Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Posey County adopts multiple zoning amendments after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing with several speakers, the Posey County Commissioners approved 16 zoning amendments that reduce lot-size and width standards in residential districts, alter impervious-surface limits, and relax several 'shall' landscape and park requirements.
The Posey County Board of Commissioners approved a package of zoning ordinance amendments on April 7, 2026, following a public hearing that drew residents from Posey and neighboring communities.
Commissioner Bill Collins opened the hearing and called several public commenters including Tom Gugenhein of 1129 E. Church St., Brian Williams of Huntersridge, Nicole Chandler of Clarmont Ave., Bill Pedtke of N. Cullen Ave., and Ryan Economy of Chicago. After hearing public input, Commissioners debated a set of revisions proposed by Commissioner Greg Newman and an additional change from Commissioner Eric Koester.
Newman presented 15 amendments that changed multiple dimensional and standards provisions across the ordinance. Major changes included reducing minimum lot widths from 70 feet to 50 feet in several residential districts and lowering minimum lot areas from 7,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet for lots served by sewer. The package also proposed raising impervious-surface limits in some districts (30% to 40%), adding uses to the I2 district similar to existing ordinance language, and modifying several standards by changing language from 'shall' to 'may' for landscape, buffer and neighborhood park requirements. Newman also proposed redefining "impervious surface" to focus on structures under cover rather than pavement or gravel.
Commissioner Newman moved to approve all 15 amendments as presented; Commissioner Eric Koester seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0.
Koester then proposed a separate amendment to change R2 impervious-surface limits from 30% to 40%. He moved approval; the board approved that amendment 3-0.
The changes, as approved by the board, were presented as a compromise after multiple public meetings, and commissioners said they sought a balance between development flexibility and community standards. The board did not provide an ordinance number or effective date at the meeting; staff were not directed to return the finalized ordinance with a codified citation during the session.
Next steps: the ordinance language approved by the board will be incorporated into county records and any further procedural steps or effective dates were not specified in the meeting minutes.
