The St. John Town Council voted 4-0 on Oct. 8 to terminate the annexation proceeding covered by Ordinance 18-70, effectively denying the annexation request and stopping the town-sponsored portion of the proposed development.

The council president moved to "terminate our annexation proceeding without second reading provided, all paperwork is in order for same," and a second was recorded. The motion passed on a 4-0 voice vote. Council members stated that all required paperwork had been received and reviewed, and that the termination was being processed in a slightly different procedural form but produced the same result: no annexation and no town-conducted water or infrastructure project tied to the annexation.

The vote followed public comment from neighbors and area residents who opposed the annexation and the type of development it would allow. Denise Rausler, who said she lives in Hanover Township about a mile from the proposed site, told the council she and nearby residents had not received direct notice and urged the council to show "a little human compassion on your decision." Doug Blocker accused the council of allowing developers to obtain exceptions in past projects and urged stricter conditions on future approvals, saying, "Lawton's killing this town, and you guys are letting him do it." Matt Rohrer, a Mill Creek subdivision resident, urged the council to adopt a consolidated comprehensive development ordinance, and asked the council to avoid being "bum rushed" into last-minute votes.

After the termination motion, councilors moved to a related agenda item and approved the release of the Water Works Rights and Easement Agreement tied to the same proposed project. Town staff and the town attorney confirmed the release paperwork was "in order" before the council approved it by roll call.

Why it matters: The termination halts the town's annexation process for the parcels covered by Ordinance 18-70 and removes the town's approval pathway for water and infrastructure tied to the project. Residents who spoke at public comment said they feared loss of rural character, higher density housing, and inadequate notice. The council and staff repeatedly referenced statutory timelines and paperwork requirements while saying the procedural termination was the correct way to stop the annexation.

Next steps and context: Council members and residents discussed broader planning issues including an update to the town's comprehensive plan and a separate, ongoing effort by the town's building and planning staff to produce a consolidated development ordinance. Several speakers said they expect future hearings and public comment opportunities as the town updates its planning documents.

The property owner retains title to the land and may pursue private development that does not require town annexation; the council's action prevents the town from annexing the parcels and implementing town-sponsored utilities or infrastructure under this ordinance.