Zionsville council denies Woodland Grove PUD after residents cite traffic and loss of rural character

The Town of Zionsville Town Council voted 5–2 on May 4 to deny the Woodland Grove planned unit development, a mixed residential and limited‑commercial proposal by Pittman Partners that neighbors and the Hamilton County Airport Authority argued was inconsistent with the town’s land‑use guidance and would worsen safety on U.S. 421.

The proposal would have rezoned about 51 acres for a mix of townhomes, single‑family lots, and a Michigan Road commercial frontage. Attorney Kyle Rassetera and developer Steve Pittman told the council the project had been revised repeatedly in response to feedback — reducing townhomes from 150 to 120 (and later offering a cap of 100), increasing landscaping and amenity areas, and limiting commercial uses — and that the Plan Commission had forwarded a favorable 4–1 recommendation.

But residents who live along the Michigan Road corridor told the council the revisions were not enough. ‘‘The plan’s own vision statement validated by residents...calls for scenic open spaces, physically responsible development, and continued reinvestment in our established district,’’ said Faith Snodgrass, who asked the council to ‘‘hold the 30% open space standard’’ she said the community had demanded. Ted Stowe described repeated near‑misses and serious crashes on nearby roads and said, ‘‘Jamming in 120 townhomes, 53 single‑family homes, and 50,000 square feet of commercial space…will inevitably increase serious accidents and fatalities.’’

The Hamilton County Airport Authority, represented by Dave Richter, told the council it opposed the Overland Commons subdistrict and said the proposal conflicted with the airport land‑use plan and the town’s current comp plan. Residents and the airport authority raised noise, safety, and compatibility questions that they said the PUD did not resolve.

Petitioners highlighted design commitments — a five‑acre tree and wildlife preservation area, limestone walking trails, masonry facades on townhomes, and a proposed 35‑foot maximum height in commercial and residential subdistricts — and argued the project would create assessed value and limited, low‑intensity commercial uses along Michigan Road. "We are proposing a walkable, compact neighborhood with usable commercial uses that support daily needs," Rassetera told the council.

Council members were divided but several said comp‑plan alignment and traffic implications weighed heavily. ‘‘I respect Mr. Pittman’s work, but I don’t know this is the right place,’’ one councilor said during debate. After motions to continue the item failed, the council voted to deny the PUD by roll call: five in favor of denial, two opposed.

The council’s denial means the site retains its current zoning; petitioners may return with a revised concept or pursue other zoning avenues. Councilors and staff signaled that infrastructure capacity along the Michigan Road corridor — including turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes and coordination with INDOT and utility providers — will be central to future review of major proposals in the area.

The vote was the most substantive action of the evening; the council moved on to other business, including continuing the Polte petition and advancing a separate rezoning and administrative items.

The Town Council will hear related land‑use matters again at upcoming meetings; petitioners and residents were told opportunities remain to bring revised plans forward or to discuss infrastructure timing with town and state officials.