Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agritourism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morgan County BZA denies McKinney agritourism special-exception petition over road, floodplain and neighbor concerns
Summary
The Morgan County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny John McKinney’s special-exception petition S-26-05 to operate an agritourism facility on South Spurlock Lane, citing narrow private road access, flood-hazard concerns and neighbor opposition.
The Morgan County Board of Zoning Appeals on April 27 denied special-exception petition S-26-05, an agritourism request from John McKinney to operate "McKinney Farms and Equipment" at 4302 South Spurlock Lane.
John McKinney told the board he intends to develop a family-run agritourism operation — including a roughly 2-acre pumpkin patch, seasonal markets, a small farm stand, vendor markets and occasional events — on his roughly 9.25-acre property. He said portable restrooms would be provided for events, that the operation would begin modestly, and that residents on the lane had discussed widening the private drive to the recorded 15-foot easement to reduce traffic impacts.
Opponents at the hearing, including Ashley Stevens (4030 South Spurlock), said they were not contacted about the proposal, and expressed concerns about privacy, traffic and safety at the lane’s entrance (a cattle crossing and narrow geometry). "We chose to live there because it is private," Stevens said, noting school-age children and potential traffic backups onto State Road 252.
Staff read the petitioner’s application and technical reports into the record; among the technical notes were possible IDEM (water) and Indiana Department of Health/commercial septic requirements, and a surveyor’s recommendation for a 50-foot buffer on either side of the drainage that may be considered waters of the U.S. Staff concluded the petitioner had not satisfied findings 1–5 and did not recommend approval.
Board members repeatedly raised safety and access issues — even if the lane was widened to 15 feet they said the configuration could remain unsafe for the traffic levels described, and the site’s location within a mapped flood-hazard area increased the board’s concerns about future expansion.
A committee member moved to deny the petition on the basis of the record; the motion was seconded (recorded as "from Susan") and the chair called a voice vote. The chair announced the application was denied.
The denial stands as the board’s final action on S-26-05 at the April 27 meeting; staff and petitioner were advised of the technical permitting steps that would be required if the petitioner seeks to address the cited concerns and reapply.
