JAMES WOOD
Staff Writer
Infrastructure concerns led the Shelbyville City Planning Commission to send the Remington Farms rezoning plan back with an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council.
Remington Farms PUD owners James Swing and Dawn Bobo put forth a request to rezone the area on Union St. to allow for new developments involving approximately 135 townhome units on 14.1 acres in one portion, 400 single family dwelling units on 114.5 acres in another, and 20 acres for a new potential elementary school which recently has been in discussion.
City Codes staff recommended the approval of the development, saying that it was in compliance with the Future Land use map.
“The requested zone district of the Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) being permitted within the Union Street Corridor character area classification of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and thereby being in compliance with the Future Land use map designation for the property, and having substantially met requirements of the provisions of the zoning code related to a PUD, and satisfactorily addressing staff comments, the staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to city council regarding the rezoning request.” according to documents presented to the commission.
Public commenters spoke before the commission addressed the first agenda item, with county resident Becky Woodruff being the first. She questioned the ability of the preexisting infrastructure of the county to support the proposed subdivision plan and elementary school.
“Our infrastructure here in Bedford County, I feel like at this time, is not conducive to this type of development,” Woodruff said. “I think we’re a little premature in trying to do a development of this magnitude.”
Terry Brit, a neighbor to the proposed development, mentioned the traffic issues that might stem from the development on Union St.
“I’m not opposed to the development,” Brit said. “I am very concerned about the high density of town houses, the narrow roads, and the parking issues.”
He voiced his support for the new homes being built in other parts of the county but was concerned about the efficacy of the density of the development due to the ill-equipped infrastructure in the proposed area.
Unionville resident Margaret Busby also spoke against placing the development in an area that is not prepared to contain high density infrastructure and suggested that the area remained classified as an R1 zone.
“I’m not against growth,” Busby said. “I’m just against really fast and uncontrolled growth.”
Director of City Planning and Development Thomas Batchelor addressed the perceived lack of infrastructure in the area deferring to Chris McGuire of Huddleston-Steele, a representative of the owners, to explain how the area can be better suited to facilitate the development.
He stated that phase one of the plan would involve bringing development to the back of the property along the creek to create a pump station and allow for sewer for all residential and school facilities on the site in addition he spoke on creating sufficient open green space that will be accessible to residents of the area.
Councilman Josh Blevins inquired about the open green space, citing that the zoning requirement calls for all residents to be able to use the area 24-hours a day and cannot be owned by an HOA or property owners.
“This will be held by the county if this goes forward,” Blevins said in reference to the green space. “It does not meet our open space regulation as presented.”
A new turn-lane addition at the entrance of the property was also reviewed by Batchelor and McGuire due to the high density of the area. McGuire stated that the signal warrant with the state will be addressed by the developer if the plan is to go forward.
Several members of the commission concluded that the local government is not prepared to undertake the traffic improvements necessary to facilitate the subdivision.
Commission Member David McGee II spoke on the traffic problem.
“The traffic is a big issue,” McGee said. “We all know that the bypass is in the future, but it’s not anytime soon.”
Mayor Carroll concurred with McGee about the status of the development, stating that “it’s dead for the time being.”
A motion was introduced to send the proposal to the City Council with an unfavorable recommendation, which passed with a 4 – 3 vote.