The Madison County Planning Department (MCPD) recommendation report on the Route 20 redevelopment proposal was nothing less than a bomb dropped on the already contentious issue of whether and how the Aldi-bank-drug store-apartments project should be created. Its shrapnel is everywhere, and is all-pervading. Some people see this as a godsend smackdown that should help kill the project; others see this as a biased, overly critical diatribe that goes far beyond the planning department’s typical role.
While the MCPD report raised issues that the village planning board and the developer certainly should address — especially regarding site walkability and bikeability, and the need to ensure this development is less automobile-oriented — the overwhelmingly critical tone of this report makes it impossible to read and not see a certain bias by the writer(s). (Indeed, the first three paragraphs of the “background” section are egregious editorializing that basically argue that this village zone should never be developed because it is so difficult to “get it right” that any development will simply destroy the character of the village.)
We agree with William R. Hall, a member of the EHH Committee and for six years chair of the village planning board, who stated, “Rather than helping, the county report appeared to be bent on raising doubts about every aspect of this project … There was not one item that seemed to meet their approval.”
We also agree with Mayor Kurt Wheeler who stated that the village board, the professional planner, the village engineer and the village attorney — all of whom have come to opposite conclusions than the county on the issues raised — understand their community and their own village codes and regulations perfectly well, and the county report does nothing but “implicitly” question their competence, which is also out of bounds.
Despite accusations to the contrary, we have never issued our opinion either for or against this proposal, nor will we now. We argue for fairness, and for this project to be decided on its individual merits. This project, if approved, must be done right because it will fundamentally alter our village. The county report, while egregious, does raise issues that the planning board needs to take into account; similarly, Mayor Wheeler’s rebuttal letter shows how far this proposal has evolved since its April introduction and that many of the county’s criticisms are, for whatever reason, unfounded.
We hope the planning board will not outright accept or reject either the county planning report or Wheeler’s letter, but will take the time to carefully consider both. We also hope the developer will consider the county criticisms and use them constructively to amend the plans where needed. This contentious issue just got messier, and we urge the planning board to take its time on this and not rush to a vote everyone involved has had a chance to fully digest everything.
