What's in a Name?
PR-6 Designation at Issue Between Residents and Commissioners as Development Looms
If the Franklin County Board of Elections certifies a petition for a referendum signed by 280 Brown Township residents, all registered voters in the township will have the opportunity to decide whether the rezoning of a 24-acre parcel on Davis Road, adjacent to Heritage Preserve between Alton Darby Creek Road and Audubon Road, is to stand.
“We had no other option,” except a referendum, Brown Township Trustee Pam Sayre said, after Franklin County Commissioners on March 12 approved the rezoning of a 24-acre parcel on the south side of Davis Road, west of Alton Darby Creek Road, from rural residential to PR-6.
The rezoning, if it stands, “will set a precedent for ignoring the recommendations of the Big Darby Accord (Advisory Panel) and Brown Township,” Brown Township resident Melissa Brinkerhoff said on behalf of the volunteers who carried out collecting signatures and submitting the petition to the Franklin County Commissioners.
Brown Township Trustees registered their opposition to the rezoning application before the Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel and the Franklin County Commissioners.
The commissioners, after a statutory waiting period, must submit the referendum to the Franklin County Board of Elections to determine whether it is valid.
If so, the board would certify it for placement on the general-election ballot in November, but only for those residents living in unincorporated Brown Township.
Mark Denney, an architect representing the developer, Horse House LLC, said he is “disappointed” in the referendum attempt, especially after the proposed developers “did all that was asked of them.”
At issue is an apparent difference in how the definition of PR-6 zoning district is interpreted, or at least what is proposed to be built.
According to Denney, the PR-6 zoning district is all that was available to the developers to proceed with a development plan for which the Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel recommended approval, and which the Franklin County Commissioners upheld.
Only one residence currently sits on the acreage but seven new residences would be built on the 24-acre parcel, according to Denney.
The LLC proposing to build the seven new residences is comprised of four individuals who intend to build their own residences but sell the remaining lots, Denney said.
There is no water and sewer service to the site and the seven new residences would use a septic tank and receive well water, the same as the existing residence there, according to Denney.
But Brinkerhoff maintains the PR-6 zoning allows for up to six units per acre to be built on the parcel and as such was the impetus for the referendum petition.
“The county wanted a planned-unit-development for us to show what we wanted to build. It is an unfortunate designation but it was all we had available to us,” Denney said of the PR-6 zoning district, adding that only seven residences are to be built as water and sewer taps are not available to the parcel for any additional residences.
Denney said he was not sure of the developer’s next step since they had not before encountered a referendum attempt.
Meanwhile, Brinkerhoff said residents will wait to learn the status of the referendum, submitted April 9 to the Franklin County Commissioners.
“The zoning allows for something different than what was presented (to the advisory panel and the commissioners, so) we had to try a referendum,” Brinkerhoff said.