Development Issues Bring Officials Under Fire

Jackson Town Hall (Photo by Micromedia Publications)

  JACKSON – Township Officials found themselves under a text attack by residents who watched a recent council meeting conducted through Zoom.

  The governing body faced some criticism once they announced that they were seeking to repeal two town ordinances.

  While ordinance 04-17 banned dormitories anywhere in the Township as a permitted use, that ordinance was redundant because dormitories were not a permitted use in the first place, officials said.

  The second ordinance, 03-17, eliminated certain Jackson zones from permitting schools. Both of the these motions would now put “the ordinances back to where they were in 2017 with respect to certain zones,” Township Attorney Gregory McGuckin said.

  Vice Council President Alex Sauickie, Councilman Andrew Kern, and Councilman Martin Flemming voted to repeal the ordinances while Councilman Ken Bressi abstained.

  A public hearing regarding these ordinances has been scheduled for the council’s May 26 meeting.

  Sauickie explained the ordinances that were to be repealed were redundant from a legislative standpoint. He stressed that “whether the ordinance is there or not, the same type of procedures need to be followed.”

  Those sentiments were echoed by McGuckin who gave further explanation as to why the 2017 ordinances were considered redundant.

  One resident sent in a question asking the council to define what a dormitory was. The answer is that according to the 2017 ordinance, it is defined as any building, or portion of a building, that has been designed or converted to contain living quarters which are provided as residences or for overnight sleeping for individuals or groups, operated as an accessory use to a school, college, university, boarding school, convent, monastery, nonprofit educational institution, religious order or other use.

  McGuckin responded to another resident’s question that anyone seeking to build a structure with a dormitory “would have to seek a variance and go before the zoning board and meet the burden of proof under the statutes.”

  The council has been meeting in a live-streamed Zoom meeting format due to the COVID-19 pandemic which includes restrictions on public gatherings. That is expected to continue into next month.

  A number of residents observing the meeting used their ability to comment to express their disappointment and anger over the repeal of both ordinances at a time when they cannot physically attend a council meeting. Many suggested that since the ordinances were deemed redundant, that their repeal could have been brought up at a later time when physical meetings were possible.

  “We want to make sure we give everyone a voice and that your voice is heard,” Township Business Administrator Terence Wall said during the May 12 session. He also spoke to McGuckin during the meeting to get a recommendation on how to address what could be defined as inflammatory statements going into the record and what discretion Wall had as the technical moderator of the meeting.

  Resident Denise Garner asked, “is this the growth machine theory where business, cultural and government needs growth control bureaucracies, for campaign contributions and influence that a developer has interest and control of the zoning process in obtaining zoning decisions?”

  Sauickie responded, “we try to strike a balance between bringing smart business into town and keep traffic away from residential areas. We are pro-business because it helps keep residents’ taxes down.”

  He added that “we want to strike a balance to that and protect the environment that is Jackson.” Sauickie pointed to the governing body’s recent passage of a soil sampling permit ordinance concerning its commitment to protecting the environment. “It passed unanimously.”

  Resident Jeff Nemeth said, “you are making up the public input response as you go along. Every question should be answered period verifying the unconstitutional way this forum is to tax paying residents.”

  Wall also found himself in the position of having to verify the identity of some of those who wanted to utilize the chat function to post questions and comments, some of which were said to be inappropriate.

  For example, there was one situation in which two people were logged in as basically the same name.

  “The challenge of this technology is that you want to be truly transparent and have a full voice for all the folks but in this instance, have a representation from one your residents that her name is used basically being spoofed,” Wall said.

  Wall added that he had filtered out questions that were not appropriate and that there were pauses to also verify if those listed were in fact residents.

  Other resident complaints regarded the sound quality during portions of the meeting.