Dear Editor
March 25th, I attended a zoning meeting in Jerome Township Hall for a proposed housing development of almost 400 homes. I reviewed the original project submittal and its revision, page by page, and developed questions for the board during public comment session during the meeting. I had three minutes to present the questions to the board which was insufficient. Printed copies of the 28 comments/questions were presented to the board to allow to further reference. I did not notice much referencing going on. This development will be located near two superfund toxic waste dumps, the Hershberger site on Crottinger Road, approximately 400 feet from the development, and the Uinco site off Taylor Road. I questioned the board about the liability of encouraging a housing development close to these sites. No response was offered from the board. I also questioned the board on how the developer would disclose the information. No response. In the end, a short discussion about the waste sites ensued and like the other questions, nothing was directly answered.
I found it interesting that after all the public comment, be it small, the board did not see fit to pursue questions further, I noticed a distinct lack of interest in the public comments. The L.U.C. Planning Commission recommendation didn’t fare well either (no board discussion was conducted). As a representative body of the township, the board has a line to walk, one of the landowner and the other of the residents of the township. The zoning laws protect those who want to live here, not just those who want to leave. I am not sure the zoning board is fulfilling its responsibility in this purpose.
The developer was praised for minor changes and was softballed during the discussion. In my opinion the plan has many questions to be answered yet. It doesn’t appear to line up well with the Jerome Township comprehensive plan.
In the end the board voted unanimously to approve the development with very little discussion and no stipulations. It now goes to the Jerome Township Trustees. Funny thing, this is probably not a bad use of a golf course. If approved by the trustees the county taxpayers will be paying for infrastructure improvements and possibly a new Fairbanks school.
It appears that the future residents of the development will not get a formal review of any risks associated with the toxic waste sites or disclosure of the nearness of the above sites, thus depriving the buyers of an informed choice of purchase. The future residents deserve and informed choice for their families.
I don’t believe this is good government at work. The current and future taxpayers deserve complete and thorough plan reviews.
J. Lawrenz
Marysville