Elkhart council tables Compton Northfield PUD amendment after residents press concerns over TIFF-subsidized rents

Elkhart — The Elkhart City Council on April 6 voted 8–1 to table proposed ordinance 26-12, a major amendment to the Compton Northfield planned unit development that would add adjacent parcels for a seven-building apartment complex and an affiliated affordability incentive.

The developer and planning staff described the project as seven buildings (each with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units), a clubhouse, pool, pickleball courts, a dog run, and walking trails. Planning Department staffer Eric Troder summarized site revisions and said the plan removes auto access from Karen Drive and focuses vehicle access on Emerson Drive.

Why it matters: Council members and several nearby residents said they were not satisfied with the financial and legal details of the affordability incentive — including whether tax increment financing (TIFF) dollars or a nonprofit would be used to subsidize part of tenants’ rent — and asked for clearer commitments before the council considered the development agreement.

Developer and staff statements: Developer Sharon Cone said the project remains tied to an affordability approach coordinated 'very closely with Mayor Robertson’s office and the economic development department' to serve households at about 80% of area median income (AMI). City and developer representatives described an incentive structure in which a nonprofit would provide a per-unit subsidy (discussed in the meeting as $700 per unit) so that eligible employees would pay a reduced tenant share.

Scott Cone, who spoke for the incentive program, said, 'The incentive applies to anybody who works in the community,' and described employer verification (pay stubs or employer confirmation) as the means to qualify residents for the program.

Council concerns and staff response: Multiple council members pressed for details on funding sources, legal clearance for TIFF use, oversight, and the long-term fiscal implications. Council members were told the current ordinance vote concerned zoning (the PUD amendment) only; the development agreement and any TIFF or bond actions would require separate approvals and would be brought back to the council. Staff noted the financing and management details were not finalized.

Resident objections: Several Karen Drive residents urged the council to postpone the ordinance and demanded an independent investigation, citing alleged prior agreements treating parts of Karen Drive as private, claimed easement infringements, and an installation of fiber-optic lines they said occurred without notice. Chad Rab, a Karen Drive resident, asked the council to 'table this ordinance until a full investigation is conducted into the following critical property rights and legal violations' and warned of legal action if the council proceeded.

Council action: Councilman Fish moved to table the ordinance; the motion passed by roll call vote, 8–1, with President Dawson casting the lone 'no.' The council did not approve any development agreement or TIFF commitment at the meeting; staff pledged that any redevelopment-commission or EDC bond proposals involving TIFF would return to the council for consideration.

What’s next: The PUD amendment will return to the council for further review and likely additional public inputs after staff and the administration provide the requested financial and legal clarifications.