|
 The
new business focused on the 'sunset clause' [which is part of a law
or contract that states when it will end or the conditions under
which it will end] and how it will affect conditional uses.
Logan County Zoning Officer, Will D'Andrea explained that the
issue came up as he has been going through some applications for
conditional uses and stated a five-year sunset clause would be
associated with Relight. He said that there is currently no sunset
clause [written into the Logan County conditional use ordinance],
but wants the committee to consider putting it into their
ordinances. D'Andrea handed out packets showing examples from other
counties and the language they have for sunset clauses, and said
some even deal with revocation of permits.
Committee chairman, Pat O'Neill, asked if the board would have a say
in how these clauses work. D'Andrea replied that for new
applications if the applicants receive approval but do not do
anything in that five-year period, the approval would expire and
they would have to apply under the current criteria.
Committeeman Kevin Bateman said he and D'Andrea have discussed
keeping it as simple as possible. Bateman inquired whether they
could legally put in the ordinance that it would revert back to the
previous zone if applicants have done nothing in five years.
D'Andrea said he was unsure. For clarification, Bateman then asked
if they put a five year sunset clause on an area zoned for something
such mining conditional use, whether it would revert back or whether
the same people would have to reapply for their conditional use.
D'Andrea asserted that the applicants would have to reapply and it
would be the same with Relight, who would also need re-approval if
they have not done anything after five years.
Bateman noted that in discussions with D'Andrea, the issue was
not that the project had to be done, but that there had to be some
movement forward, citing the example of the ethanol plant that just
sat there with nothing being done. Bateman said he wants to keep
land from sitting there with no potential use to it. He feels that
there should be some kind of plan within five years and D'Andrea
agreed that there should be some kind of concept or plan within that
time period.
Committeeman Jan Schumacher asked whether this ordinance would
apply to entities that have permits now and D'Andrea noted that it
would affect just future applicants.
O'Neill asked whether they should extend the policy to other
permits, but Board Chairman David Hepler said it is more of a
planning tool for other properties.
Doug Muck, who has a rezoning application for mining pending,
mentioned AOM spending a long time on a project that because of a
change in the power rates made the project temporarily economically
infeasible. Rather than "sunsetting" a project that a group is still
working on, Muck suggested looking at the circumstances. He believes
a uniform sunset clause would not be practical and finds that
looking at each one on a case-by-case basis is better. Bateman
concurred that is the reason he likes the specifications in Peoria
County's ordinance, which says there has to be a reason to take a
permit away.
D'Andrea suggested structuring the language to allow requests for
extensions, taking into consideration changes in technology or
changes in regulations. He feels that it would be advantageous to
have some kind of criteria for granting extensions.
Bateman said he likes the simple language in Peoria and Ogle
Counties' standards, stipulating a certain number of years for a
permit. D'Andrea said that if the committee looks at the packets of
the seven counties, they can get a "flavor" of what they are looking
at and customize and choose which "flavor" to adopt.
When the floor was opened up for public comments, Glenda
Downing's comments spurred much further discussion on the topics of
conditional use criteria. Downing said she is glad the committee is
considering putting in the sunset clause because she is "very
uncomfortable with the conditional use ordinance we have now for the
M3 extraction" and feels it is "very vague." She explained that
Livingston County has a four page detailed ordinance for mining
extraction, and says she does not see any "specific uses" in Logan
County's zoning ordinance. Downing wondered if the sunset clause
applied to the mining extraction and Bateman stated that he did not
believe it would apply since the area is zoned with a conditional
use permit. D'Andrea explained that since Muck has not yet applied
for a conditional use of the actual use, the clause could possibly
affect future conditions. Downing expressed her concern about the
lack of specificity in the ordinance noting other counties have
specifics for conditional uses for these permits.
Bateman said he does not like specifics because he wants look at
each and every application and look at the specifics for that
application, that site, those neighbors, those conditions, and does
not want a set of rules when each place may be different. As Bateman
further explained, he wants to look at each thing separately and
make a decision based on those merits.
[to top of second column] |
Downing inquired whether there had been an application made for
conditional use for the mining extraction and was told that there
had not, though there had been discussions. Downing wanted to make
sure "specifics" were listed and pointed out that she had read the
Livingston County which even dictates how deep a mine can be.
Bateman said that when considering the mining issue, he would want
look at all the land around it and the conditions based on the
homes, the geography, and everything else pertaining to it. Bateman
then said if Muck wanted to mine in the center of land he owns, and
it does not affect anything, he does not feel it is a problem.
Bateman reiterated that he does not want to be tied down to
specifics.
Downing stated that while she is not against the mine, she just
wants to make sure that there are controls, and that Logan County is
part of that.
Rohlfs reported that the committee had earlier received some
conditional use comparisons from counties such as Whiteside County,
which he felt had a good list of criteria to consider, such as
special setbacks and buffers, fences and/or walls, lighting, sewer
and water (both for operation and for neighbors), paving and parking
areas, regulation of time for certain activities, regulation of
noise, regulation of signs, and conditions for each individual case.
Rohlfs asserted that if the committee added something like this list
to the five criteria they already have, they could see what they
need to satisfy for each one. Bateman agreed that it could be
helpful to read each one, skipping over some and adding others, it
would satisfy the specifics Downing is asking for.
Muck pointed out that when it comes to conditional use, the more
population density that exists, that more control is required over
land use; noting that in cities like Chicago with more complex
projects, light and air have to be more controlled. He acknowledged
that it is good to have standards, but said if the committee wants
to maintain flexibility, the zoning office might want to use terms
such as "may include the following." Muck said that in larger
cities, the zoning board may consist of engineers and architects who
study certain areas and bring the recommendations forward, and noted
that Logan County does not have such people on the board, but
usually has to hire them. Muck pointed out the need to think all
conditions through for each instance and suggested sending out
solicitations to business people and other entities involved in
these types of activities for ideas about what they think is right.
He noted that some clauses were written for major metropolitan areas
like Chicago and do not apply to areas like Lincoln.
Schumacher mentioned that the reason the committee went to
conditional use was to help set conditions. Downing said she wished
she had known that before and said we need to think about the uses
when it comes to any company. In wrapping the discussion up,
D'Andrea suggested that they look at some of the criteria and
perhaps add them into the sunset clause.
D'Andrea then provided the update on the subdivision ordinances
rewrite, noting that he has regrouped, reorganized, and
reconstructed areas of the ordinance, especially the sections that
had some outstanding questions associated with them. Those sections
were now compiled and sent them off to Jan Schumacher and Kevin
Bateman for their review and comments. Bateman said he hopes to vote
on it next month.
D'Andrea also plans to work on certification documents, see what is
required in the preliminary plat, checklists, and figure out how to
tie in road sections.
In other business, D'Andrea reported that he is continuing to
work on the Enterprise Zone application that will eventually go to
the city and then to the county for review and approval. He is
drawing boundaries, looking through legal descriptions, and
reviewing a draft ordinance with city of Lincoln administrator, Clay
Johnson.
The next Planning and Zoning meeting will be October 7th at 6:30
p.m. [Angela Reiners] |
