DeKalb County Plan Commission reviews proposed Butler ETJ expansion; no vote taken

The DeKalb County Plan Commission on Aug. 20 reviewed a draft interlocal agreement and a proposed expansion of the City of Butler’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, but did not vote on the measure.

The discussion centered on formalizing an existing ETJ relationship between Butler and DeKalb County and on a proposed expansion that would “square off” Butler’s ETJ to include additional lands to the south that the city may seek to annex in the future. Andrew Provine, city planner for Butler, said the city is finalizing a new comprehensive plan and that the ETJ expansion is intended to align future development with Butler’s zoning when annexation occurs. "We're actually gonna do it this time," Provine said of completing the comprehensive plan, noting the plan has been in development under multiple city planners for several years.

County staff described the draft agreement as largely modeled on existing interlocal agreements DeKalb County has with Auburn, Garrett and Waterloo, with similar standards for sewer hookups, sidewalks and addressing. County staff told commissioners the interlocal agreement clarifies which entity performs which administrative functions — for example, who issues addressing and which body handles certain permits — but that no vote was scheduled that night.

The commission asked technical questions about the proposed boundary and the scope of the expansion. County staff and Provine said the newly proposed addition is roughly 970 acres and, dimensionally, spans about 2.5 miles east–west and roughly a half‑mile north–south in places. Provine explained Butler does not currently plan to annex immediately, but wants the ETJ and interlocal agreement in place to guide development that could be annexed over years or decades.

Several planning issues drew extended discussion. Provine said Butler currently relies on the county for building permits and inspections and for permitting software; Butler issues improvement-location permits while the county issues building permits and performs inspections under an existing arrangement. Provine said Butler generally uses the county’s zoning ordinance language as a baseline when updating its own ordinance.

A central point of debate related to how the city would treat existing uses in land brought into the ETJ. Provine proposed recording covenants so that historic uses on properties already owned by current owners could continue as a "grandfathered" set of permitted uses until the property is sold, after which Butler’s zoning would fully apply. He said the only significant agricultural use Butler’s code excludes compared with county code is confined feeding operations that exceed Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) regulations; such operations could be pursued through a use variance with the Board of Zoning Appeals.

A member of the public raised notice and participation concerns. Lynn Reinhardt, who identified herself as a County Road 71 resident, asked whether individual landowners in the affected area would receive written notice and said she believed landowners should get the same notice they would for a zoning change. County staff responded that public hearings are required for zoning changes but that the interlocal agreement itself is not subject to a required public hearing; state law requires the interlocal agreement when a municipality updates its comprehensive plan but does not require written notice to all landowners when an ETJ boundary is created or adjusted through that process.

County staff said the county could negotiate elements of an interlocal agreement — for example, agreeing to some parts of a proposed expansion but not others — and that the revision of state law in recent years gives counties more ability to negotiate terms than it did previously. Staff also said there was no clear statutory timeframe that would void or invalidate an ETJ that was adopted years earlier, and that legal doctrines such as laches (excessive delay) would be a separate legal question.

No action was taken. County staff said they will continue to work with the City of Butler to finalize interlocal language and maps and will return to the commission for a recommendation to the county commissioners at a future meeting.

The commission’s discussion also touched on related local planning work in the county: Butler’s planned future land-use map, recent site approvals near Forest River and an approved but not-built parking area, and potential future commercial development along U.S. 6 referenced later in the meeting.

Ending: County staff said they expect to tighten the draft agreement with Butler and bring it back to the commission, likely before the end of the year. The commission did not take a vote on the interlocal agreement or the ETJ expansion during the Aug. 20 meeting.