On Monday evening, the County Commission rejected a rezoning request for a proposed housing project that would have developed 136 lots on about 42 acres south of Bloomington outside the city limits.

The plots should contain a mix of single-family homes, semi-detached houses, three-family houses and terraced houses.

The requested rezoning was from RE1 (Estate Residential 1) to a new PUD (Planned Unit Development).

The rejection was unanimous by the three commissioners Julie Thomas, Penny Githens and Lee Jones.

According to the district’s current land use planning, development of around 40 plots of land would be possible.

The Planning Commission voted 6-2 on June 18 to forward the requested rezoning to the county commissioners with a favorable recommendation. This vote was consistent with the recommendation of the county planning department staff.

According to Monroe County Planner Daniel Brown, opposition to the rezoning came from 312 individuals. It was Brown who explained the background of the rezoning request to the commissioners.

In 2021, another request to rezone the property, from RE1 (Estate Residential 1) to MR (Medium Density Residential), would have allowed the construction of around 125 single-family homes on this site. This request was also unanimously rejected by the three commissioners.

The 2021 proposal was made by the same developers who presented their proposal to commissioners Monday night – Kevin Schmidt and Donnie Adkins. They were assisted by Daniel Butler of Bynum Fanyo & Associates, a local engineering firm.

Responding to a comment from Guy Loftman, a Monroe County resident who opposed the rezoning, Adkins said, “Mr. Loffman emphasized that Bloomington is an incredibly good place to raise a family, and I say that to all my colleagues.”

Adkins further urged commissioners: “Share it with 136 more new families. Let them be a part of it.” He added: “Allow them to take advantage of the trails, our wonderful schools, sports and everything great about this community.”

In his comment, Loftman raised technical objections, saying the proposed PUD includes 1/10-acre lots, which are smaller than anything allowed under the current zoning code or the proposed new county development ordinance (CDO). Loftman called the PUD a “point zoning” that “skips lower-density development to create dense, urban housing.”

Loftman also questioned whether the definition of required “open space” was correctly applied to the proposed PUD.

Although there were some speakers who supported the rezoning, the vast majority were against it. On Monday night, addressing residents’ opposition, Adkins quoted County Planning Commissioner Jerry Pittsford’s remarks at the June 18 meeting:

I would like to point out here that the Planning Commission is the voice of the people in that we represent a shared public vision reflected in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, and we also have a responsibility to ensure that applicants are in compliance with Monroe County’s zoning ordinance.

When we hear public comments to give those people an opportunity to identify inconsistencies in the fairness or inequities in these two documents, it is unfair to the applicants who have produced a design that is consistent with our guidance documents to give preference to neighbors simply because they do not like a particular use or proposed design.

Furthermore, it leads to an insurmountable impracticability and unpredictability that severely limits all potential developers in the district. …

Mr. Loftman’s comment about open space and compliance with our zoning code was very pertinent and gave me food for thought. But the idea that the neighbors simply won’t accept the proposed application is not relevant to our decision-making.

In her remarks explaining why she did not support the requested rezoning, Commissioner Lee Jones cited concerns about stormwater management. Jones pointed to the impact of recent severe storms and flooding on the area of ​​the proposed project and questioned whether current technology could withstand future storms that could exceed the 500-year storm force.

Jones emphasized the potential impact on people living downstream, particularly near Clear Creek. “I believe that people who already live here have priority over people you want to move here,” she said.

Jones emphasized her concerns about for-profit development and advocated for more housing in Bloomington rather than development outside the city.

The property is located at the northwest junction of the B-Line Trail and the Clear Creek Trail. It is located directly within an area that Bloomington wants to annex, called Area 1B.

Related to annexation is the question of whether the project Adkins and Schmidt want to build can be connected to the City of Bloomington Utilities (CBU) sewer system. That question appears to be answered by a “Will Serve” letter from CBU that was included in the information packet for the meeting.

Commissioner Penny Githens did not make any final comment, saying she could never be as eloquent as Jones, who had just spoken.

In her reasoning for opposing the rezoning, Commissioner Julie Thomas echoed Jones’ concerns about flooding. Thomas was also concerned about the proposal’s impact on traffic in the area.

Regarding traffic, Thomas said the county’s road infrastructure is not designed for high residential density.

Thomas quoted the county’s core planning document: “One of the first things we said in our comprehensive plan is that urban areas should stay urban and rural areas should stay rural. And I’m sticking to that right now.”

Thomas said, “Higher density belongs in the city.” She continued, “We’re not going to solve the housing problem with a piece of land. We’re not going to solve the housing problem by expanding the county.”

Published
28 August 2024