Smyrna’s town council deferred consideration of a proposed annexation and industrial zoning for roughly 225.25 acres east of I‑840 after a lengthy workshop discussion about contract details, utility obligations and traffic impacts.

Kevin (town staff) said the developer’s packet now lists the final development entity as Fall Creek Commerce Center LLC, and staff circulated a draft agreement that would govern annexation, utility extensions and zoning conditions. Council members asked staff and the developer for several clarifications before authorizing first reading, including a signed de‑annexation agreement from the current owner in the event the development deal falls through.

Council members repeatedly pressed staff on a clause in section 9 that ties consent for annexation of eastern parcels to the status of an intervening parcel and a 90‑day consent window. Staff said the clause was included to permit the developer to construct utility extensions to the eastern properties at the developer’s cost while preserving the town’s right to charge outside‑town sewer rates until those parcels are formally annexed. Jerome and other council members expressed concern the provision could obligate the town to a zoning designation and asked staff to remove or revise the intervening‑parcel language.

Members also raised service and fiscal questions for long‑range build‑out, including police and fire coverage, road responsibilities and the cost of extending sewer and water infrastructure. Jeff (finance/staff) summarized three cost‑allocation scenarios presented in the draft: if both town and CUD utilities apply, the town’s share could be 67%; if only one set of CUD lines is involved, 50%; and if no CUD lines are included, the town would pay 100% of the listed costs (terms as presented to council).

Traffic impacts were another focal point. Council asked that the developer’s traffic consultant present a high‑level summary at the next workshop and that the town circulate county third‑party review comments in advance so staff and council can determine whether to engage their own reviewer. Councilmember comments highlighted concern about trucks routing through local roads and the capacity of Amityville/Jefferson corridor intersections.

Given the number of outstanding questions, the mayor and council agreed not to place the item on the December meeting for first reading. Staff listed required follow‑ups: secure a de‑annexation agreement from the current owner, revise or remove the intervening‑parcel/90‑day language in section 9 as requested by council, and schedule the traffic consultant to present at the January 6 workshop; first reading would be considered at the subsequent council meeting in January.

The council repeatedly emphasized that any annexation or rezoning must still come back to planning commission and the full council for formal approvals and that the town retains the discretion to approve or deny annexation or zoning regardless of draft contract language.

What’s next: staff will seek the developer’s contract revisions, secure the requested de‑annexation language, and arrange the traffic presentation and third‑party review comments for the January workshop. Council members asked that those materials be circulated in advance so questions can be flagged in writing.