|
 In September, the committee discussed adding a sunset clause into
the Conditional Use Ordinance to state when, and under which
conditions, approval would end.
Logan County Zoning Officer Will D'Andrea said the main idea is that
if Conditional Use is granted and building does not start then
within five years, the approval goes away, and you need to reapply.
For comparison, D'Andrea handed out a list of clauses from Tazewell,
McLean, Peoria, Ogle, Kendall, and Whiteside Counties to show the
committee what their clauses address. D'Andrea said they need to
consider how to structure the ordinance, how to address other
issues, how to word it, when they should allow for extensions, when
they should revoke it, and when they should cease an operation.
Committeeman Kevin Bateman said he likes the language in Tazewell,
Peoria, and Whiteside Counties conditional use clauses. Those
clauses set a specific timeline for implementation of a special use
and tell when it may be terminated or revoked.
Bateman said he does not think something has to be up and
operational, but that there should be movement forward. He said the
zoning officer should have the right to have them stop without going
before the whole board. Bateman said D'Andrea could issue a
temporary stop until the operator complies. He said if D'Andrea has
to wait for board approval, the operator could keep "churning away
at what he is doing wrong." Committee Chairman Pat O'Neill said he
agreed with Bateman.
Committeeman Gene Rohlfs said he liked McLean County's clause
because it is simple and short. He said that he would change the 24
months McLean County sets for a permit to expire to five years.
Committeeman David Blankenship said he likes McLean County's clause,
but he does not like the five year timeline. He said three years
should be plenty of time. Committeewoman Jan Schumacher said none of
the counties they were looking at have a timeline of five years.
Bateman said he is fine with three years because the operator has to
be moving forward, it is not limiting to them, and they have to be
up and running. He said a wind farm should be up and doing something
within three years.
Blankenship said after three years, there should be another permit
fee. Rohlfs said he could see allowing an extension after three
years, but after five years, there should not be an extension.
Blankenship motioned to change the time from five years to three
years. Committeeman Dave Hepler said he would vote against it
because some projects might take several years to get going.
Bateman said they are not saying a project has to be "up and going"
in three years, but there needs to be "movement forward."
Blankenship said he is looking for some kind of activity in three
years.
D'Andrea said part of the reason to have a limit is because times
change, technology changes, what you want might change,
environmental impacts might change, and the use might not be
appropriate because of development.
Bateman asked whether the three years could be amended per
application.
 D'Andrea said, no, three years would be part of the conditional use
approval.
Bateman asked, what if we put in there three years or as deemed by
the County Board?
D'Andrea said that would be too subjective. He said to give
flexibility, the board could set it at three years and allow for one
year extensions.
Hepler asked whether they can say up to five years.
Bateman asked what is wrong with an extension?
Blankenship asked whether the board would consider three years with
a one year extension, then a new permit fee.
Rohlfs said they need to look at whether there is progress being
made. He said extensions should be on a one year basis.
Bateman said, if they have not made progress in three years and they
ask for a one year extension, they need to make some movement in one
year.
Schumacher said she feels three years is the way to go.
Bateman said he would like to set the clause at three years with the
possibility of two - one year extensions, and if they have not done
anything in five years, the board should pull the plug. He said the
board has the right to say no if they have not made any progress
forward.
Blankenship said the committee needs to clarify what is meant by
meaningful progress. D'Andrea said meaningful progress is hard to
define and there are some advantages to some vagueness, and some
discretion.
Bateman asked if it was up to the board to choose whether to grant
an extension. He said they should leave some specific wording out,
so those applying for the extension have to 'sell it' and tell why
they need an extension. Rohlfs said it still needs to be clear what
meaningful progress is.
Blankenship asked when there would be another permit fee.
 D'Andrea said if they came in and had done nothing, and the Board
denied them an extension, whatever approval they had is void. They
would have to apply for a new Conditional Use.
Bateman said when they ask for extensions, they should pay a portion
of the original permit fee. D'Andrea said that fee is $235.
Blankenship said they should pay an extension fee of $235.
D'Andrea said the language in the clause needs to be specific. He
said the intent would be that the operation needs to be "up and
running" before three years is done. D'Andrea said counties use
different wording:
- Tazewell County's ordinance says if the special use granted has
not been implemented in one year, it can be rescinded.
- Kendall County says if the special use has "not been established
within two years," the board can revoke it.
- Ogle County says the special use permit shall not be valid for
longer than a year "unless the erection of a building or structure
is started."
Bateman said the Ogle County statement that the ordinance shall
only be valid one year "unless the erection of a building or
structure is started and the use is commenced within such a period."
He would like to put that sentence in the clause. He added, whether
they are starting construction or moving dirt, they are doing more
than just paperwork within three years before asking for an
extension.
[to top of second column] |
D'Andrea said he would use the committee's ideas as he writes the ordinance
using McLean's format, consider Ogle County's trigger length of one year, and
set an extension fee.
D'Andrea said revoking the approval is up to the board if the operators did not
do what they were supposed to. He said that could go to the board or Zoning
Board of Approval.
Using an example of conformity to regulation, D'Andrea said if a group was
supposed to maintain a berm and the fence got torn down, they would not be in
compliance with the express conditions of the approval to operate. He said if he
talks to them and they say they will do it, but if they do not comply, they are
in violation.
Bateman asked if there should be a set timeline for correcting the violation. He
said the only reason he would not like a timeline is if D'Andrea went out and a
fence was down in December with the grass frozen. Bateman said the 60 day
timeline would not work well then.
D'Andrea said many ordinances are not that specific. Rohlfs said that part of
McLean County' clause says the permit may be revoked "for a violation of the
codes and ordinances."
D'Andrea said they also need to decide what to do in cases of abandonment or
cease of operation. He said if a place is up and running and that use stops
operating for twelve months or two years, the approval for the particular use
for the person goes away. D'Andrea said after two years, if they thought it was
an appropriate use and someone picks it up five years from now and starts the
use again, the committee could already deem it to be okay for that location. He
said not all counties deal with the abandonment question.
Rohlfs asked about the timeline for a non-conforming use.
D'Andrea said that in the ordinance the county says if you have a non-conforming
use. He said if you had a legal use that started in 1950, and you adopt zoning
in 1970 that says the area is something else, at the time you adopted the rules
it was legal, but now has non-conforming status. D'Andrea said it is under a
grandfather clause status [which creates an exemption on previously existing
circumstances]. He said if you stop for twelve months, you have lost your
grandfather status because the intent is for that use to go away and become a
compliant use.
D'Andrea asked for a motion to write the new ordinance with "much clearer
direction" and "craft the language" to bring forward to the board.
Bateman made the motion. The committee voted to amend the sunset clause to three
years, plus two one-year extensions, with only Hepler opposing.
Hepler said the committee is making the assumption that everyone who comes to
rezone land is doing so for a project and the committee is forgetting the
planning side. He said it would be "advantageous" to have parts of the county
already pre-zoned because "a person might want to do it (rezone) so he or she
can privately go out and try and develop the county." He said they are
discouraging landowners from going out and pre-zoning so that they [the
landowner] can have developers start to look at it. Hepler said he feels that
would be "contrary to the planning side."
Bateman said he does not think it would stop anybody.
D'Andrea said 'rezoning' is different from 'Conditional Use.'
D'Andrea said that the Conditional Use Procedure says that the "Zoning Board of
Appeals and the (Regional) Planning Commission must make the findings" on the
approval criteria for Conditional Use. He said the Planning Commission has never
reviewed an application against these criteria because they are not structured
to hear both sides of the argument.
D'Andrea said they should remove the Planning Commission from the decision.
Bateman motioned to change it, and all members approved.
D'Andrea said they need to decide five or six criteria, but that discussion will
be ongoing. Rohlfs said certain conditions should be "vetted" with items such as
sound, dust, pollution, fencing, berms, groundwater, drainage, well water, and
traffic.
D'Andrea said some of the wording sounds like they are conditions rather than
criteria for approving. Blankenship said he thought they were just areas they
could apply to the 'Uses.'
Bateman said Doug Muck's mine is a good example because it is away from people's
houses. Bateman said when he and Jan Schumacher drove out there, he decided it
needed a berm. He said the committee also has the right to say they will only
give the permit to people if they look at dust or noise. Bateman does not think
they need to spell it out.
Rohlfs said they need to address how to deal with issues like sound and dust to
cover bases. Blankenship said that as a business owner, he is in favor of giving
a potential developer or business person an idea of the criteria and areas they
are looking at.
D'Andrea said he wants to know what wording the committee would like. Rohlfs
said the committee should know how they plan to address certain conditions. He
said wording could say , "Conditions to be satisfied are listed but not limited
to. . ." D'Andrea said he would work with that language.
Bateman said he does not want people not to apply because they have a noisy
machine. Rohlfs said they just need to address how to handle that issue.
Rohlfs motioned to adopt the language for Logan County's Conditional Use with
some of the additions the committee suggested, and all approved the motion.
D'Andrea said he would have complete language by the next time they meet.
The next Planning and Zoning Meeting will be Wednesday, December 2, at 6:30 p.m.
[Angela Reiners] |
