Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Affairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
APC opens public hearing on ordinance to add Thorntown as APC member; hearing continued to August 5
Summary
Boone County APC opened a public hearing on a draft ordinance to add Thorntown to the Area Plan Commission. Speakers debated ordinance differences, staffing impacts and statutory requirements; the APC continued the hearing to August 5 to allow staff review of Thorntown's UDO and provide a comparative analysis.
The Boone County Area Plan Commission opened a public hearing July 1 on a draft ordinance (2026-05) to modify the enabling ordinance so Thorntown can join the APC. After extended discussion about differences between Thorntown’s recently adopted UDO and Boone County’s ordinance, staffing and statutory provisions, the APC continued the hearing to its August 5 meeting and left the public hearing open.
Nicole, planning staff, summarized the draft ordinance and said it had been reviewed by both the APC attorney and the commissioners’ attorney; she asked whether the APC wanted to hold the public hearing tonight and either forward a recommendation to the commissioners or continue for further review. Board members requested more time and asked staff to provide Thorntown’s UDO for comparison.
Jeff Wolf, who said he works directly for the Thorntown board, told the APC that Thorntown’s move aims to create efficiencies in inspection and permitting costs amid concerns about state-level changes such as SB1. "When we started looking at our budget, it made less sense to pay somebody full-time and more sense to start contracting," Wolf said, and he urged intergovernmental cooperation that would allow Thorntown representation on the APC while using its own ordinance.
Board members and counsel debated whether a joining municipality must adopt the county ordinance verbatim or only a "similar" ordinance, and discussed representation (whether Thorntown and nearby Advance would each appoint a representative or share one seat). One legal reference was cited in the record; counsel summarized the statutory language read into the discussion but the board requested a written side-by-side review of the ordinances.
After discussion the APC voted to continue the public hearing to its August 5 meeting in the Connie Lamar room at the County Annex and asked staff to circulate Thorntown's UDO and a comparison to the county ordinance beforehand so members can review staffing implications and legal consistency.
