Rezone denied again by Monroe County for land south of Bloomington, near Clear Creek
On Monday night, a proposed residential project that would have seen development of 136 lots on about 42 acres south of Bloomington outside of the city limits, was denied its requested rezone by county commissioners.
The lots were to have included a mix of single-family houses, duplexes, triplexes and townhouses.
The requested rezone was from RE1 (Estate Residential 1) to a new PUD (Planned Unit Development).
The denial came on a unanimous vote of the three commissioners, Julie Thomas, Penny Githens, and Lee Jones.
Under the county’s current zoning regulations for the land, it would be possible to develop about 40 lots there.
The plan commission voted 6–2 on June 18 to forward the requested rezone to county commissioners with a positive recommendation. That vote was consistent with the county planning department staff’s recommendation.
Opposition to the rezone came from 312 unique individuals, according to Monroe County planner Daniel Brown. It was Brown who provided commissioners the background on the rezone request.
In 2021, a different rezone request for the land, from RE1 (Estate Residential 1) to MR (Medium Density Residential), would have allowed around 125 single-family houses to be built at the location. That request was also denied on a unanimous vote of the three commissioners.
The 2021 proposal was made by the same developers who presented their proposal to commissioners on Monday night—Kevin Schmidt and Donnie Adkins. They were supported by Daniel Butler from Bynum Fanyo & Associates, a local engineering firm.
Responding to commentary from Monroe County resident Guy Loftman, who opposed the rezone, Adkins said, “Mr. Loffman made the point about how Bloomington is such an incredible place to raise a family, and I tell all my colleagues that as well.”
Adkins continued telling commissioners: “Share it with 136 more new families. Allow them to share it.” He added, “Allow them to take advantage of the trails, our wonderful schools, the athletics and everything great about this community.”
During his commentary, Loftman raised technical objections, saying that 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 “spot zoning” that “leaps over lower density development to create dense urban style housing.”
Loftman also questioned whether the definition of required “open space” had been correctly applied to the proposed PUD.
While there were some speakers who offered support of the rezone, the vast majority of sentiment opposed it. On Monday night, addressing the opposition of surrounding residents, Adkins quoted county plan commissioner Jerry Pittsford’s remarks at the June 18 meeting:
I want to make note here that the Plan Commission is the voice of the people to the extent that we represent a shared public vision that’s expressed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, and that we are also charged with making sure that petitioners are in conformity with Monroe County zoning ordinance.
When we hear public comments for the purpose of allowing those people to identify inconsistencies in equity or an unfairness in those two documents, to simply give preference to neighbors, because they do not like a particular use or a specific proposed design is unfair to petitioners who have crafted a design consistent with our guiding documents.
What’s more, it creates an insurmountable impracticality and unpredictability that tremendously limits any would-be developers in the county. …
Mr. Loftman’s point about the open space and conformity with our zoning ordinance was very appropriate and that caused me pause. But the idea that if neighbors simply do not cotton to the proposed petition is not relevant to our decision making.
In her remarks explaining why she did not support the requested rezone, 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, questioning whether current engineering could handle future storms, which could exceed 500-year storm levels.
Jones stressed the potential consequences for those living downstream, particularly near Clear Creek. “I do feel that people who already live here do have precedence over people who you might want to move here,” she said.
Jones highlighted her concerns about profit-driven development and advocated for more housing in Bloomington rather than development outside the city.
The property is nestled in the northwest intersection of the B-Line Trail and the Clear Creek Trail. It is just inside the a territory that Bloomington is trying to annex, called Area 1B.
Related to annexation is the question of whether the project that Adkins and Schmidt want to build could get connected to city of Bloomington utilities (CBU) sewer service. That question appears to be answered by a “will serve” letter from CBU, which was included in the meeting information packet.
Commission Penny Githens did not offer any final comment, saying that she could never be as eloquent as Jones, who had just spoken.
In explaining her vote against the rezone, commissioner Julie Thomas echoed Jones’s concerns about flooding. Thomas also had concerns about the impact of the proposal on traffic in the area.
Related to traffic, Thomas said the county’s road infrastructure is not set up for high-density housing.
Thomas cited the county’s basic planning document: “One of the first things we said in our comprehensive plan is to keep urban areas urban and rural areas rural. And I’m kind of holding on to that at this moment.”
Thomas said, “Higher density belongs in the city.” She continued, “We’re not going to solve the housing issue with one property. We’re not going to solve the housing issue by building out the county.”
