Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise drainage, dust and animal-health concerns over proposed Stonechase North annexation
Summary
At a March 10 first reading and public hearing, FourStar Group presented plans to annex and rezoning 30 acres for a Stonechase North neighborhood; adjacent residents said standing-water and storm-drain issues and dust from construction threaten an on-site equine rescue and urged buffering and improved stormwater designs.
McCordsville — Developers seeking to annex roughly 30 acres north of an existing Stone Chase site on County Road 700 faced questions from nearby property owners at the Town Council meeting on March 10.
Cheyenne Hoffa of FourStar Group presented the annexation petition and said the parcel will mirror the neighboring Stone Chase PUD with shared amenities and detention features. Hoffa confirmed consent from the property owner and said the correct parcel size is 30 acres (she apologized for a typo on the submitted materials saying 32 acres).
Adjacent resident John Anderson told the council he lives at 5209 West 700 North and described a long-running drainage problem tied to a broken agricultural tile that outlets through the gatherings development. "Our standing water issue continues to get worse," he said, and asked that a drainage plan be in place before annexation and development proceed.
Katherine Parr, whose property borders the development and who operates an equine rescue, said dust and construction impacts pose a health risk to animals, including horses with severe asthma. "We're asking for adequate buffering, dust mitigation, and storm water management," she said, and noted both she and Anderson submitted written comments and plan to appear before Plan Commission on March 17.
Hoffa and staff described proposed detention features and a frontage pond intended to capture off‑site drainage, and said engineers plan to intercept private farm tiles and tie them into the development’s storm system so flows route to the Stansbury ditch. Staff emphasized that annexation is a separate, jurisdictional step (moving the property into town limits) and that technical drainage and site-design issues will be evaluated during Plan Commission review and the PUD process.
Council permitted a public hearing as part of the first reading but took no final vote; final annexation action and the rezoning/PUD consideration will return for council action after Plan Commission review. Residents were urged to bring technical drainage concerns to the March 17 Plan Commission meeting, where staff and the developer expect to review PUD edits and engineering details.
Provenance: annexation introduction SEG 636–645; resident comments and drainage concerns SEG 690–714 and SEG 1000–1043.
