After almost three years since the original closure of the Indian Hill Road railroad crossing, Brown County Commissioners made the decision to move forward with the process of reopening the crossing at their meeting last week.

The decision came after Brown County Council member Scott Rudd made a presentation to the commissioners at the April 19 meeting.

In the nearly 45-minute presentation, Rudd provided several reasons for the commissioners to reopen the crossing.

The closure came after the railroad company asked the commissioners to close the crossing, which is near the State Road 45 end of Indian Hill Road, due to safety concerns related to line of sight and how steep the embankment is leading up to the crossing.

When that happened, it cut off access from Indian Hill Road to the highway.

Rudd also read multiple letters of support from state representatives, local organizations and business owners who are in favor of the reopening of the crossing.

Those who had written letters of support for the reopening of the crossing included Sen. Eric Koch (R), Rep. Dave Hall (Dist. 62-R), Rep. Matt Pierce (Dist. 61-D), Brown County Chamber of Commerce, Brown County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Brown County Farm Bureau, Sycamore Land Trust, Southern Indiana Sentinel Landscape, Indiana Forest Alliance, Knobstone Hiking Trail Association, Warford Silgas and JB Goods.

All letters voiced concern about the closure, about not only car traffic on Indian Hill Road but also the restriction of the Tecumseh Trail.

“You don’t see this list of people happening very often,” Rudd said.

“I can’t think of the last time I saw where, in writing, people are supporting something like the opening of a road like this, like these people and these organizations. There is one group I don’t see on this list, and they are a critical group. In fact, that’s why I’m here tonight — because it’s you.”

Rudd referenced the county’s comprehensive plan, which was approved by the commissioners in 2012. The purpose of the plan is to “complete the mission of providing guidance on the decision making regarding Brown County land use, public service and zoning, that enhances quality of life for residents.”

In the final part of the presentation, Rudd cited two specific sections of the comprehensive plan — roads and transportation, and forest and agriculture use.

He said the objective of the roads and transportation section is to improve traffic flow and safety on all roads in the county.

The closure of the crossing, Rudd argued, does the opposite of that. To support his argument, Rudd read a highlighted section in the roads &transportation portion of the plan.

“Adequate right-of-ways should be secured by the county for the use in road maintenance and safety activities, as well as utility purposes,” he read.

According to him, the closure of the crossing negatively impacts road maintenance, safety activities and utility servicing.

“The second one in the comprehensive plan — the document you approved, your predecessors, you are bound to carry out — says you should, ‘encourage the preservation of scenic roads and bridges,’” Rudd said.

For the forestry and agriculture use section of the comprehensive plan, Rudd said it lists objectives to protect the integrity and stability of existing forestry and agricultural areas from encroachment by incompatible uses.

“This is an encroachment on agricultural activities and your duty that you have agreed to is to protect the integrity and stability of that road network for that purpose,” he said.

Rudd said the next part of the forestry and agriculture use section of the plan is to “encourage the sustainable forestry and land use in Brown County.”

The closure, he said, does not do it but reopening Indian Hill Road would.

Another part of the plan Rudd referenced is to establish standards that protect agricultural land uses from unnecessary encroachment and protect forest land from degradation.

“I would submit this as an unnecessary encroachment that does the opposite of protecting agricultural land uses,” he said.

Following Rudd’s presentation, Commissioner President Jerry Pittman said he learned from legal sources that commissioners had the power to close the crossing, but they do not have the direct power to reopen it.

“We have to go to (Indiana Department of Transportation) and petition that we want to reopen it,” he said.

The commissioner’s attorney Mike Moga said only INDOT can open a crossing per Indiana code.

“The issue is with the agreement that’s with the railroad that was signed back in 2019,” he said.

“Because of the agreement, the railroad has the right to appeal such a petition.”

Due to the railroad’s right to appeal a petition, Moga said moving forward with one would be a “waste of time.”

“They would then be allowed to sue us, pursue legal action, to ensure that crossing is not opened,” he said.

The commissioners all agreed they wish for the crossing to be reopened, but commissioner Ron Sanders said he is not ready to move forward with the petition until more information is collected about costs.

The commissioners voted 2-1 to pursue a petition to reopen the crossing. Pittman and Braden voted yes, Sanders voted no.

‘Shock and disappointment’

Before his presentation, Rudd offered the floor to Bob Weddle, a local, seventh-generation farmer who said his family farm operations have been negatively impacted since the crossing was originally closed in the spring of 2020.

According to Weddle, the land for the section of the railroad around the Indian Hill Road crossing was purchased from his ancestor, Leander Weddle, in 1905.

The Weddle family farm has a right of way with Sycamore Land Trust between the bridge at the crossing, leading to a roughly 10-acre field belonging to the Weddles.

That field, Weddle said, produces around 100 bales of hay each season, which is critical for feeding their cattle. Ever since the crossing was closed, the Weddles have had to take a long detour to access their field.

“For decades, we have farmed this field without problems,” he told commissioners.

“Today, the distance there has more than tripled.”

Instead of travelling just under a mile-and-a-half from the Weddle house to the field, they now have to go more than five-and-a-half miles, on much busier, more dangerous roads with a steep hill and tight curves in their heavy farm equipment.

“The additional mileage and the extreme grade of Indian Hill has not only become a safety concern but is also a substantial financial burden,” Weddle said.

“So far, we have had to replace the transmission in one truck and a four-wheel drive in another. In the two seasons we have been forced to go around this crossing, getting hay out of this field has, by far, been the most difficult part of farming.”

In addition, Weddle said the field has been restricted to hay production due to the crossing closure. If the family ever wished to switch to row-cropping it, they would be unable to do so with the crossing closed, as the equipment required would not fit on the new route they have to take, or across the slab they have to cross to access the field.

Weddle also expressed concern about the lack of notice nearby residents received about the crossing closure.

“We only learned about it through talking with some neighbors less than 24 hours before it was removed,” Weddle said.

“You can imagine our shock and disappointment in our government that allowed this to happen with complete disregard to the community and taxpayers that use this road.”

Rudd addressed the commissioners regarding farm traffic safety, for both the farmers and cars they come across on the new route to the field.

“State Road 45, Helmsburg Road, Lanam Ridge — if you’ve driven these roads, you know, whether you’re in a tractor or a car, you do not want to meet a piece of farm machinery on those roads,” Rudd said.

“So it’s not just a danger to the farmer, it’s a danger to the public, the traffic. They’re not used to seeing tractors on Lanam (Ridge). This is now something (Weddle) has to deal with, until he can get this resolved.”