Republic file photo The Otter Creek Golf Course clubhouse is shown.
The recent sale of Otter Creek, a long-time city golf course, will have an unusual side effect — reducing the jurisdictional limits of the Columbus Plan Commission.
City and County Planning Director Jeff Bergman talked about the change at a plan commission meeting Tuesday and while the topic was on the agenda as a discussion item, Bergman said that it will likely return as an action item in January or February.
“In short, with the sale of Otter Creek Golf Course, due to some mechanisms in the state law, Otter Creek will no longer be part of the city limits and therefore can no longer serve as the basis for the city establishing its two-mile jurisdiction in that eastern portion of the county,” he said. “So the city will need to redraw its boundaries to retreat from that area as a result.”
The sale of Otter Creek Golf Course to Architerra, LLC, was completed earlier this fall. Bob Haddad Jr., the chief operating officer at Harrison Lake Country Club, is listed as Architerra’s registered agent.
According to Mayor Jim Lienhoop, the estimated total liabilities assumed by the buyer was $876,391, as of late October. Architerra has also committed to invest at least $5 million to address deferred capital and maintenance needs for the clubhouse and golf course.
Bergman said that when the course was initially annexed into the city, local officials took advantage of a provision in state law that allows “disconnected areas” to be annexed remotely and included in city limits, so long as the area is a municipal facility of some kind.
He explained that since the course no longer qualifies as a municipal facility, its disannexation automatically goes into effect a year after its sale — in this case, next October. Officials have talked with Haddad, who may encourage them to have this take place sooner. These discussions are ongoing.
According to a memo from Bergman to commission members, the jurisdiction of the city’s plan commission includes all land within city limits plus a two-mile area beyond those limits, which is as far as Indiana law allows. This extended jurisdiction only applies to the city’s “land use planning and zoning authority” and not to other municipal powers such as property tax rate, police authority or fire protection.
The eastern boundary of this jurisdiction has been informed by the existence of Otter Creek as a part of the city. Its disannexation means that boundary line will have to be redrawn.
“Next October at the latest we will need to have our jurisdiction changes in place, and then that would also prompt action by the county,” said Bergman. “They would have to take steps to receive that new jurisdiction for them. So the county is going to need to update their comprehensive plan to include the area that the city is relinquishing, and then also update their official zoning map, which will include that area.”
His memo included a map showing the city’s current jurisdictional boundary on the east side, as well as the new maximum limit without the course and a preliminary planning staff recommendation on where to set the new boundary. The staff recommendation is slightly farther west than the maximum limit.
Bergman said that under this boundary, Petersville and areas associated with the community would be in the county’s jurisdiction; so would a number of residential developments to the south.
When asked about the difference between the maximum limit and the staff recommendation, Bergman replied that the city’s reasons for wanting planning jurisdiction outside of city limits have changed over the years.
“I think where we’ve been for probably the last 20 years and where I would envision that continuing forward is the city’s exercising that jurisdiction to, I think, ensure that a lot of development — especially a lot of residential development — does not grow up on its immediate boundaries without being annexed,” he said. “So I think from the city’s point of view, there’s an intent to limit what essentially become de facto city residents immediately on the city’s borders. So people who are driving on city roads and using our city parks but not paying city taxes.”
This creates both short-term and long-term financial problems, said Bergman, and it becomes difficult to annex those residents — or properties past them — in the future.
Petersville and the other residential developments “aren’t relevant” to the city’s goal, as development has already taken place, he said.
Commissioner Tom Finke commented that the recommended jurisdictional line may need to be amended in one area.
“I see a little issue with your line between 50 North and Base Road,” he said. “That bisects an 80-acre tract.”
Bergman said he would look into it.
His memo to the commission also included a second map of the city’s jurisdictional limit to the north and a preliminary staff recommendation to move the line further south in certain sections. This is suggested as a way to correct areas where the current line bisects properties.
“There is sort of curved portion of the city’s jurisdiction line that kind of cuts through the Heritage Heights manufactured home park, as well as another property,” said Bergman. “If you all saw fit, this would be an opportunity to render a correction to that and let all of those properties be in one jurisdiction, which we would suggest is the county. There’s also another property a little bit down the way that’s bisected. And again, we’ve offered a preliminary staff recommendation on that that essentially, it honestly lets things that are associated with Taylorsville be in the county’s jurisdiction.”
