Tim Schweke, a consultant from Civic Tech, told the Village of Jackson Plan Commission on Nov. 20 that the village’s zoning code needs simplification and clearer visual mapping to guide future development. "So the proposal is ... to combine the R 1 and the R 2 zoning district into a single district that incorporates all of those properties," Schweke said, describing an effort to reduce redundant residential districts and relabel the code using an RD numbering system.

The rewrite would also create several new classifications: an Urban Transition (UT) district to serve as a temporary annexation holding zone that permits single-family homes by right; a Main Street C2 mixed-use district that preserves single-family residency while signaling gradual commercial transition; and a C3 crossroads node intended to form a village core at the Jackson/Main Street intersection. Schweke described a proposed MRH (Mixed Residential Housing) district to encourage projects that mix single-family homes, duplexes and multifamily units under a streamlined approval path.

Schweke said the code will carry forward required overlay districts — including wellhead protection and shoreland wetland overlays — and add an Environmental Corridor overlay to align zoning with the village’s comprehensive plan and regional mapping. "FEMA updated some of the flood storage areas for that map panel section of Washington County," a staff member said while explaining that recent FEMA updates prompted related housekeeping changes in Chapter 16 of the environmental code; staff noted those FEMA updates do not materially change village regulation beyond updating effective dates.

Commissioners discussed how existing Plan Development Districts (PDDs) would be incorporated into the new code with their existing uses and dimensional standards, how amendments to PDDs would be handled, and examples of alternative development options in Article 8 such as cottage housing, adaptive reuse of institutional buildings (for example the closed school), Traditional Neighborhood Design, and cluster subdivisions that protect environmental features. Schweke walked the commission through density calculations, transition standards where multifamily abuts single-family, and the two-step process for developers proposing a custom plan-development district.

On permitting procedures, staff presented a summary memo that recommended several process changes intended to shorten developer timelines. The most consequential proposal would give the Plan Commission authority to hold the public hearing and decide conditional-use applications directly, instead of the current two-step path that has the Plan Commission recommend and the Village Board hold the public hearing and decide. Schweke said an appeal process could preserve an oversight step: if the Plan Commission decision is appealed it would go to the Village Board and then to circuit court if necessary.

Commissioners generally supported streamlining the process to reduce delay but discussed building in safeguards for controversial matters and preserving an appeal route. The consultant emphasized that enacted changes would be drafted into specific code language and return to the commission for further review.

The commission took no final legislative action on the code rewrite at this meeting; Schweke said Articles 6–9 and the procedural changes would be refined and brought back for additional review and adoption steps.

The next procedural step is drafting the specific code language and proposed map adjustments for review; the Plan Commission will provide formal recommendations before the Village Board considers any ordinance changes.