Greensburg’s Planning Commission meekly pulled the plug on its effort to seek some measure of control of land development immediately outside city limits Wednesday night when it voted to drop its recent push to extend Master Plan criteria into the so-called potential growth area.
The unexpected move came a week after three dozen rural residents flooded the February 24 public hearing on the proposal, nearly all of whom voiced a variety of concerns over what was seen by many as the first step toward annexation.
Development Director Mike Gurnee told The Signal he was “a bit surprised (by the dropping of the matter) because it was that commission that instructed me to prepare the paperwork for this move. But that’s their prerogative.”
After taking the first 10 minutes of Wednesday night’s meeting to approve a site plan for the new Twilight Theatre, the Commission moved on to what Gurnee expected would be a reduction of the scope of the potential growth area. He introduced the matter, as is his typical role by reiterating the results of the previous week’s public hearing. Commission member Travis Barnes then abstained from speaking or voting on the matter because of his having been absent from the hearing.
The other three commission members then engaged in an inaudible discussion of the matter away from the microphones, Gurnee being close enough to overhear Chair Alan Myers “say something about a reduced scope of the area.” Not feeling comfortable with the 20 or so attending residents not being able to hear the discussion, Gurnee turned to the crowd to tell them the commission was discussing the possibility of drawing in the boundaries of the potential growth area.
After a few minutes of such discussion the council reconvened, Myers moving to “drop at this time (the proposal) due to recent events.” Fellow member Roberta Stauth seconded, the motion passing with both and Dana Maier making it a 3-0-1 vote. The proposal had been tabled at the previous week’s hearing.
A copy of a map Myers had drawn up of a possible reduced potential growth area (shown here with the yellow line representing the drawn-in boundaries the chairman was considering) shows an approximate 50 percent reduction of the area. The map was never presented at Wednesday’s meeting.
Those present Wednesday night burst into applause once the commission’s vote to drop the matter was registered.
“I knew it (the proposed potential growth area) would be controversial, but the Planning Commission kept pushing me to pursue it,” Gurnee said later. With April 23 scheduled as his last day as Development Director, Gurnee said the commission had first broached the matter of such a move 18 months ago. “But it wasn’t a priority with me then,” Gurnee said. “But it because a priority with me lately because I knew my time here was drawing to a close.”
Gurnee also referenced an earlier 2001 attempt by the City to establish a similar area that also failed final approval. Saying he’d spoken with several about that earlier, failed attempt, Gurnee related, “folks remember it didn’t go well because of how it was presented.”
Asked to elaborate, Gurnee said, “That person, the consultant, who presented it apparently wasn’t a good communicator. He tended to ramble a lot and couldn’t manage to give a concise, coherent response in response to direct questions.”
When asked if he thought that bad experience had poisoned residents’ minds against the latest attempt to establish zoning in bordering unincorporated areas, Gurnee replied, “I don’t think so. I really can’t think of anything we could or should have done differently in how we presented the matter this time. And if they’d (planning commission) gone ahead and reduced the scope of the area I’d have been okay with that. But that’s not what they decided. So for now it’s a dead issue.”
City Administrator Steve Hewitt, who didn’t make it to Wednesday’s meeting before its end—it was concluded before 7 p.m.—said he thought the reduced scope approach he’d expected Myers and his commission to put in place “would’ve been a good compromise to start the process. Once in place we could have moved out from there at a later date when folks were comfortable with the concept.”
He also said he hoped the commission would resurrect the matter “at a later time when the timing is right.
“For however long this is tabled, though, it’s a good opportunity for the City and the commission to educate people on how zoning works and how it can benefit them.
“This has been tried before in other places, like Pratt, and when the heat turns up the officials back away from it. Because Pratt never got extraterritorial zoning in place people had little say when the ethanol plant there located so close to the north edge of town. If the zoning had been in place they could have pushed the plant back farther away from town.
“There are still a lot of things that could show up within a couple miles of town that are less than desirable that the State can’t regulate, such as a makeshift junkyard, or a residence with a lot of debris. If that kind of eyesore—the kind we were trying to eliminate within city limits before the tornado—were to develop out by the golf course, those that play golf would want it taken care of. But without the zoning in place, there’s not much that could be done.
“Can I say a future council wouldn’t pursue annexation 20 years from now? Of course not. But I can say annexation is not the goal of myself or the present council, and considerable growth would have to take place for annexation to be plausible in the future.”
