Resident Sherrie Mitchell has filed suit against the Brown County Commissioners, claiming that they did not properly perform their duties under county zoning laws when they voted to rezone her neighbors’ property for industrial use.

The commissioners voted unanimously on April 7 to rezone 3 acres of the Buccos family’s property from R2 to FR (forest reserve). This followed the recommendation of the Brown County Area Plan Commission which was forwarded to the commissioners in late March.

For more than a year, the Buccoses have been trying to get the correct zoning for the logging operation they have been running on their property for decades. Mitchell discovered that the property was not properly zoned in the fall of 2019 when she met a log truck while driving on West Robertson Road, inquired at the zoning office and then filed a complaint.

She and her husband, Benjamin Mitchell, filed a petition for judicial review on May 3 in Brown Circuit Court. It asks Judge Mary Wertz to declare the rezoning “illegal and void.”

Mitchell’s complaint says that the commissioners made several errors when they voted to rezone the property.

One is that they did not pay “reasonable regard” to the county’s comprehensive plan, the current conditions and character of structures and property uses in the district, the “most desirable use” of the land, the conservation of property values throughout the district, or “responsible development and growth.”

“The commissioners publicly denied having had a responsibility to perform these duties,” the complaint states.

In the April 7 meeting, commissioner Diana Biddle said that “that responsibility is with the Area Plan Commission. We’re not here to argue and debate the pros and cons of what is their job to do. We place that responsibility with the board that we appoint and it’s not the commissioners’ responsibility to re-hear the whole process.”

Mitchell also alleges that the commissioners’ decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” or lacking a connection between the facts and the decision made. She cited the county comprehensive plan, which says that “rezoning of land for industrial uses should be discouraged in areas that are inappropriate,” and said that it’s inappropriate for her neighborhood because of the semi traffic, noise and dust the operation creates.

In addition, Mitchell alleged prejudice because of a comment made by commissioner Jerry Pittman that “these people were there before you were,” referring to the Buccoses’ longevity on their land; and alleged denial of due process, because the commissioners shut down the public comment portion of the meeting when Mitchell mentioned she was going to use statements in court.

The commissioners had not yet filed a response to the allegations in court as of June 9.

At the May 26 Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the Buccoses requested a special exception for general industrial use on their newly rezoned property. That special exception was the final step they needed in order for them to keep running their business. If the business would change in the future, it would have to go back for another approval.

The BZA voted 4-0-1 to approve that special exception. BZA member Debbie Bartes abstained; she lives in that neighborhood and said she’s given up walking on the road for traffic safety reasons. She told the BZA that the business is not the same as it was years ago; it has grown, and she believes it’s to a point that it’s outgrown the neighborhood.

Mitchell also argued against it. She said that granting it “subverts the purposes of the ordinance and permanently injures our property” because being forced off the road by large trucks damages people’s yards, the noise is disruptive, and she believes that having an “industrial” use in the neighborhood will affect property values.

Christina Buccos also said that her business isn’t the only one that drives large trucks on the county road.

BZA President John Dillberger temporarily stopped the discussion when Buccos brought up noise from Mitchell’s dogs disturbing the neighborhood.

The day after the meeting, Mitchell said she planned to file for judicial review of the BZA’s decision.

Defamation cases

Sherrie Mitchell also has been involved in three other cases related to the rezoning debate.

Christina Buccos and Christopher Buccos both sued Mitchell for defamation on Feb. 9, but on April 26, the suits were dismissed because they lacked specificity. The filing by the Buccoses’ attorney, Jennifer Jones Auger, did not include the statements that Mitchell made which were allegedly defamatory.

Mitchell won a separate defamation case she filed against Ashley Dersch, who shares a child with Christopher Buccos, on Feb. 9. It concerned a comment that Dersch made on Facebook about Mitchell’s criminal history when Mitchell did not actually have that history.