Jerome Township officials are considering a rezoning request that would allow for the development of 94 single-family patio homes in a neighborhood called the Courtyards on Ryan Parkway, illustrated above.
(Graphic submitted)
—
Developers hoping to build another residential neighborhood in Jerome Township hinged their argument on one main point: their proposal is better than the alternative.
“With this application, we are asking the township to consider that not all housing impact is the same,” said Tom Hart with Epcon Communities.
The Jerome Township Trustees held a public hearing Tuesday to consider the rezoning of 33.08 acres of land on Ryan Parkway, between Hyland-Croy Road and Black Oak Drive, from Rural Residential District to Planned Development District.
If the rezoning is approved, the developers intend to construct a residential development called the Courtyards on Ryan Parkway, which will consist of 94 single-family, patio homes.
Hart argued that, because the homes will be age-restricted to those who are 55 and older, the Courtyards on Ryan Parkway will have a lesser impact on roads, schools and parks than another residential development would.
Since the occupants are older, Hart said “we think the impact (on schools) will be zero.”
Rather than adding students, he said the property taxes generated by the development will benefit area schools because the “high value homes” in the Courtyards on Ryan Parkway are expected to sell for prices in the $600,000s.
Aside from fewer school-age children, Hart claimed that the development will bring fewer people overall than another community of single-family homes would.
Across Epcon Communities developments, Hart said homes generally have between 1.5 and 1.7 occupants per unit. He said Jerome Township census data shows that more traditional single-family homes in the area generally have 3.06 occupants per unit.
Based on this math, he said the Courtyards on Ryan Parkway’s density of 2.84 units per acre is actually more comparable to a development with 1.57 units per acre.
Even so, the proposed density was a sticking point for some officials.
Trustee Barry Adler noted that township’s Comprehensive Plan maps the property as a “Conservation Development Area,” which are recommended to have a density between 1-2 units per acre and 40% green space.
Even though surrounding neighborhoods have higher densities than 2.84, he said that is because they are part of larger developments – like Jerome Village – with areas of open space that balance out the overall density.
While the applicant’s number is higher than the Comprehensive Plan recommends, Trustee Wezlynn Davis said she feels this specific development would have a lower impact than others.
Trustee Megan Sloat agreed, adding that she feels it is important to consider what is immediately contiguous, not just the overall density of Jerome Village.
“It’s not so cut and dry,” she said.
Beyond that, Adler said he understands that the community could create a “net positive revenue for schools” based on anticipated property taxes, but feels it would still create a burden on fire, EMS and public safety officer responses.
Sloat said that is the case for any residential development.
Davis and Sloat also noted that they feel the developer has worked to incorporate feedback from neighboring property owners. Adler agreed that “they’ve done a wonderful job working with the residents.”
Snowden noted that Epcon Communities’ original application indicated the development would have 111 homes, which meant a density of 3.35 units per acre and only 32.5% open space. Developers removed 17 homes from those plans to lessen the density and increase open space.
William Wainright, a Black Oak Drive resident, said he and four other homeowners on his street actually hired legal counsel to negotiate with Epcon Communities.
He said their communications resulted in changes to the plans that neighbors sought, including increased buffering and ensuring side yards and patios do not back up to existing homes.
Given that the property is surrounded by other residential developments – some of which were created by Epcon – Wainright said he understands the area is going to be developed one way or another.
“It’s good compared to a lot of the alternatives we’ve seen,” he said.
Other residents, though, worried that a better alternative is not good enough.
Several homeowners on Elderberry Drive told the trustees that they have experienced flooding on their road due to drainage from the property Epcon is seeking to rezone.
Civil engineers for the development said they are currently working on a solution to the flooding, as they discovered a drainage tile that needs to be connected to the storm system and “clogging” on the surface that backed up water in that area.
Sloat added that concerns about drainage on the property will be addressed during the engineering process.
Other opponents shared concerns about the destruction of natural resources in the area.
“The land is what we have as our resource. Once you change that, you can’t go back,” said Michelle Miller, a Black Oak Drive resident.
Todd Faris, a landscape architect for the development, said the majority of the woodlands exist “on the periphery” of the property and will be preserved.
He explained that the interior of the property is a tree farm that includes trees planted between 50 and 60 years ago, but offers little diversity and has almost no undergrowth.
“It’s a monoculture, it’s Austrian pine,” he said of the trees that would be removed.
Ultimately, Kathy Hjelm, a Ryan Parkway resident who also owns the subject property with her husband, emphasized that “the property was never a nature preserve,” adding that it is privately owned land and she is “exercising (her) right to sell it.”
Still, Adler told his fellow trustees that he worried allowing a higher density that deviates from the Comprehensive Plan “will have ramifications for future applicants that want the same considerations.”
Sloat said she wanted to refrain from making a decision on the rezoning “in the heat of the moment.”
The trustees will vote on the matter during their next regular meeting at 7 p.m. May 3. The meeting is pushed to Wednesday from its regular Tuesday date due to the election.