A Whiteland woman wants to send a message to the Whiteland Town Council, though she fears it might fall on deaf ears.
Shay Denham started a now viral petition against the annexation and rezoning of 340 acres in unincorporated Johnson County to industrial from agricultural. By press time Sunday, more than 600 Whiteland residents had signed the petition. Whiteland is a town of about 4,400 people in north central Johnson County.
Landowners are petitioning to join the Town of Whiteland and bring a logistics park to the Whiteland Road interchange at Interstate 65. Boundaries of the annexation area include Tracy Road to the north, Whiteland Road to the south, I-65 to the east and County Road 200 East to the west. This area is currently farmland, with a few residential properties.
The logistics park would contain 5.7 million square feet of industrial space across 10 buildings, expandable by up to 6.7 million square feet, according to the master site plan from Dallas, Texas-based developer Mohr Capital. As many as four buildings at the site could eventually be about 1 million square feet or more, the plan indicates.
At the front of the property, along Whiteland Road, sandwiched between a truck repair shop and existing homes, more than 23,000 square feet of retail space across four buildings and a 22,000-square-foot hotel are proposed, the plan says.
Mohr is also behind the new 996,000-square-foot Cooper Tire facility that is under construction on a parcel just south of this proposed development. This project is considered the first phase of the larger logistics complex the developer is planning.
Denham created and posted the petition on social media Thursday morning, after the Whiteland Plan Commission on Tuesday sent the annexation proposal to the town council with a favorable recommendation.
She and others have many unanswered questions about the development that they hope are answered before plans mover further ahead. Though she doesn’t have high hopes the petition will make a difference, Denham said she had to try.
“I feel like we are fighting a losing battle, but my love for this community, my home and especially my children makes the battle worth it,” Denham said.
Denham asks supporters for their help in asking the town council to vote no to the annexation and rezoning for the following reasons: there are no set tenants for the buildings; current infrastructure is inadequate for the demand the development would create; it will have too big an impact on Whiteland Road; it could decrease the desirability and property values of surrounding homes; and it could impact insurance rates, she said.
Denham is concerned about how the annexation and subsequent development will impact her family, who moved to their home on Tracy Road 17 years ago to enjoy a quiet country life on the outskirts of town.
“We wanted to raise our children on land, where they can ride dirt bikes and four wheelers, have all of their football teammates over for Thursday night dinners or bonfires after a game. We love being able to let our kids go outside and play and not have to worry about if they are playing too close to the street, or some random vehicle parked down the road is watching them. That may sound cliché, but we have a huge sense of security here," Denham said.
"But above all, this is the only home my children have ever known.”
If the town council approves the annexation and subsequent development, Denham and others fear the town’s rural charm will be ruined, and their quality of life will suffer. If the proposal goes through, Denham would likely move, hoping to the sell the home before the development can impact the value of it, she said.
She, and others who spoke out the Plan Commission meeting last week, also want clarity on what exactly the future of Whiteland looks like.
“I hope that they see that many people do not support this type of growth … We have nothing to look at to prepare for what future Whiteland looks like,” Denham said. “Are we no longer a small town? Are we going to throw the comprehensive plans out the window any time the highest bidder wants to come in and build on our land?”
Denham and others say the town has veered from the comprehensive plan, last updated in 2011, which proposed different land uses for portions of the annexation area than what is being proposed now. A portion of the land being annexed from Bright Farms was envisioned in the town’s plan as residential developments, such as single-family homes, but no residential development is planned as part of Mohr’s proposal.
“I understand that this will bring jobs, and I am not against helping the economy, but why isn’t the current plan commission and town council holding up to the comprehensive plan put into place by the previous town committees?” Denham said.
The comprehensive plan caused disagreements at the plan commission meeting, and at a neighborhood meeting held to discuss the proposed development in August. The plan contains inconsistencies about where business park developments should be located, and the definitions of “business park” and “industrial.”
The inconsistencies create a disconnect, where developers can say they are following the plan, and residents can say they are not.
