SPENCER, Ind. — The Owen County Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday opened a lengthy public hearing on a proposed transfer of a conditional-use permit for a bottled‑water operation and ultimately tabled further action after residents and some board members said outstanding technical and legal questions remained.

The application involves a site currently permitted for water extraction and distribution and was presented as a conditional‑use transfer because of a change in ownership and corporate structure. Attorney Richard Lorenz, representing the applicant, said the company had voluntarily agreed to limit extraction to 50,000 gallons per day and that the state Division of Natural Resources sets a higher registration threshold at 100,000. “We voluntarily agree to keep the extraction at 50,000 per gallons per per day,” Lorenz said in his opening remarks.

Neighbors and dozens of other residents pressed the board with a series of environmental, legal and infrastructure concerns. Tom Parrish, who lives adjacent to the site, told the board, “They’re extracting the water, sending it to Greenwood,” and argued county taxpayers could end up paying for road repairs that benefit the private operation. John Tucker, who said he attended the original 2017 hearing, said the operation had exceeded prior representations and added, “I feel lied to, period.”

Speakers from across the county asked detailed questions about monitoring and enforcement. Several referenced the Indiana Geological and Water Survey (IGWS) review, which participants said did not have enough data to conclude there was no impact on neighboring wells. Residents asked whether the permit contains clauses allowing planned or unannounced inspections of tankers and site activity and whether the county or a third party verifies self‑reported extraction totals. “Who is monitoring how much they’re taking out on a daily basis?” one resident asked during public comment.

Company representatives said they had submitted data to IGWS and the state, corrected earlier well‑record location errors with the state database, and offered to share monitoring data. Arlene Vincent, introduced as a Blue Triton representative, thanked the board and noted the company had submitted testimonials from other communities and said the company participates in emergency response efforts.

Technical and legal disputes ran through the hearing. Multiple residents and at least one public commenter, Pam Rogers, argued the earlier conditional‑use permit had expired under the county code because required construction and occupancy milestones were not completed in the ordinance’s two‑year window; Rogers said that, if true, current operations would be unlawful and asked the board to consider a cease‑and‑desist. The company and its counsel disputed several procedural claims and said required documents and certifications are in the record.

Board members repeatedly said the IGWS review did not resolve neighbors’ concerns and that the BZA lacked sufficient independent technical assurance to find the conditional‑use standard — that the use not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare — had been met. One member urged inviting IGWS back for a more in‑depth study and said the absent Soil & Water board member (Corbin) should participate in any final deliberation.

After discussion the board considered motions to table and to deny the transfer. An initial motion to table failed for lack of a second. A later motion to deny produced a tie vote at one point. The board then remade a motion to table the petition to allow more data collection and third‑party review; the motion passed. Members set the next regular meeting date and instructed staff to pursue additional technical input and involvement from the Soil & Water representative.

What’s next: The BZA left the record open for internal follow‑up and directed staff to ask whether additional IGWS work or similar third‑party review could be funded or arranged; it listed the matter for further consideration at the board’s next regular meeting. The board also noted that the county’s recording of the meeting would be posted after a livestream interruption.

Reporting note: The article quotes participants from the public hearing and uses statements recorded in the Owen County BZA transcript and on the record during the December meeting.