The Jerome Township Trustees will wait until the new year to decide the fate of a second proposed Innovation District amid confusion surrounding its function and purpose, and questions about the transparency of the process.
Many of the residents who spoke during a special meeting Wednesday night urged the board to continue the public hearing and give them more time to consider the details of Innovation II Planned Development District (I2PD).
“For some of us who do have skin in the game, it is, unfortunately, kind of soon,” said Industrial Parkway resident Carl Seiley.
A number of residents said they were unaware of the proposed zoning amendment, which the trustees initiated in August.
“It doesn’t feel like a very transparent process,” Tara Kunzelman, a Brock Road resident, said during the four-and-a-half hour meeting.
If approved, the Innovation II Planned Development District would create a zoning overlay that encompasses approximately 1,275 acres between Industrial Parkway and U.S. 33.
While it does not change the existing zoning, it allows property owners to “pull down” the overlay if so desired and develop within its parameters instead.
The overlay includes 60 different uses, ranging from manufacturing to hospitals to child day care, though Trustee Megan Sloat said there are “no longer any residential uses in the overlay.”
If owners choose to use the overlay, final development plans will be submitted to the township’s zoning commission for review and approval or denial.
“This is a little like a fast pass for Disney,” Trustee Barry Adler said, adding he feels “this is an advantage for developers.”
Sloat, who was also on the board that created the township’s first Innovation District, said the goal is to “steer (commercial) development” to an area of the township near a major interchange that “we think will be very important for our economic development.”
“It’s a way for the township to really look ahead and plan,” she said.
Trustee Wezlynn Davis added that she hopes the “streamlined” zoning process will incentivize businesses to locate in the township, without offers of tax abatements.
McKitrick Road resident Lynda Chapman asked why the trustees feel an incentive of any kind is necessary “when we are such a desirable area.”
“It’s like you’re undercutting the zoning resolution,” Chapman said.
Kunzelman agreed, adding that she is troubled by what she feels are efforts to remove the residents from the zoning process.
She emphasized that, in the future, when property owners choose to use the zoning of the overlay, those plans are not subject to referendum.
“There’s not a darn thing anyone can do if this thing passes,” Kunzelman said.
Attorney for the township Jennifer Huber said Kunzelman was correct, but noted that a petition to referendum the zoning overlay itself can be filed within 30 days after its approval.
“I think if they say yes (to the second innovation district), I think we should referendum it,” Kunzelman told the audience.
She also said she was “horrified” that she felt Adler was “shamed” for sending letters notifying adjacent property owners of the special meeting, especially given that many of those in attendance said publicly they were otherwise unaware.
Sloat said she was not opposed to Adler sending a letter – which she and Davis said in an earlier public meeting that he could do – but was upset that she did not see a final draft before it was sent and felt a map should be included.
During the Dec. 19 meeting, took time to critique Adler’s handling of the situation, saying “I just don’t think it was handled correctly at all.”
Regardless, Kunzelman drew a contrast between the strong outreach that occurred surrounding the limited home rule ballot measure and what she felt was very limited communication about Wednesday’s special meeting and the second innovation district.
“When you want something in this township, you are darn creative to get it done,” she told the trustees.
Davis, though, said she feels the Innovation II Planned Development District will ultimately put the township in the best position moving forward.
She said she feels it is important to balance residential development with the area’s commercial tax base in order to generate tax dollars that can be used to improve local infrastructure.
“There has to be a balance with commercial and residential or the residents are going to suffer financially,” Sloat agreed.
Still, some residents worried that streamlining commercial development will put lagging infrastructure even farther behind.
“So, basically, you’re putting the cart before the horse,” said Jim Zorn, an El Camino Lane resident.
Davis disagreed, noting that Union County “encouraged” the township to create an innovation district as a way to incentivize commercial growth and increase the area’s tax base.
Mike Noland, a Beecher-Gamble Road resident, said, “I understand, but it’s wrong” that the township needs new development in order to fix existing infrastructure.
Along with infrastructure concerns, others, like Nate Klopfenstein of Industrial Parkway and Mark Rausch of Crottinger Road, questioned how funneling commercial development into the area will affect surrounding property values.
Adler said he supports creating an innovation district in the area and sees its benefits, but still shares some of the concerns voiced by residents.
“The devil is in the details,” Adler said.
He listed a number of items he is not satisfied with, including building setback and landscape buffering requirements, as well as the overlay’s effect on the Big Darby watershed. Adler also said he feels the design standards are too vague.
Sloat said she feels Adler’s “voice has been strongly represented in this.”
“Just because everything you’re asking for isn’t in it, doesn’t mean it’s done wrong,” Sloat told Adler.
Sloat said she felt the changes that needed to be made could be addressed that night and the meeting did not need to be continued. Wednesday was Sloat’s final meeting as a trustee, as she did not seek reelection.
When the board began to address Adler’s concerns one-by-one, it prompted an outburst from audience members who asked, “What is going on?” and accused the trustees of “pushing an agenda.”
At nearly 11:30 p.m., Davis said it was clear to her that residents did not have enough time to digest the details and potential changes to the overlay district.
Still, she said she hesitated to continue the meeting until a new trustee, Joe Craft, is seated on the board.
Bart Barok, a developer who previously led the creation of Jerome Village, urged them not to “discount Joe,” noting that he was a trustee with Sloat when the township’s first Innovation District was created and approved.
“What if (Craft) doesn’t agree with you on this stuff?” Davis asked Adler.
“That’s fine,” he responded.
Ultimately, the board voted 3-0 to continue the meeting until 7 p.m. Jan. 16 in the Township Hall, 9777 Industrial Parkway.