|
 Present: Pat O’Neill; Emily Davenport; Kevin Bateman; Gene
Rohlfs; Dave Hepler; Dave Blankenship
Absent:
Guests: Glenda Downing; Angela Reiners; Jan Youngquist; Tracy
Bergin; Doug Muck Staff: Will D’Andrea
Mr. O’Neill called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
A motion was made by Mr. Rohlfs, seconded by Mr. Hepler, to approve
the minutes from the August 5, 2015 meeting as printed. Motion
passed.
Old Business:
1. Subdivisions Ordinance: Mr. D’Andrea found several sections
that had outstanding questions associated with them. The questions
were compiled and submitted to Mr. Bateman and Mrs. Schumacher for
review. When Mr. D’Andrea receives that information back with their
comments, he’ll review their feedback and bring it forward next
month.
New Business:
1. Sunset Clause for Conditional Use: The consideration is to
begin including Sunset Clauses in all Conditional Use applications.
Mr. D’Andrea presented a few examples from other counties that deal
with sunset clauses and revocation clauses. The revocation clause is
in case an application is approved but no action is taken by
applicant for an extended period of time (5 years?), then the
conditional use permit can be revoked. This would only apply to new
permits going forward, not past projects. Mr. Muck stated that a
set, uniform sunset clause is a bad idea because companies may be
doing work behind-the-scenes that the general public may
misinterpret as inaction. Mr. Muck recommends that the sunset clause
be tailored individually for each project. Mr. Bateman discussed
setting a timeline that expires where the company must then apply
for an extension instead of the land defaulting back to the original
zoning. Mr. D’Andrea discussed language regarding a clearly defined
process and the consideration of having criteria for an extension
application. Zoning Officer’s Report: The Enterprise Zone
application is still in progress. Mr. D’Andrea reported the
boundaries are drawn and the legal description is being reviewed
currently. A draft ordinance has been put forward after review by
Mr. D’Andrea and Mr. Clay Johnson, City Administrator.
Public comments: Mrs. Glenda Downing discussed her concerns
over the Conditional Use for mining extraction. She is in favor of a
sunset clause being added to both the zoning and conditional use for
mining extraction.
[to top of second column] |
Mr. D’Andrea expressed that there is a possibility of the
sunset clause applying to Mr. Muck’s rezoning as he has only
applied for 2 rezoning ordinances at this time and as it may be
some time before the County receives a Conditional Use
application, the sunset clause may apply to these latest rezone
application properties.
Mrs. Downing believes the zoning ordinance is too vague and
stated she’d like to have specific, set conditional uses in the
ordinance before an application for conditional use is made.
Mr. Bateman explained his desire to not have
specifics as he wants to be able to review every individual
application and it’s site, its neighbors, its conditions; he,
personally, would like to be able to evaluate every detail
separately as it applies to the situation.
Mr. Rohlfs, Mr. Muck, Mr. D’Andrea, and Mrs. Schumacher continued
the discussion about amending the conditional use criteria in part,
or as a whole.
Mr. D’Andrea recommended that if there is any interest in looking
at the standing 5 general criteria as well, he would re-package the
sunset clause and the generalized criteria so it could be wrapped
into the sunset clause and have it ready for the next meeting.
Communications: None
A motion was made by Mr. Hepler, seconded by Mr. Bateman, to approve
the bills. Motion passed.
A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mr. Hepler, to adjourn
the meeting. Motion passed. Meeting ended at 7:06 pm.
[Copied from Logan County website]
 |
