River Junction now has official village boundaries.

A split Johnson County Board of Supervisors approved the boundaries at a Nov. 14 meeting following a long – and at times, contentious – public hearing.

Supervisors Lisa Green-Douglas, Janelle Rettig and Rod Sullivan voted to approve a village plan with a 138-acre proposal recommended by the Johnson County Department of Planning, Development and Sustainability. Supervisors Pat Heiden and Royceann Porter voted against the plan.

“I think we need to step back and take a breath and work with the residents,” Heiden said after a petition against the boundaries was submitted by several River Junction residents.

After an October meeting, the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a smaller designated village area of only 33 acres after hearing residents’ objections.

However, Josh Busard, director of planning, development and sustainability, recommended that the board pass the 138-acre plan, pointing out that the smaller boundary does not take advantage of the intersection with Highway 22.

“Staff recognizes that some of the landowners want to be excluded from the village boundary, however, I don’t feel that it’s a good practice to make land-use decisions based on petitions,” Busard said. “Residents’ input should be considered, but it shouldn’t be the whole determining factor.”

The petition, signed by eight River Junction residents, stated opposition to a village plan that would “most likely would raise taxes” and “dictate what we can do on our property.” The petition also expressed concern about increased traffic.

“It’s very clear to me that there’s a big misunderstanding as to what a village plan is,” Green-Douglas said. “That’s not what a village plan is.”

Sullivan pointed out that every village plan in Johnson County has had some sort of opposition.

“The constant theme is that people don’t trust the county,” he said. “All I can say is go talk to the people in places that have had these done already and see if anybody has had any changes whatsoever.”

The Westfall family, which owns a family farm along Sand Road/River Junction Road, northwest of residential River Junction requested during the summer informational meetings that their property not be included in the village boundary.

“We were told at the first meeting that if we didn’t want our ground to be included in the village plan, we just had to say so just so long as we didn’t make a doughnut hole,” Trudi Westfall said at Thursday’s meeting. “We do not want our farm ground included in the village plan.”

Brian Westfall claimed that the plan would not preserve agricultural ground.

“If you want to continue farming, you can continue farming,” Green-Douglas responded.

“That’s what you say now, but what happens in 20 years?” Brian Westfall asked. “What happens if this turns into like living in an association type thing? I know it sounds far-fetched.

“You shake your head ‘no’ but you’re not going to be around in this position in 20 years. I’m still going to be there. You can’t guarantee me how this is going to end. The bottom line is we just want to be left out of this.”

After the public hearing closed, Rettig offered the motion to adopt the plan with the 138-acre boundary, and Sullivan seconded the motion.

“I cannot support that,” Heiden said. “Unfortunately, there’s a huge distrust in the county supervisors and government in general. It’s our responsibility to meet the residents more than halfway to work through this.

“I’m not comfortable approving this with residents kicking and screaming with their concern about this.”

Sullivan warned against the peer pressure of “doing government by petition.”

Heiden and Porter questioned whether the board should seek public input if it is not going to be heeded.