Brownsburg council approves first reading for Auburn Ridge rezoning after residents press for R‑1 lots and infrastructure commitments

On Jan. 23, 2025, the Brownsburg Town Council approved on first reading Ordinance 2024‑21, a rezoning request tied to the Auburn Ridge phase 2 subdivision, after residents urged the council to require larger R‑1 lots and councilors sought clearer commitments on road and infrastructure costs.

The zoning measure was approved on a roll‑call vote with four members voting in favor and one opposed. Council members recorded as voting in favor were Mister Adams, Mister Lacey, Miss Hillman and the council president; Mister Simpson voted no.

Residents raised repeated concerns during the public‑comment period and during council discussion that followed. Emily Simmons, a Brownsburg resident, told the council that at a January meeting the council directed the developer to return with an R‑1 plan and that she had not seen the promised revisions in the published packet. Simmons said the January direction ‘‘was to ask the developer to return with a revised R‑1 plan’’ and urged the council to hold the developer to that standard or return the matter to the Advisory Plan Commission for further review.

David Wyant, also a resident, said he did not see a complete design package in the meeting materials and asked how the council could make an informed decision without the full submittal. Bill Gosnell described a walking/driving tour of the area around the proposed addition and said ‘‘there is a market for this type of housing’’ with larger, individual lots and urged the council to require R‑1.

An applicant representative presented a revised concept the developer had prepared in response to prior feedback. The representative said the original submission had been 124 units under an R‑3 request; after changes the plan was converted to an R‑2 concept and ‘‘we’re probably averaging in around 15,000 square foot lot size’’ with ‘‘several lots … above 20,000 square feet, which is your R‑1 requirement.’’ The representative described the concept as a clustered layout that reduces the amount of new street and infrastructure required, saying that a straight R‑1 approach would likely remove 15–20 lots and require more road work.

Councilors pressed the applicant for a clearer financial commitment to road improvements. One councilor asked whether the developer remained at the same per‑lot infrastructure contribution previously discussed and cited a per‑lot figure of roughly $2,780 per lot used in prior calculations; the applicant said the project team would ‘‘shore that up’’ and provide a firm number before second reading. The applicant also agreed to provide revised CAD plans showing exact lot sizes and averages before the next meeting.

Council members and several residents also raised the condition of nearby roads (including County Road 575 East and County Road 450 North) and asked how the town and county would allocate costs if a road segment needed to be upgraded to a collector standard. The applicant and staff said Hendricks County has been contacted but a county contribution amount had not been confirmed at the meeting; the applicant said it would pursue that coordination and provide updated conditions prior to the next reading.

Council discussion referenced the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). A council member and staff clarified on the record that under the new UDO criteria the R‑1 zoning minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet.

The ordinance was presented and approved on first reading with the understanding that staff and the developer would return with revised plan details and firmer infrastructure commitments before second reading. The council indicated it expects amendments to the ordinance’s conditions to be drafted prior to the second‑reading vote.

Votes and procedural notes: the council took a roll‑call vote on first reading of Ordinance 2024‑21 after a motion and second; the vote was four in favor, one opposed. The motion on first reading was made and seconded on the record; the transcript did not identify by name which councilor moved and which seconded.

What happens next: staff and the applicant said they will provide revised CAD‑based plans that specify exact lot sizes and a clarified figure for infrastructure contributions in advance of second reading, and the council expects any agreed conditions to be added to the ordinance before that vote.