Marion council approves second reading of commercial development moratorium

A commercial development moratorium for some of the fastest-growing areas of Marion is one step away from final approval. At its meeting Oct. 19, the Marion City Council unanimously approved the second reading of an ordinance that would impose a one-year moratorium on commercial development along portions of Tower Terrace Road, Highway 13, and the Central Corridor business district in Marion. In council documents, city officials say the moratorium “aims to strike a balance between economic progress and safeguarding the well-being of communities and the environment, ultimately promoting responsible and sustainable development practices.” The Marion commercial development moratorium would affect a total of 361 properties in the three development areas, city officials said, and would automatically expire after a year unless specifically renewed by the council. Several types of commercial development are specifically mentioned in the moratorium, ranging from auto service and repair shops, gas stations, car washes, pawn shops, liquor and tobacco shops, deep discount stores, and commercial and residential storage units. The council also approved an amendment Oct. 5 to include grocery stores in the moratorium, though several council members expressed differing opinions on that specific use.

Several additional comments on the moratorium were provided at the Oct. 19 meeting during a public hearing, which had been extended from the council’s first reading of the ordinance Oct. 5. Among them was Erin Murrin of 482 Barrington Parkway, whose property abuts the Tower Terrace Road extension that’s included in the proposed moratorium. Ms. Murrin said when her family moved into the neighborhood in 2013, she was assured that development regulations in the area were very strict “in order to attract new homeowners and give them the confidence they would be moving near family-friendly businesses.” Since then, she said, the zoning restrictions once in place for the area have been gradually lifted, and a one-year development moratorium is now warranted. “I acknowledge that this is a difficult task you have ahead of you, balancing the growth of both residential and commercial properties,” she said. “I am 100% in favor of a moratorium on commercial development in order to better evaluate and balance the need to strategically grow commercial and residential parts of Marion.” Written comments were also submitted from several area business owners, asking that their properties be removed from the scope of the moratorium. Council member Grant Harper asked whether the moratorium would be equally applied to new developers and to “existing endeavors” considering possible expansion. “Is there a use or an opportunity for a property owner to ask for an individual reconsideration of what is encompassed within the moratorium?” he asked. “Are we allowing for that supplemental review?” Marion principal planner Dave Hockett responded by noting an amendment to the originally-proposed moratorium stating that “nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create a legal non-conforming use for any property on which the use is already established.” That amendment, recommended by city attorney Kara Bullerman, “gives us the ability and leeway to allow us to (reconsider projects) during the length of the moratorium that are something brand new.” Council member Steve Jensen supported the possibility of exceptions to the moratorium in specific cases. “If something comes down the road and it's the right package, I would be completely in favor of it,” he said. “And if there's a way for somebody to still complete a project. I'm fine with that as well.” Marion Mayor Nick AbouAssaly said the ordinance is intended to guide development in Marion’s fastest-growing areas, not prohibit it. “This isn't changing the ordinance,” he said. “This is just putting a (one-year) halt on new projects until the comprehensive plan is completed. And there's a process during that one year period to have projects approved, even though they're on that list … from the first day I took office, I have advocated for growth. If you're not growing, you're stagnating. But growth for its own sake is not necessarily what we want. Growth should happen in a way that's meaningful and that adds value to people's lives. That's why I'm proud of this council for doing this. We're not trying to kill development. We just want to grow in a way that's meaningful, and 20 years from now, (we can) look back and say we did it the right way.” The council’s is slated to vote on the third and final consideration of the proposed development moratorium at its next meeting Nov. 9.