A number of Jerome Township residents again expressed their displeasure with potential developments in the area.
Tuesday’s trustees meeting began with a request from Jerome Village developers to rezone 69.59 acres on the southeast corner of Jerome Road and Blaney Road from Rural Residential District (RU) to Planned Development District (PD).
The rezoning would allow for the development of single-family homes. The area would have 149 lots at a density of 2.14 units per acre, with 36% open space.
Bart Barok, with Nationwide Realty Investors, said he expects the proposed homes to sell for between $400,000 and $500,000.
The layout of the development, namely the location of one road, became a point of debate.
Assistant Union County Engineer Bill Narducci raised concerns surrounding “the absence of a relocated Blaney Road within these properties,” in a letter addressed to the Logan-Union-Champaign County Regional Planning Commission.
Narducci wrote that the Blaney Road realignment would connect U.S. 23 to U.S. 42 and has been shown in planning documents generated by Union County and Jerome Township.
It was also included in the approved preliminary plat for the Jerome Village Master Development from January 2008, he wrote.
“While we support the further development of Jerome Village, we want to ensure that we do not remove the opportunity to extend Blaney Road west of Jerome Road and provide a connection to U.S. 42…” Narducci wrote.
He said the county is now conducting a feasibility analysis to look at alternative alignments for the Blaney Road extension.
Resident Susan Lasly asked Barok why the proposed development plan does not mirror the county and township’s thoroughfare plans.
Barok said the ultimate goal of the Blaney Road extension is to create an east-west connector between Union and Delaware counties.
However, unlike those counties’ engineers, Barok said “we are not for the road going through this site.”
He said the Blaney Road realignment proposed in the planning documents Narducci referenced would run through a parcel of land that is currently occupied by a $2.5- to $3 million home.
Barok said the county would need to purchase that home and “figure out how to fund that road.”
If that option is pursued by county officials, Barok said it cause a wooded area along Blaney Road to “disappear” and the development would “become a lot more dense.”
He emphasized the fact that the county engineer’s office is “willing to explore all options,” adding that he felt “other alternatives would allow it to be accomplished sooner.”
Barok said the exact location of the road will be included in the final development plan.
“If there’s substantial, and not minor, deviations from the development plan tonight, then they’d have to go through the process again?” Trustee Chair Megan Sloat asked.
Zoning inspector Eric Snowden said if there were significant changes, the developer would have to submit another zoning map amendment.
Barok, though, said he felt “the design would be very significantly similar” even if the county does pursue the road extension through the parcel at question.
He said the timeline for the county’s feasibility study is not definitive. He estimated a decision for Blaney Road would come between one and six months from now.
“The county engineer’s not a very quick office so I would assume a significant amount of time,” Barok said.
Aside from roads, residents lamented the effect of development on storm water runoff in the area.
Lucinda Burian, a resident of Home Road, said her property was recently devalued by the Union County Auditor due to flooding of the tributary.
She said Jerome Village’s retention and detention ponds have a “lack of absorption.”
Additionally, she said creating the ponds during previous development of a southern parcel caused a disturbance to current property owners.
“They refused to let you know when they were going to blast. They would blast at will,” she said. “My whole house would shake.”
Barok said it is not Jerome Village that causes flooding, but the runoff from farm fields to the west of the development.
He said Jerome Village’s engineer plans ponds for “100-year floods” and they are approved by the county engineer’s office.
“Jerome Village’s way of development is absolutely the right way of developing,” Barok said.
Ultimately, the trustees voted to continue the hearing until their July 6 meeting. Sloat said they will not accept any additional information, but will render a decision on the rezoning.
Another development also met significant opposition Tuesday.
Bill Westbrook, with T-Bill Development Company, was at the trustees meeting to express disappointment in local residents’ petitions to referendum the Homestead at Scotts Farm.
He said understood that the trustees would likely have to certify the petitions, but found it “very disturbing” that they were filed at all.
“The message we kind of got from this is, it doesn’t pay to work with the neighbors,” Westbrook said.
He detailed attempts to inform neighbors, specifically those on Brock Road, of development plans, incorporate their recommendations when possible and contribute additional funding to the community.
Several trustees applauded his cooperation with residents.
“This is the first time… a developer did what I ask, as far as keeping neighbors well-informed,” said Trustee Joe Craft.
Trustee C.J. Lovejoy called the situation “unfortunate,” but said the decision will ultimately lie with the residents.
“I understand your distaste… but it’s also everybody’s right to do this,” he said.
The board voted unanimously to certify the petitions.
Trustees previously voted to rezone a 139.4 acre area on the south side of Brock Road between Hyland-Croy Road and the overpass with U.S. 33 from Rural Residential District (RU) to Planned Development District (PD). If the rezoning is upheld, it would pave the way for a development of 248 single-family homes.
The referendum will essentially pause the trustees’ decision to rezone the area. Until the issue is voted on, parameters of the previous zoning – RU – are still in effect.