Rezone of farmland into light industrial draws criticism from neighbors

Oftentimes the contentious rezoning disputes are reserved for the county board of supervisors, but this time it is the Newton City Council getting an earful from residents who do not want to see a small section of a 57-acre parcel of farmland be repurposed into light industrial for a proposed development.

When it was first considered by council members back in late October, residents who live nearby spoke out against the rezone. During the second reading of the rezone at the Nov. 4 city council meeting, those same residents spoke out against the proposal in hopes of receiving enough council support to stop it.

Tony Dunsmoor, who lives just east of the property, did not want to see any kind of light industrial development near his home, saying it would disturb the quiet country life he has for himself. Tammy Stock, who lives south of the parcel, worried about truck travel and drainage and runoff issues on her property.

Back in the October meeting, Newton Development Corporation Director Frank Liebel informed council that the city is running out of industrial land. Two council members — Joel Mills and Stacy Simbro — disagreed with the rezone, which was initially recommended by staff to have the second and third readings waived.

However, council decided to hold off on approving the subsequent readings so hastily, much to the delight of neighbors who continued to voice their concerns about the rezone this past week. Marsha Dunsmoor, Tony’s wife, directed council’s attention to its comprehensive plan, which had other ideas for the land.

“You can see on this map that the intent of the City of (Newton), all of this area is to remain residential — there’s no agriculture even,” Marsha said. “All of the businesses are to the north and all of them are to the west. So around Berg school, which we talked about last time, that is all to be zoned residential.”

Newton Community Development Director Erin Chambers said zoning maps and future land use maps are different documents. The future land use map featured in the comprehensive plan is there to just give some general guidance, she said. But when there are two nearby uses, oftentimes another use will beat another.

“From a planning standpoint, generically speaking, it is common place that on a future land use map that those are massaged over time because they are soft boundaries and conceptual,” Chambers said, noting the property already has split zoning. “Whereas a zoning map you have clear, hard and fast boundaries.”

Marsha also worried about what kind of business could be developed onto the light industrial zoned piece of land. Brett Doerring, who is one of the four partners who own the land, provided some insight without revealing exactly what it would be. But he was quick to point out it would not be a manufacturing company.

“It would be some light assembly, primarily warehousing, 10 to 15 employees and outside yard storage,” Doerring said to city council members during the Nov. 4 meeting. “It’s one buyer for the entire north half of the property. It’s not to develop it into a number of multiple and different businesses.”

The property — located near the 2300 to 2400 blocks of North 19th Avenue East — was purchased 20 years ago as a speculative investment knowing it was adjacent to the industrial park and on the Beltline Road. To Doerring, the land was a clear extension to Newton’s industrial park.

Berg Middle School is about one mile south of the property, which Tony argued was good enough reason to reserve the land for residential purposes. Doerring said at the time the property was purchased the city’s vision was for the southern half of the property to be multi-family housing, like apartments and duplexes.

Dick Boggess also noted there would not be a high-density development on the property. According to city documents, a 70,000-square-foot to 100,000-square-foot building would be constructed alongside an exterior storage area, which would be subject to screening requirements per the city’s zoning code.

Mills was adamant he did not want the land rezoned to light industrial; he would rather see it rezoned to residential, despite the property owners’ wishes to develop it for a small company to operate out of. Mills called it a “short-term gain” to add a light industrial business which could sit “idle and empty.”

“We have so many buildings in this town that are idle, and while I’m privy to a number of emails and a number of information and conversations, I very much appreciate those dialogues and conversations,” Mills said. “These are potential beautiful plans on different acres.”

Council member Randy Ervin agrees with some of what Mills was saying, but he ultimately supported the rezone. Ervin said it was anticipated the industrial park would continue to grow to the east. Simbro disagreed, citing the comprehensive plan’s future land use maps that envisioned the area to be residential.

The second reading of the rezone passed in a 4-2 vote, with Mills and Simbro voting no. The third reading will be considered at the Nov. 18 council meeting.

If the third reading passes in a majority vote, council can adopt the rezone.