Residents alarmed after discovery Saint Joe’s recorded comprehensive plan may extend town control into county ETJ

Residents and county planners pressed for answers June 18 after staff revealed the Town of Saint Joe’s 2011 comprehensive plan may have been recorded in the county recorder’s office, potentially establishing an extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) that extends town planning authority into adjacent county territory.

A county staff member told the plan commission the comp plan in their meeting packet appears to show an ETJ and that the commission needs to confirm whether the town recorded the plan. A Saint Joe official who said they served as the town’s clerk/treasurer at the time stated they personally paid to have the comprehensive plan recorded and said a receipt and the recorded document should exist; the official said the town will provide that record as soon as possible.

Commissioners and residents discussed what a recorded ETJ could mean. Staff cited Indiana Code §36‑7‑4‑205 and related statutes governing ETJs and interlocal agreements. Commissioners noted an ETJ can extend roughly one‑quarter to two miles outside corporate limits depending on local ordinance language; staff said authors of the 2011 comp plan could have recorded the plan at that time when different procedures applied, and that if the ETJ was recorded it could affect county jurisdiction for some approvals that occurred since 2011.

Several county residents urged quick legal review. One resident, Ben Stry, described learning about the ETJ at a Saint Joe meeting and said he was concerned county landowners near Saint Joe were unaware of the change: "We're at their mercy," he said, adding that some owners had invested in large properties and worried about limits on building barns or making improvements. Town board members and residents disputed any intent to harm adjacent property owners and said they seek better communication; Randy Drake, Saint Joe town board president, described park and cemetery improvements and urged collaboration.

County staff and town representatives told the plan commission they will obtain the recorded document, share it with county staff, and have legal counsel for the county and the town analyze the implications for prior approvals, potential grandfathering/nonconforming uses, and whether appointments to represent the ETJ on the plan commission are required. Staff also noted Saint Joe is not part of the county‑city GIS (Beacon), which has meant the town’s zoning has not been visible via the county map system; the town would need to join the county GIS for its zoning to appear there.

The plan commission did not take formal action on the ETJ during the meeting; staff recorded the next step as acquiring the recorded comp plan and having attorneys research jurisdictional questions and any retroactive effects on approvals.

Next steps: county and town attorneys will examine the recorded document and advise on jurisdictional impact and options such as moratoria, interlocal agreements, or grandfathering provisions; staff committed to sharing the recorded document and the legal analysis with the plan commission.