FORTVILLE — Susie Whybrew spent a good part of Thursday sending emails, texting, making phone calls and riding her bike around alerting neighbors to the newest development in the Fortville annexation case: A judge had ruled in favor of property owners who opposed it.
According to the seven-page ruling handed down Thursday by Judge Richard Culver of Hancock Circuit Court, Fortville officials did not show sufficient evidence that the annexation area was needed for development in the near future.
That was a key standard in the case, and without meeting it, the town had a difficult time making its case.
The ruling means the annexation, in the works for more than a year, is dead for now. The town may appeal within 30 days; if it doesn’t, it has to wait four years before proposing again to annex the area.
“Everybody is just very happy,” said Whybrew, the spokeswoman for a group of property owners who opposed the annexation attempt. “It was nice to finally have good news to talk about. It’s a real testimony to our community to have stayed determined and show true grit.”
Fortville Town Councilman Ron Stafford, who voted against the annexation proposals last year, said no discussion of an appeal had taken place. Alex Intermill, the town attorney who led officials through the annexation process, remonstrance and ultimately a trial, said council members were disappointed in the ruling. He said an appeal will be discussed.
In the meantime, the remonstrators, buoyed by the ruling, will await the town’s decision.
The ruling followed an unusual trial in July, during which town officials argued the potential for growth in Fortville made annexation logical. The remonstrators, who had to file petitions and hire an attorney to make their case, argued the opposite. They said they didn’t want to be part of the town.
The annexation area included 65 homes, 644 acres, 97 land parcels and 162 residents, according to figures compiled by the town. The annexation area was a smaller portion of an original annexation plan that was scrapped amid vocal opposition.
The court found that of the 644 acres, 82 percent was used for agricultural purposes, and 93 percent of parcel owners in the area opposed annexation. Also, the judge found Fortville did not have specific plans for the development of the annexation territory. He also noted that no developers have expressed interest in developing the agricultural land in and around the annexation area.
Also contributing to the judge’s decision was the lack of details in Fortville’s plan, which made no provision for “significant growth in trash collection, construction of roads needed for development or expansion of other services that would be expected if the annexation territory was to be developed in the reasonably near future,” Culver wrote.
Since the process began, Fortville officials cited the growth of nearby Fishers as evidence that the town needs to grow. The ruling said that logic wasn’t convincing.
“While there is growth toward Fortville, the most significant areas of growth are north toward Noblesville,” the ruling states. It also noted that some Fortville subdivisions have not seen development since 2007. The town had not issued a residential building permit in the annexation territory since then.
Culver also noted that a stretch of land in a drainage watershed is in a federally designated floodplain, making it unsuitable for development.
With the ruling in hand, remonstrators believe they have achieved victory. They discouraged town officials from appealing.
“We would hope that (town officials) would exercise some common sense and not pursue an appeal,” Whybrew said. “If they decide to do that, we are prepared to stay the course, and we can do it.”
The remonstrators’ attorney, Stephen Buschmann, agreed.
“Our hope, quite frankly, is that the town decides to just let it go,” Buschmann said. “Under an appeal, all they can really do is argue that the court incorrectly applied the law and used an incorrect standard. There is an argument that you can make that there is no evidence that supports the court’s finding. But there is.”
Buschmann, who has represented anti-annexation property owners in similar cases, said remonstrators have been finding more success lately.
“It’s interesting; there have been in recent months a number of trial court decisions on similar issues that have come down in the favor of remonstrators. It’s a good trend,” Buschmann said.
State legislators are looking over annexation issues in study committees this fall. They want to be sure the process is fair to property owners and the communities that are seeking to grow. The issue is repeating itself all over the state as communities seek ways to raise more revenue in an era of property tax caps. Annexation is one way communities can bring in more money. Rep. Bob Cherry, R-Greenfield, recently said that involuntary annexation is a problem; Indiana, in fact, is one of only a handful of states that still allows it.
Flory May, who led the battle against Fortville’s first, larger annexation plan, said property owners will continue financial support if the town appeals.
The Fortville annexation dispute began in March 2013, when it was first unveiled to startled residents. It included a plan to take in almost 6,000 acres – an area vastly larger than the town itself – before it was reduced.
Whybrew and Buschmann said they hope that involuntary annexation practices eventually are outlawed. Fortville’s remonstrance could be a turning point, they said.
“We are all very, very happy with the court ruling,” Whybrew said. “Nobody out here wanted this. Nobody wanted the annexation.”