Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agripark Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise soil-testing and zoning concerns about proposed AgriPark West at Fishers council meeting
Summary
Residents urged the council to address soil lead testing, a 2016 MOU with the airport authority, and runway-protection and zoning questions tied to the proposed AgriPark West site; city staff clarified testing subcontracting but no council action was taken.
Residents raised questions about the proposed AgriPark West during the community comment period of a Fishers City Council meeting, asking the council to provide more information on soil lead testing, airport zoning and an existing memorandum of understanding.
Casey Crosby, who identified himself as a Fishers resident at 6611 Manchester Drive, said he had sent the council 13 questions about AgriPark West and asked whether members unconditionally supported the project. "I have not heard back from any of you on that," Crosby said, and he asked whether the council would permit independent soil lead testing and whether the city was aware of a July 2016 memorandum of understanding between the airport authority and the city that limits use of the area to aviation development.
Julie Russell, 1825 Creekview Lane, pressed the council on testing and FAA zoning limits for the site and said she had contacted the lab listed on the city website. Russell told the council she was surprised to learn the laboratory listed on the citys website does not perform lead testing directly.
A staff member responded to those comments on the record, saying that A and L Great Lakes Laboratories conducted the soil testing for the city but subcontracted lead analysis to a specialized laboratory named Element; according to the staff member, Element returned the results to A and L, which in turn provided results to county water-and-soil authorities and then to the city. The staff member described that sequence as the reason for perceived confusion over which lab performed direct lead analysis.
Why it matters: Residents asked the council to confirm the scope and reliability of environmental testing and whether airport zoning restrictions or an MOU limit agricultural uses at the proposed site. The questions, if unresolved, could affect siting decisions, permitting and public trust in the testing process.
What the record shows and what was requested: Speakers asked whether the runway protection zone calculation cited by staff (described as 1,000 feet in comments) accounts for low-visibility instrument approaches. They also cited ordinance 041921b and asked whether that ordinance prohibits community gardens, urban farms and similar uses in the Metropolitan Airport zoning district. Crosby and others asked for a formal staff response to their written questions and the possibility of independent testing.
No council vote or direction requiring new tests or changes of zoning was recorded in the provided meeting audio. Councilmembers offered no formal motion on AgriPark West during the recorded segment; one councilmember offered to meet individually with a commenter to discuss concerns.
Ending: Residents asked the council to respond to written questions about testing, zoning and the MOU before any further action on the AgriPark West site; the council did not announce any immediate follow-up actions on the public record during the meeting.
