal and conflict-of-interest question Bob, identified in the meeting as the attorney addressing a conflict-of-interest question, said the proposed code of conduct “very closely mirrors state statute” and gave a legal opinion on recusal. “I think it cannot be gainsaid that the fact that he owns property a mile and a half away that’s for sale, is certainly not a conflict of interest,” Bob said, and later added, “That’s my legal opinion.” The commission did not force any recusal; members said recusal was a personal decision for Commissioner Lawson.

Water supply and wells Commissioners and the petitioner debated whether municipal water or sewer will be available in time to serve multifamily or larger developments. Commissioner Lawson told the commission that private firms are “doing research right now” about supplying water but that “there’s no timeline.” Commissioners and residents warned that allowing subdivision of lots served by wells and septic could mean dozens of private wells rather than a small number of industrial high-capacity users.

Commissioners asked the petitioner and county staff to seek written information from the private water companies the county said it has contacted and to provide a timeline or documentation of outreach before the public hearing. The commission recommended that testimony and proposed ordinance edits be routed to Deb, who will keep a running public draft of changes.

Permitted uses and countywide precedent Several commissioners said the current PUD draft contains uses that conflict with the overlay district the county adopted earlier and that some permitted uses—examples cited included freight terminals, heavy industrial fabricating, and distribution centers—were broader than the commission intended. “This PUD is not about Merit Contracting,” one commissioner said; “the resistance ... is about the other uses that are not in compliance with the current ordinance.” Commissioners asked the petitioner to remove or narrow several uses and said allowing certain heavy industrial uses could create a precedent the county cannot later undo.

Petitioner response and next steps Tom Merritt, representing the petitioner and Merit Contracting, said the applicant is willing to work with staff and the commission and that the team has been meeting with county staff over recent weeks. Merritt asked the commission for clarity on which uses should be removed and requested a timely decision because project delays were affecting financing and schedule. The petitioner agreed to accept a special meeting and to provide requested clarifications and commitments to staff.

Public process and transparency The commission agreed to a May 21 special meeting (7:00 p.m.) to allow commissioners, staff and the petitioner to resolve outstanding items. Staff said it will accept written concerns in advance and will circulate a dated, running draft of ordinance edits so the public can follow changes. Commissioners said the special meeting will be the opportunity to make a formal recommendation to the county commissioners; the commissioners are not bound to follow the APC’s recommendation.

Votes at a glance - Motion to take the petition under advisement and schedule a special meeting for May 21 at 7:00 p.m.: approved by voice vote (motion moved; roll-call tally not specified). Notes: All subsequent requested edits and concerns were to be funneled to staff member Deb for consolidation.

Ending The APC left the petition active and set a path to a special session intended to resolve detailed drafting and water-supply questions. Staff will post and circulate a running draft of requested ordinance edits; commissioners asked for written contact information for the three private water companies the county said it had approached.