Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning James Drive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kokomo council members explain objections to rezoning request for 7186501 James Drive
Summary
Council members described reasons for voting down a rezoning petition affecting 7186501 James Drive, citing school safety, traffic and neighborhood character; some members had supported the rezoning based on existing adjoining commercial parcels and planning commission recommendation.
At a meeting of the Common Council of the city of Kokomo, council members described why they voted down a petition to rezone property at 7186501 James Drive, citing safety concerns for nearby schoolchildren, traffic congestion and potential effects on property values.
Council members said the matter was being revisited on the floor so each member could explain their prior vote after the council acknowledged a procedural error. Councilman Mickleth said, "I voted no because I did not believe the demographics of the neighborhood supported it ... the zoning commercially, and with the school there and on the corner and in a residential neighborhood. And, I just felt like it just a zoning of a commercial nature, was not really positive." Councilman Cashew said he also voted no "over the concern of the school kids that come through there every day" and because he opposed converting a residential lot in a residential neighborhood to commercial use.
Other no votes echoed safety and traffic worries. Councilman Stevenson said, "I voted no. In this instance, I conclude the safety and established character of the neighborhood outweigh the potential benefits of rezoning." Another member noted concerns about traffic flow and residents' ability to access driveways if the site developed commercially.
By contrast, Councilman Grieco said he voted yes, arguing that "out of the parcels that were involved in this project, 2 out of 3 of them were already zoned commercial" and that the rezoning would allow development of long-vacant lots. Councilor Lewis, referencing his law-enforcement background, said he voted yes, noting he had seen businesses operate in that area for decades and that he had heard only two constituents raise objections.
Several council members said some site-specific issues raised by opponents would be addressed later in the site-plan review process rather than in the zoning decision. One council member summarized that their yes vote reflected a judgment about the rezoning itself, with site-plan details to follow.
The council did not take a new formal vote on 7186501 James Drive during the remarks; members were afforded an opportunity to explain earlier votes after the body acknowledged a procedural issue. The meeting then proceeded to read other ordinances on the agenda.
