Whitestown wins appeal over Perry Township land

The town of Whitestown prevailed in a legal dispute with neighboring land owners after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that it can move on with its plans to annex parts of rural Perry Township adjacent to its borders.

The appellate judges’ decision, issued today, reversed a previous ruling by a lower court judge who blocked Whitestown officials’ plans to add parcels from an unincorporated Perry Township land to its territory. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel means the town, a rapidly growing community northwest of Indianapolis, will be able to further expand its territory for possible redevelopment.

The court’s decision is also the latest chapter in an ongoing land battle between Whitestown and the neighboring suburb of Zionsville. The two Boone County communities have been in a legal feud over Perry Township, which has hundreds of acres of farmland and is one of the last undeveloped areas outside of Indianapolis.

The area, with about 1,000 residents just west of Zionsville, has found itself in the middle of a border fight that has escalated into a lawsuit between the two neighboring towns. Zionsville is seeking to reshape its government and hopes to absorb Perry Township. Whitestown is trying to keep that from happening and is protecting its ability to expand its own boundaries.

Ruling on that lawsuit last month between the two Boone County communities, the Court of Appeals sided with Zionsville, allowing its officials to expand into Perry Township. Whitestown officials have asked the Indiana Supreme Court to hear the case.

Wedneday’s ruling on a separate lawsuit would allow Whitestown to annex about 620 acres of Perry Township, land which is to be used as a site for a proposed wastewater-treatment plant. The town adopted an annexation ordinance in March 2013. A few months later, Perry Township landowners filed a petition challenging the ordinance.

A trial court judge, in August 2014, ruled in favor of the township landowners and found the Whitestown ordinance to be invalid.

Reversing that ruling, appeals court judges decided that Whitestown successfully proved that annexation of the said area was “needed and can be used by the municipality for its development in the reasonably near future,” as required by state law. Although there are no other constructions plans aside from the wastewater-treatment plant, several witnesses testified to Whitestown’s rapid growth, which leaves possibilities for future redevelopments, according to the 26-page opinion.

Whitestown Town Manager Dax Norton declined to comment on the appeals court ruling at this time, citing the pending cases. Lebanon attorney Kent Frandsen, who represents Perry Township landowners in the appeal, has not returned a call seeking comment.

Whitestown’s population has increased more than sixfold over the past decade or so, from 471 in 2000 to 2,860 in 2010, according to the U.S. Census. The town’s planners estimate its population will reach nearly 14,000 in seven years.

Township land owners also argued that annexation would have an adverse financial impact on them, mostly because of a projected 52- to 74-percent increase in property taxes. But, according to the appellate ruling, the tax increase won’t be felt for another 13 years because of delays in taxation proposed in the ordinance. Whether that additional layer of taxation would have any significant impact on land owners is still too early to say.

Star reporter Justin Mack contributed to this story.

Call Star reporter Kristine Guerra at (317) 444-6209. Follow her on Twitter:@kristine_guerra.