Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County adopts new subdivision control ordinance after heated public comment
Summary
The Washington County Commissioners adopted a comprehensive subdivision control ordinance after public comment raised legal and property-rights concerns; the measure was presented in a detailed second reading, and commissioners said amendments could clarify ambiguities later.
Washington County’s Board of Commissioners voted on the second reading and adopted a new Subdivision Control Ordinance after a lengthy public comment period and debate.
The vote came after resident Max Green read a written objection, arguing the county’s notice and the ordinance’s administrative provisions did not comply with multiple sections of Indiana law and warning that similar defects had led a judge to invalidate a county ordinance in a prior case. Green told the board that failure to meet notice requirements risked court reversal.
County staff read the ordinance at length during the meeting, presenting definitions and procedures for administrative, minor and major subdivisions, standards for parcel size and access, filing and approval steps, and performance and maintenance guarantees. The text includes limits on lots served by an access easement, requirements for professional land surveys, and conditions for primary and secondary approvals.
Commissioners and residents debated whether provisions such as the restriction on the number of parcels accessed by an easement could unintentionally restrict family transfers of property. Commissioner S1 said the language appeared to limit owners’ ability to split land and transfer parcels to grandchildren; S1 said he had checked with neighboring counties and believed prior local ordinances had to be rewritten to avoid restricting family splits.
Commissioner S7 defended the ordinance as a needed update, calling it “not overreach” and saying it addresses problems the county has experienced for years—such as uncertain private road names and building encroachments—and that most counties have far larger subdivision codes. Staff noted the ordinance can be amended later to clarify points raised at the meeting.
The board called the question after discussion and adopted the ordinance by voice vote. The ordinance text states it is effective immediately upon adoption. The board did not record a roll-call vote in the transcript; the outcome was announced in open session.
What’s next: The ordinance’s adoption makes the county’s subdivision rules operative; commissioners and staff said they would accept and consider clarifying amendments where legal or practical conflicts are identified.
