|
The third time proved to be the charm for a group of homeowners who protested the proposed rezoning of an area along Silica Heights Road for the construction of 18-20 duplexes.  Jerry Jones, the lead spokesman for a group of property owners, urges the Benton City Council to deny a rezoning request that would have permitted the construction of duplexes near their homes. The council had approved the rezoning ordinance on its first two readings, but voted down its third reading Monday night.
Benton aldermen voted down the controversial rezoning proposal Monday night.
Michael O’Kelley, an Otter Creek builder, had sought to build the project, which he said would meet a housing need in this area. He had planned to build units that would rent for around $700 each and was targeting 50-and-older residents.
The primary spokesman for the homeowners was Jerry Jones, but numerous others spoke during the lengthy City Council meeting.
At the start of Jones’ first trip to the podium, he presented the council with cards from 167 residents who objected to the proposed rezoning.
“We’re fighting to keep the stability and character of our neighborhood,” Jones told the aldermen.
Local developer Ray Gabbard spoke in O’Kelley’s behalf, as did a few subcontractors, who emphasized the lack of jobs available in the housing industry. Nathan Sharp pointed out that he spends his money locally and said he and others would be contributing to the local economy if they could work on this project.
“I’m struggling to find work and this project would help me and a lot of people ... ,” he said. “Benton as a whole will benefit form this. ... Benton needs rental property.”
In the end, a surprise development regarding a 1992 ordinance was a factor in changing at least one council member’s position regarding the rezoning. Alderman Doug Stracener, who supported O’Kelley’s project, said he was changing his vote because by voting for the rezoning ordinance, it appeared that the council would be violating its own rules.
“If the council passes this, it is an invalid rezoning request,” Jones contended. “Some people may say ‘it’s the way we’ve always done it,’ but that doesn’t make it right.
‘My neighbors ... deserve a majority vote for this,” Jones said. “Don’t make it a split vote and pass it on to the mayor.”
The 1992 ordinance stated a requirement for a written site-specific plan, which Marsha Guffey, city director of community development, said is normally not presented by developers and which she says would not be practical.
Another point involved ownership of the site. O’Kelley had signed the initial application to the Planning and Zoning Commission as the owner of the property, but stated in a subsequent meeting that he intended to buy the site contingent upon the rezoning.
Gabbard said that’s the way most developers operate and said he would never buy a piece of property that had not been zoned properly for what he intended to build. “I’ve got a bunch out there that’s illegal if this is illegal,” he said.
He called O’Kelley a responsible builder and a “good man” who wants to build quality housing units.
Gabbard referred to a duplex project his (Gabbard’s) company built in Benton. “Everyone there is either retired or working,” he said.
“This is a good project,” he said in regard to O’Kelley’s proposed project. “We have a need for these (duplexes). We need to scatter these around the city.”
Contrary to the homeowners’ repeated arguments that the duplexes would lower the value of their homes, Gabbard said he does not believe the project would have any effect at all on property values. “I don’t think they would go up or down,” he said.
“If you stagnate the growth of Benton,” Gabbard said, “a new business will go somewhere else. ... Mr. O’Kelley is not trying to put in a slum. He puts in top-notch housing.”
City Attorney Brent Houston was brought into the discussion, particularly in regard to O’Kelley’s having signed the initial document as owner of the land. Houston said the language of the document — specifically, the uses of the words “may” and “shall” — create some ambiguity.
The Supreme Court has ruled, he said, that shall has a stronger connotation than may, he said. “And the may ... is followed by several shall’s,” he said.
“He has an equity interest in the property,” Houston said of O’Kelley.
Several of the homeowners who spoke presented a picture of renters as “people who don’t care” about upkeep of their property. One woman objected to the project because she said she would have to “clean up the trash” left by the subcontractors.
Dawn Marshall, who lives in the area, asked the council, “Would you want this in your neighborhood?”
Patricia Ashley, who does not live in the area that would have been affected by the rezoning, was allowed to comment several times. Having spoken in several meetings in favor of affordable housing, particularly manufactured homes, she questioned whether O’Kelley’s project violates the federal fair housing act.
She also referred to renters as “transients” who would not take care of the property.
Scott Hunter, a candidate for the council’s Ward 5 position held by Stracener, reminded the aldermen that if they were to pass the ordinance, they would be “setting a precedent.”
“These people do not want this ... they are taxpayers, and this is all about dollars,” he said.
He said he lives in an apartment and “wouldn’t care” if it were built in his neighborhood.
One of the homeowners, noting O’Kelley’s plan to target older renters, said she did not believe that elderly persons could afford to pay $700 a month to live in a duplex.
She said she had lived in a home built by O’Kelley and acknowledged that he is a good builder.
O’Kelley asked the council why the technical objections regarding the ordinance were just being brought out when the ordinance was having its third reading.
He reminded the council that he had purchased property on Fairfield Road where he wanted to build a similar project, then the city denied his project.
He said he lost money by that action and chose to wait on buying the land this time until the zoning change had been made.
“I’m worn out,” he said.
In the end, when a vote finally was taken on the ordinance, only two aldermen voted in favor of the rezoning request. The “yes” votes were cast by Aldermen Jerry Ponder and David Sparks, who have said they believe the project O’Kelley proposed was compatible with the neighborhood. The area includes single-family residences, townhouses and a mobile home park.
Before the vote, Stracener, the council’s senior member, pointed out that the ordinance stresses “compatibility,” adding that something eventually will be permitted to go on the site. He said it could be another mobile home park because of the land’s proximity to the area.
“And that will cause your property values to go down,” he told the homeowners.
Shortly before the vote was taken, Sparks said the issue regarding the ownership factor of the land amounted to “straining at gnats.”
“We’ve already set a precedent” by what had been done for years,” Sparks said.Houston said he “never said the ordinance would be violated if the council approved it.”
Alderman Steve Lee said the problem he had was O’Kelley signing anything purporting to be the owner of property he had purchased.
“You couldn’t hold a gun to my head and get me to do that,” Lee said.
|
Razorbacks
