Clinton County BZA tables AT&T fiber‑hub proposal after drainage, property‑condition concerns

The Clinton County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to table a special‑exception request from AT&T Enterprises LLC for a new communications/fiber hub along U.S. 52 in Perry Township to allow time for related drainage and property‑condition issues to be addressed.

Staff described the proposal as a new ~300‑square‑foot, unstaffed building to serve as a fiber‑optics hub. Because the petitioner intends to split roughly one acre from the parent agricultural parcel, staff noted the site would be subject to subdivision requirements if AT&T takes ownership, and INDOT had indicated any new access would require a hard‑surface self‑minor access permit. Staff also said the county surveyor and relevant agencies would need to sign off during the subdivision process.

Since the staff report was drafted, staff told the board, the county received complaints about junk and debris and the property owner now faces condemnation citations for collapsing buildings on the parent parcel; the Drainage Board (county commissioners) had tabled its review. Staff recommended tabling the application for one month to allow the property‑condition and drainage issues to be resolved so the BZA would not create what staff called an "illusion of a path forward" if other approvals were unlikely to be granted because of enforcement or unresolved drainage concerns.

A nearby resident, Kyle Johnson, who identified himself at the meeting, questioned why the hub was proposed so near his house, whether a tower could be erected later (staff: a tower would require a separate hearing and notice), and raised concerns about use of the roadside median and late‑night vehicle activity. Staff answered that towers require a distinct approval and that INDOT controls state right‑of‑way and access permitting on SR‑52.

Board members debated the tradeoff between protecting the drainage/enforcement process and not needlessly blocking broadband expansion in rural areas. After discussion the board moved and seconded to continue (table) the application to the next meeting to allow follow‑up with the Drainage Board and time for the property‑owner to address enforcement actions; the motion carried by roll call.

Staff indicated that when the Drainage Board and any required agencies have completed their reviews and enforcement actions are resolved or clarified, the applicant may return with the additional approvals required for subdivision and access permitting.