Story by Kevin Woodard
On Monday night’s Bloomington Council Consent Agenda, members are being asked to pass “An Ordinance Denying a Petition for a Zoning Map Amendment from M-1 (Restricted Manufacturing) District, to M-2 (General Manufacturing) District.” The Petitioner, Joseph A. Dehn, attorney for Akshar Plastic & Bell International Company, asked the Planning Commission for the zoning change so Akshar could continue to operate. The Commission denied the petition on an 8 – 0 vote justifying their decision based on their standards. But a closer look at the situation reveals the decision may have actually been based on previous problems with the property owner and public opposition to the planning change resulting largely from that episode more than anything else. Kelby Cumpston, a Facebook blogger who publishes his take on every Bloomington City Council agenda on a Facebook page named BloNotes called the previous problem “Car Seat Mountain.”
Late in November 2019 Walmart ran a promotion asking people to donate their used car seats in exchange for a $30 gift card. Anytime the public donates anything there are often items received that are not fit for reuse. Still the public usually benefits because the items are usually recycled if possible and if not they are disposed of properly. In this case they were recycled.
Akshar was a site that was slated to receive the car seats. The company buys post consumer, post industrial and other plastic scraps for recycling. This diverts plastics from landfills where they are a tremendous problem because many plastics do not biodegrade to any significant degree. Akshar processes the plastic into useful product. Askar took delivery of the seats in December.
According to Dehn, Akshar, was expecting, “to receive about 60 to 70 trucks,” but they “ended up getting about 400 trucks.”
The result was a pile of car seats. Almost immediately citizens in the neighborhood starting complaining.
Then in March of 2020 Covid-19 hit and Akshar couldn’t get the mound of car seats removed in a timely manner.
By mid April the city had sued Akshar. City officials at the time were describing the pile of car seats as a “mountain.”
By July Akshar was ordered to pay $39,000 in fines by a judge.
After recently petitioning for a zoning change Akshar appeared before the Planning Commission at a public hearing earlier this month on the fourth. At that hearing citizens opposed the change. Interestingly they focused more on the past car seat issue than on what problems the zoning change might cause.
According to documentation regarding the hearing, “Mike Gebhart, speaking on behalf of his son Hans Gebhart (1206 Bell Street), expressed concern about the large amount of car seats that had accumulated on the property for an extended period, which led to rodents inhabiting the property.”
And, “Gary Harden (902 Bunn Street) … said the car seat item was a big issue as it invited rodents and was unappealing visually for a long time. He stated he would like to know how they can guarantee that stockpiling will not become an issue again.”
Should the car seat fiasco be an issue with regard to the rezoning request? Didn’t the fines paid by Akshar settle that debt to society?
I am not an attorney but I bet Dehn is considering a suit if Akshar is not able to come to an agreement with the city. So let’s look at the planning commission’s standards and reasoning for denying the request and see if they appear sound. Some of them appear to be questionable to me at best.
The following quoted standards with the planning commission’s decision on each are quoted are from the staff report.
“Standard: the suitability of the subject property for uses authorized by the proposed zoning. The subject property is adjacent to residential areas. The zoning ordinance states the M-2 district should not be located adjacent to residential districts. Standard is not met.”
While technically true there are only three residential properties on the block while the remainder of the entire block is entirely Akshar property. It seems to me the spirit of this requirement is met.
“Standard: the existing land uses and zoning of nearby property. The subject property is surrounded by manufacturing, business and residential uses. Standard is not met.
Once again almost the entire block is owned by Akshar.
“Standard: relative gain or hardship to the public as contrasted and compared to the hardship or gain of the individual property owner resulting from the approval or denial of the zoning amendment application. The map amendment would create a hardship to adjacent properties which does not provide a relative gain to the public. Standard is not met.”
Did the Planning Commission really consider the potential hardship faced by this major property owner if he can’t stay in business? What about the potential loss to the community if jobs are lost and property taxes are not paid if this huge lot is left vacant?
“Standard: The extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the public interest, giving due consideration for the purpose and intent of this Code as set forth in § 44- 1701 herein. The map amendment provides limited public interest. Standard is not met.”
Aren’t jobs and tax revenue in the public interest?
“Standard: the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restriction. The zoning restrictions could affect property values. Standard is not met.”
When almost this whole block is already Akshar property with the exception of three small residential properties, how could this zoning change possibly hurt property values? I guarantee you the planning commission put no research into this before reaching their decision and can not venture to guess by what amount property values might fall, if any, if this zoning change is made. They are basing this only on the fear of local residents.
“Standard: the extent to which the destruction of property values promotes the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. The potential destruction of property values associated with heavy manufacturing uses would not promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. Standard is not met.”
Ask the planning commission to tell you “to what extent” this change might “destroy” property values. They can’t. They have no facts to back them up. I would bet you that in today’s housing market any property owner in this area that wanted to sell their property right now could do so and make a mint.
“Standard: whether a Comprehensive Plan for land use and development exists, and whether the ordinance is in harmony with it. The Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map identifies the subject property as mixed-use. The Land Use Priorities map identifies this area as Tier 1. Standard is not met.”
Why does the 2035 Comprehensive plan call for this industrial property in an industrial area once bordered by railroad tracks to be developed as mixed use? Do they want to lose one of the industries in town? Is the city trying to run them out of town? This is a “green” industry. This is the future. Does the plan call for this because the property is now adjacent to Constitution Trail?
You can’t convince me this recommendation isn’t about “Car Seat Mountain.” Unless of course, you want to verify it’s about my Constitution Trail conspiracy theory.
Cumbston wrote in BloNotes that the city is requesting Rakshar, “be denied and instead, carve out a special classification since they are not really a “recycling facility” and more of a processing facility without drop offs.”
I truly hope that is the case. But even if so it still appears to me it’s a risky gambit for Rakshar to accept.
At any rate this issue is too important to be passed as part of the consent agenda with no council discussion on it. The citizens of Bloomington at least deserve to hear each council members opinion on the matter. Whether individually citizens support or oppose the ordinance to deny the zoning change, those who would like to see council discuss this should contact a council member or members and ask them to pull this from the consent agenda for discussion.