Public hearing held on Hastings Street Brownfield TIF; neighbors raise plan-change concerns

Van Buren County’s Brownfield Redevelopment Authority held a public hearing April 10 on a developer’s request to use Brownfield tax-increment financing for the Hastings Street project, a mixed housing proposal the developer says would include 66 rental units and 52 single-family homes.

The project’s Brownfield plan would reimburse installation of roads, water and sewer through a TIF capture described in planning documents as roughly $10 million (including interest) and would use the state’s housing TIF provisions, county staff said.

Why it matters: County officials said the state housing TIF program is a new tool aimed at helping housing projects that do not “pencil” under current construction and financing costs. If the Brownfield plan is approved at the county level and by the state, TIF revenues would pay project infrastructure costs and then revert to taxing jurisdictions. Neighbors said rapid changes to the site plan since a village approval two years ago deserve more local review.

County planner Lisa Vansley described the project summary to the authority and noted the village of Paw Paw adopted a resolution on March 24 supporting the plan. Jared Belka, an attorney for the developer, said the plan was revised after engineering review to improve layout and add single-family homes: “The reason it was changed was a far better layout, and one that worked to add some additional, single family homes into that site plan,” he told the authority.

Resident Steve Byatt, who spoke during public comment, pushed back on the revisions. He said the earlier plan approved by the village two-and-a-half years ago included townhouses and other product types that better buffered nearby houses. “The plan has changed, dramatically,” Byatt said, and he urged county and village officials to compare the two versions and consider whether the village planning commission should revisit the site plan.

Developers and county staff said the Brownfield request before the authority is financial — to confirm the project’s TIF eligibility and capture schedule — and not a site-plan approval. “The request before you is for Brownfield TIF support,” Belka said. County staff explained a typical next step would be review and final action by the full Board of Commissioners after the Brownfield authority’s recommendation.

Opponents at the hearing questioned whether the shift toward more rental units would best meet local housing needs. Several speakers said Paw Paw already has a sizable rental stock and expressed preference for more starter single-family homes.

The authority closed the public hearing and moved the matter forward for further consideration; no final county-level approval of the Brownfield plan was recorded at the meeting.

What’s next: The Brownfield authority’s recommendation will be forwarded to the county Board of Commissioners for formal action. If the county approves the Brownfield plan, state review and approval would follow before TIF capture begins.