Ripley County planning commission hears sharp public opposition to proposed downtown overlay ordinances

The Ripley County Area Planning Commission spent several hours Wednesday hearing presentations and dozens of public comments on proposed overlay zoning ordinances from the towns of Milan, Versailles and Osgood that would discourage or prohibit first‑floor residential units in mapped commercial cores.

Joe Jenner, an attorney representing the towns, told the commission the amendment is intended to “preserve and strengthen the downtown business districts” by ensuring street‑level storefronts remain available for businesses. He cited Indiana Code 36‑7‑4‑604 as the authority for local zoning amendments and described a core element of the drafts: a 60‑day vacancy rule that would terminate a nonconforming residential use if it sits empty more than 60 days, with a one‑time 60‑day rehabilitation extension (120 days total) available in some circumstances.

The proposal generated immediate pushback. A tech‑review member (speaker 23) said the committee asked for a longer vacancy period—“more along the lines of six months”—and questioned who would be responsible for starting and enforcing the 60‑day clock. “Who pushes the stopwatch to start that time?” the member asked.

Professional planner Joe Sikos, who said he was contracted by property owners opposing the change, urged the commission to reject the drafts or narrow them. “A 60‑day vacancy clause feels like a de facto regulatory amortization,” Sikos said, warning it could force building owners out of business and make long‑term housing shortages worse. He supplied alternatives—live‑work districts, targeted maps, grant incentives and design standards—that he said would protect downtowns without removing owner flexibility.

Town officials offered a different view. Roxanne Meyer, president of the Versailles town council, said the ordinance would protect limited storefront frontage and support tourism and small business growth. Deb (speaker 6), president of the Milan town board, said towns would enforce the rule and that 60 days reflected local priorities and the towns’ desire to recover commercial frontage in downtown cores.

Many property owners and landlords from all three towns said the draft’s language as written went too far, particularly in Osgood. Property owner Travis Veil (speaker 19) told the commission that the Osgood draft would “change my zoning rights” and could force the removal of longstanding multifamily housing on transfer or sale; others warned of large devaluation and even litigation risk if existing uses could be terminated on deed transfer.

Speakers also criticized notice and transparency. Several residents said they received only a one‑page notice and were not provided the overlay maps or complete ordinance drafts in advance; multiple commenters urged the towns to post maps publicly and to hold additional local outreach before the commission certifies a recommendation.

Commissioners debated motions at the meeting but did not adopt a final, binding recommendation on the ordinances. One motion to send Milan’s proposal with an unfavorable recommendation did not carry; another motion to forward Milan with no recommendation was recorded. For Osgood the commission voted to ask the town to remove or rewrite the provision that would exclude multifamily housing from GB/LB districts and to reconsider the sale/transfer language, but commissioners noted procedural and quorum limits and said the towns must return with revised language and clearer maps.

The planning commission emphasized statutory timing and process: after the commission’s recommendation (if any) the participating legislative bodies have up to 90 days to act, and amendments returned by a town would require notice and potentially another commission review. The commission closed the hearing with no ordinance adopted and requested the towns revise the drafts to address concerns about the vacancy period, sale/transfer treatment of nonconforming uses, and notice of the overlay maps.

What happens next: the towns may amend the drafts and return to the planning commission; if the commission certifies the proposal, the respective town councils would then hold their own hearings and vote on the ordinances.

Quote highlights: “Every storefront that becomes an apartment is one less location that is available for future business,” said Joe Jenner, attorney for the towns, explaining the ordinance’s purpose. “A 60‑day vacancy clause feels like a de facto regulatory amortization,” said planner Joe Sikos, who recommended alternatives including targeted grants and design standards. “I cannot have my property rights taken away,” said property owner Travis Veil, who urged the commission to send Osgood’s draft back to the town with the multifamily exclusion removed.

Ending: The commission left the overlay ordinances on its agenda and asked town officials to provide revised language and clear overlay maps before the commission considers a final recommendation.