|
 Present: Pat O’Neill; Emily Davenport; Kevin Bateman; David
Blankenship; Gene Rohlfs; Dave Hepler
Absent:
Guests: Will D’Andrea; Jan Schumacher; Bob Farmer; Laurie Muck; Doug
Muck;
Mr. O’Neill called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
A motion was made by Mr. Hepler, seconded by Mrs. Davenport, to
approve the minutes from the March 4, 2015 meeting as printed.
Motion passed.
Old Business:
Subdivision Rewrite: Nothing to report. Keep on the agenda.
New Business:
Anticipated conditions to be imposed and/or recommended on the
land under petition for extraction by Doug Muck:
Mr. Muck reported he has two pending applications sitting in Mr. D’
Andrea’s office. Mr. Muck would like to know the conditions the
County Board will have on his two pending applications. Mr. Muck
wants to start preparing for the public hearings.
Mr. Bateman reported he has yet to see any application yet so he
does not know where the land is located.
 Mr. Muck reported the property that he would like to rezone is
adjoining to the property that was already rezoned. (North side of
Salt Creek).
A public hearing is scheduled for May.
Mr. Muck has another application pending for property on 5th Street.
The property is located on the curve. Mr. Muck has several parties
that would like to join.
Mr. Blankenship reported, to be fair, he would like to do the same
as Whiteside County and clarify areas that we would potentially
apply conditional uses to. Otherwise, we are driving business away
because they don’t know what to expect. Mr. Blankenship supports
conditional uses but he thinks it’s fair to let business know what
to expect ahead of time.
Mrs. Muck’s concern is, since the county board passed the
conditional use and did not grandfather the two pending applications
in. The Mucks had two concerns with the applications that were
already filed. The notice was published in the paper with the lesser
notice provisions (the County Board extended the notice time frame
at the Regular Board meeting). When the Mucks put a notice in the
paper they published the hearing for April but since the County
Board did not grandfather their request in they have to rerun the
notice and hold the public hearing in May. Mrs. Muck also explained
their application meets all of the previous requirements, now the
County Board’s ordinance would state conditional use. Mrs. Muck
would like the County Board to reconsider any pending application to
be grandfathered in with the old ordinance. Mrs. Muck fears the ZBA
will say their two pending applications are unsatisfied. If Mrs.
Muck has to amend her petitions and refile, will there be a new
filing fee?
Mr. Blankenship is concerned that if we don’t fix the ordinance,
how do we know a future board will “do the right thing” and he is
also concerned open-ended conditional uses could open the door for
comparative negligence.
[to top of second column] |
Mrs. Muck asked the committee to consider to grandfather in the
two applications that are pending. Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Hepler were
not able to make the motion to allow the two pending applications to
be grandfathered in due to their voting position at the last Regular
Board meeting. No motion was made made.
Fee Discussion
ZBA Hearing:
Mr. D’Andrea presented the committee with the ZBA cost evaluation.
The application fee is currently $235.00. The county should be
charging $315.00.
Mr. Bateman is okay with losing the $76.53 because the revenue the
new businesses would bring would out-weight the $76.53 lost from the
application fee.
Mr. O’Neill asked if there was a motion to raise the ZBA fee and
none was received.
Ecocat- Mr. D’Andrea presented a hand- out from IDNR.
Currently, Logan County is responsible for paying $500 to IDNR if
someone wants to rezone property. Mr. D’Andrea asked the committee
if the county wants to continue eating the cost for Ecocat, or if
the person filling the application should pay the $500.
Mr. Hepler reported he feels this needs more consideration.
The committee agreed to keep this on the agenda.
Conditional Use Approval Criteria:
Mr. D’Andrea presented the committee with County Ordinance
Comparison Conditional use Criteria.
Mr. Bateman would like to define what is “immediate” in the
ordinance.
Keep on the agenda.
Zoning Officer’s Report:
Mr. D’Andrea showed images of LiDAR data and how it can be used to
determine floodplain elevations on property .Nothing further to
report.
Public comments: None
Communications: None
A motion was made by Mr. Hepler, seconded by Mr. Rohlfs to approve
the bills. Motion passed.
A motion was made by Mrs. Davenport, seconded by Mr. Rohlfs, to
adjourn the meeting. Motion passed. Meeting ended at 7:50 pm.
[Copied from Logan County website]
 |
