Commissioners deny rezoning for proposed RV-storage "condominiums" near New Harmony Road

Warrick County commissioners voted 3–0 on June 8 to deny a request to rezone roughly five acres near the intersection of Zor Church Road and New Harmony Road from agricultural (A) to C3 (highway commercial). The petition (PCR‑2604) sought approval for two pole‑barn style, 10‑unit buildings intended to serve as individually owned RV and recreational‑vehicle storage "condominiums."

Molly of the Area Plan Commission told the board the petition had a favorable APC recommendation but with two dissenting votes after standard public notice. Scott Beetle of Cashwagner & Associates and the project representative described the plan as gated, with video surveillance, firewalls between units, and buffers the applicants said would preserve about 35 feet to the north and 45 feet to the east. The applicant said most owners would visit only a few times a year and that access would be primarily from New Harmony Road rather than Zor Church Road.

Several nearby residents urged denial at the meeting. Tom Newaster, who identified himself as the original developer of the larger tract and a nearby property owner, said recorded covenants had required residential use and warned the parcel has a high water table and drainage constraints; he disclosed he could benefit financially if nearby acreage is acquired. Neighbor Reggie (4788 Zor Church Road) told commissioners that the area was bought for its “peace and quiet,” objected to security lighting and commercial activity at the road, and said other storage businesses exist elsewhere. Angelo Roomcorf, an immediate adjoining owner, said he consulted counsel and believes approving commercial zoning could breach sales covenants.

A commissioner representing the district said the proposal does not fit the county comprehensive plan and moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote of commissioners Sarah Seaton, Terry Philippy and Stacy Frans. The board declared the motion passed, 3–0, and the zoning request was denied.

The record shows the APC had recommended approval with some opposition; commissioners said their denial reflected the parcel’s residential context, covenant questions raised by neighbors, and concern that commercial zoning could enable broader uses in the future. No development permits for a data center or other unrelated projects were before the board in this matter. The county administrator closed the APC portion of the agenda and moved on to other business.