Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Auburn 2026 20 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auburn council votes down rezoning of 12 lots after residents cite contamination and covenant concerns
Summary
After residents raised groundwater contamination and restrictive-covenant concerns, the Auburn Common Council failed to pass Ordinance 2026-20 on first reading, with a 3–4 roll-call vote. Planning staff said IDEM monitored remediation through 2010 and covenants restrict residential use.
The Auburn Common Council on July 7, 2026 failed to advance Ordinance 2026-20 — a proposal to rezone 12 platted lots and adjacent vacated Hazel Street from high-density residential (R-3) to I-1 light industrial/High Tech District — after residents and council members raised concerns about historical contamination, restrictive covenants and neighborhood impacts.
Resident Mary Jo Levy told the council the lot in question has a history of contamination and a restrictive covenant that, she said, covers the entire property: "If you take this lot away from us, I just feel like our neighborhood's gonna deteriorate," Levy said, adding that disturbance of trees and soil during development could spread contaminants and harm the neighborhood's character.
Planner Jim (staff) told the council that the property had contamination identified in the late 1980s, that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) oversaw remediation and monitoring through about 2010, and that IDEM had determined contamination levels met its standards. "The covenants clearly state that no residential, which also includes schools and day cares, those type of facilities," Jim said, adding that the covenants remain on the deed and require notification if zoning changes.
Several residents supplied distinct objections. Kenneth Lehi Heights Junior said rezoning would increase traffic, lights and noise, which would affect his household. Dave Weinbrenner said 43 immediate neighbors signed a petition opposing the rezoning and urged the council to reject the ordinance to protect community welfare.
Council members asked whether IDEM could lift covenants and whether commercial zoning would better serve as a transition between residential and industrial uses. Jim said IDEM would have to agree to remove covenants and noted the city's Auburn 2040 plan designates the area for employment/industrial use; he also described required screening and setbacks where industrial abuts residential.
After discussion the council held a roll-call vote. Councilwoman Prosser voted No; Councilman Bundy No; Councilman Williams Yes; Councilwoman DeWitt Yes; Councilman Webb No; Councilman Braun No; Councilman Finchem Yes. With three yes votes and four no votes, the ordinance "is dead after 1st reading due to lack of votes," the council president announced.
The planning commission had recommended the zoning change unanimously; staff said a rezoned property would still require planning-commission review for site layout, screening and driveway access before any industrial use could proceed. The owner, Jim said, has indicated a desire to consolidate parcels and improve financing options, but no specific development plan was presented to the council.
Next procedural steps remain: because the item failed on first reading, the owner or applicant may return with a revised request or additional information, and any future site plan would be subject to public review at planning commission hearings. The council did not set a new date for reconsideration at the July 7 meeting.
