CLAYTON — City council voted to bring an ordinance up for vote that had been previously tabled.

The ordinance proposed repealing an ordinance which adopted the Clayton Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a change in zoning for 42.99 acres of land for the development of a subdivision to be called Salem Springs along Phillipsburg-Union and Haber roads.

This proposed development generated backlash from residents living in that area who hoped to preserve the rural nature of that portion of the city.

Residents managed to gather enough signatures to place a referendum (Issue 4) on the March ballot to repeal the legislation which would prevent the development from moving forward.

One of the opponents of the development, Ryan Farmer, decided to run for a seat on council and was successfully elected last November.

“Bringing this repeal up for vote is an act of good will with the referendum petition committee who made the request,” Farmer said. “Let’s not forget why we are in this referendum dilemma.”

Farmer reviewed the facts that led up to the referendum being placed on the ballot.

Prior to council voting on whether or not to repeal the ordinance, Councilman Greg Merkle asked what would happen if council approved to repeal the legislation.

Law Director Martina Dillon explained if repealed, the ‘petitioners committee’ could submit a withdrawal of the ballot item at least five days prior to the March 19 election.

Farmer discussed the process to repeal the legislation.

“We’ve got this sequence that if we vote to repeal tonight and if we voted for it again in two weeks there would be a 30 implementation that would take you into April,” Farmer noted. “Ironically, the only thing that really could derail that period would be a referendum, so out of good will the petitioners committee could go ahead and withdraw it before the election, before that 30 days of implementation expires.”

However, according to Dillon the issue would still remain on the ballot but if the petition is withdrawn by the petitioners committee five days prior to the election, then according to the charter even if it is on the ballot and voted on it would be of no effect.

“With it being on the ballot, even though we may repeal it, it would be an artifact to show that the process does work, that the referendum did make it to the ballot,” Farmer noted.

Mayor Mike Stevens agreed with Farmer’s statement about the process working.

“What I am having trouble with is that you and many others worked so hard to get this on the ballot, to get the signatures to prove your point, so why would you want it withdrawn? I mean you worked so hard to get it on (the ballot) why would you want it withdrawn?” Stevens asked.

Issue 4, if approved, would adopt the planning commission’s recommendation to approve, with specified conditions, the application of Clayton Properties Group, Inc. doing business as Arbor Homes for a change in zoning and would clear the way for development to take place.

A no vote on Issue 4 would stop the development and preserve the rural nature of the area, which is the goal of the referendum and of the residents opposing the development.

Also, on the ballot for Clayton residents is Issue 5, which seeks an additional 1 percent income tax for the purpose of providing funds for general municipal operations and functions, and providing for the restoration of the 100 percent income tax credit.

In response to Stevens question, Councilman Ken Henning stated, “I think like Mr. Gorman said to protect the income tax, which is Issue 5 on the ballot.”

“I’m not sure those two have anything to do with each other. What would they have to do with each other?” Stevens asked. “I’m missing something here.”

“If I am mad at the city for one reason, I’m not going to help them on the other side, it’s that plain and simple,” said Vice Mayor James “Tim” Gorman. “Mike, you can’t have somebody mad at you and expect them to vote for your levy.”

Stevens said, “That was making a big assumption.”

“Mr. Mayor, I would also add that when you read our charter with referendum, the first remedy is to repeal which would lead to the assumption that the voters didn’t like how the vote went, that they want it turned around,” Farmer said.

“Ultimately that is the objective,” Farmer added. “The repeal is a sure thing because council will vote on it, but there is still always the risk in an election that it wouldn’t go their way and that is why you would prefer to just have it repealed.”

“I think we are looking at the same scenario from two different perspectives: half-full and half-empty,” Stevens said. “I personally would like to see how the rest of the city feels about this. I understand 100 percent how Ward 1 feels. That was really clear. I get it. But we are more than one ward and I would be interested to see what the rest of the city feels about this.

“I’m just curious because unfortunately this is not a one-off scenario,” Stevens continued. “There is other people out there interested in this same scenario and I think it would help our council and our staff to know when those scenarios come up what should we do? Should we push it, or should we not push it? If it comes back and 99 percent of the city says, ‘Hey we don’t want this. It’s a horrible idea.’ I get it. I wouldn’t go there again.”

Stevens also noted that if the vote comes back 51 percent to 49 percent against the development, he might come back with another development proposal again.

“That’s just my personal opinion on this,” Stevens said. “I think we owe the residents of the city the opportunity to voice this (their vote). It’s just my thoughts on this.”

“If it doesn’t pass, or if it does pass, who’s to say that Arbor Homes wants to continue?” Councilmember Tina Kelly added. “They might want to drop out and build somewhere else. I mean, that’s the rumor at this point. Supposedly that is something they are considering is to back out.”

Farmer added that he was there to represent Ward 1.

“I am going to vote in the interest of Ward 1,” Farmer stated. “We have three at-large members (on council) that are looking out for the greater interest of the city and I fully expect that I will come to times that I am voting for my ward and the rest of the members of city council would say we don’t agree, so that may be a time tonight or it may not so I will leave it at that.”

Henning said that he felt council needed to take some type of action so that the item didn’t remain tabled.

“We are asking to repeal an ordinance that seeks to rezone this property and we are talking about the referendum petition that was passed and the item being on the ballot, and the one party that I don’t see in the room having any input in all of this is the property owners,” Merkle said. “Is anybody going to inform them of what the potential is as this being changed and that they are not going to have the option of selling the property?”

Merkle said he didn’t think it was fair to the property owner not being fully informed as far as what is happening. He was concerned that potentially no one contacted the property owners to let them know this was coming up for vote.

After more debate as to whether or not the owner’s were notified, Mayor Stevens said the city did what was legally required.

Farmer made a motion to approve the ordinance to repeal the planning commission’s recommendation to approve the change in zoning for the proposed development.

Farmer, Henning, and Gorman voted to repeal the ordinance while Merkle, Kelly, Brendan Bachman, and Mayor Stevens voted not to repeal. It will be up to voters to decide whether or not the development moves forward.

Reach Ron Nunnari at (937) 684-9124 or email [email protected].