|
 Due to recent appointments and the election, there are several
new board members, and a new chairman, all of which will lead to
changes in committee memberships. At the Planning and Zoning
Committee for January Pat O’Neill acted as committee chairman for
former chairman, David Helpler. Emily Davenport took O’Neill’s place
as vice-chairman. Also serving on that committee are Kevin Bateman,
David Blankenship, Gene Rohlfs and David Hepler; all of whom were
present. Zoning Officer Will D’Andrea was also present for the
evening.
Proposed Changes to Ordinances
For the past few months, the committee has been working on clearing
up the language under zoning amendments within their ordinances.
Zoning Officer Will D’Andrea provided copies of the existing
language and proposed changes that the committee has suggested. In
some instances, D’Andrea inserted state statutes into the proposed
language, which could be read more clearly.
One of the sections proposed concerned the public notice of
hearings. The proposed new language would make it more clear as to
what is required before a hearing is held, which would be the
location of the property by parcel number, a legal description and
street address (or nearby landmark), and contain a description of
the request. According to D’Andrea, the requirements were quoted
directly from state statutes.
 In addition, the proposed changes would include an increase in
required time for nearby landowners to be informed. Currently,
landowners must be notified at least fifteen days prior to a
hearing. The change would increase that to twenty-five days.
Finally, requiring that municipalities within one-and-a-half miles
need to be notified was also added to the ordinance, which is also a
state statute.
“We try to streamline it, clean it up, make sure we’re referencing
all applications that go through the ZBA and have the same
consistent process to go through,” said D’Andrea. D’Andrea said the
current language can be very confusing and vague in referencing
other areas of the ordinances.
Another section with proposed changes concerns conditional use
procedures. One example of the proposed changes is a consistent
reference to the Regional Planning Commission, which is given
different titles throughout the existing ordinances.
The proposed changes would also include a specific reference to the
notice requirements mentioned previously in regard to the ZBA. This
means the ZBA would have to follow the same requirements in giving
public notice on such a hearing. The change would also specify that
the ZBA could recommend a condition be attached to such a permit,
but it would only be a recommendation, not a final decision. “Only
the county board, who makes the decision, can actually put a
condition on it,” said D’Andrea.
Gene Rohlfs asked if D’Andrea could explain a reference to the
Comprehensive Plan within the existing language. D’Andrea suggested
removing the reference, as the Comprehensive Plan is not always
easily connected to potential conditional use permits. “It’s
difficult to make that connection,” said D’Andrea.
The Comprehensive Plan covers several different aspects of the
county, such as the job market, the environment, demographics, and
other such elements. The Plan also lays out plans and goals for the
county which are often broad and accomplished over a long period of
time. “That’s a completely separate document and a different goal
that everyone is working towards,” said D’Andrea.
David Blankenship said he agreed that the reference should be
removed otherwise there is little guidance on restriction, and it
becomes difficult to determine what falls within the Plan and what
does not. Pat O’Neill and Rohlfs concurred with the idea.
[to top of second column] |
A third section that would be changed is the ordinance for
amendments to ordinances or to the zoning map. The changes would
specify that an ordinance amendment hearing would be held in the
courthouse. A map amendment would require a hearing to be held
in the specific township, unless more adequate facilities are
needed. It would also specify that a proposed amendment would
not be defeated due to improperly mailed notices, so long as
“diligent effort was made to list all the property owners in the
application.”
Additionally, D’Andrea inserted the state statute on protests
against amendments into the ordinance. The statute would require
a three-fourths majority vote by the county board for a textual
amendment if a written protest is signed by five percent of
landowners or by resolution of a zoned municipality.
“That triggers a higher standard,” said D’Andrea.
It would also require such a vote for a map amendment if twenty
percent of landowners on the land to be rezoned signed a
petition, or twenty percent of the landowners on the proposed
perimeter, or within an area of one-and-a-half miles from a
zoned municipality. Finally, if a town or township with a
population of less than 600,000 has a conflict with either
amendment, written objections may be filed within thirty days
after the hearing.
“Again, we’re dropping in the (state) statute language to make
it clearer,” said D’Andrea.
Blankenship asked if it would be possible to make a protest
option available to any citizen of the county regarding a map
amendment, regardless of location, so long as a numerical value
was met. Kevin Bateman said it is a good idea, except that it
could lead to a group of citizens having a greater effect on an
area they do not live in. “It would be hard to say if that was
fair,” said Bateman. Bateman added that setting the number too
high or too low would be problematic.
Blankenship agreed with Bateman, but he still felt that more
people in the county should be heard on contentious issues and
be given the right to petition.
Emily Davenport asked if other counties use the same language as
what is being proposed. D’Andrea said that most counties in the
area use the state statute, and that Logan County’s ordinances
as they are now are actually slightly deficient.
Finally, the proposed language would include a statement a
simple correction to the zoning map due to error. In such an
instance, a correction could be made with a simple majority of
the board.
The proposed language was unanimously approved by the committee.
The language will need to be read over by the State’s Attorney
and approved by the entire county board next month.
The committee will also be looking into possibly changing the
fees involved in applying for zoning permits next month.
D’Andrea said he would bring in comparisons to other counties
for help in such a decision.
Additionally, D’Andrea was given direction by the committee to
begin looking into amendments to land rezoning and the possible
attachment of conditions as part of the committee’s efforts to
revise their zoning ordinances.
[Derek Hurley] |
