Regional Planning Commission discusses the Ordinance

[January 15, 2016]  LINCOLN - At the Regional Planning Commission meeting, Zoning Officer Will D'Andrea explained changes to the ordinance, added criteria, time limits, and reasons for revoking approval.

D'Andrea said the Regional Planning Commission will be removed from decisions about Conditional Uses since they are not set up to hear both pro and con arguments.

Regional Planning Commission chairman Bill Graff said the commission would need to vote to approve, reject, or move forward with changes, sending their recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Commission member Fred Finchum read a letter from Dennis Mirek of the International Union of Operating Engineers which says the Union is concerned about the changes, feels they restrict flexibility, have discouraging language that will not promote economic development due to the three year time limits, and suggests that limits should be considered project by project. The letter closed with Mirek and the Union recommending the Logan County Regional Planning Commission and Logan County Board reject the amendments.

Commission member Blair Hoerbert said he is concerned by the time limits and lack of flexibility, too.

Commission member Becky Werth said three years seems like a short time for projects like wind farms and said she would be happier with a five year time length. She said having to go through public hearings to get one year extensions could drive away business.

Graff asked how much progress would be considered enough and whether projects just need to be started or to be completed in three years.

County Board member Gene Rohlfs said that would be considered when the board sees how much has been done. He said the intent is constructive progress rather actual construction, and the time allowed is more liberal than most counties.

D'Andrea said erection of a building or structure should be started or evidence of use must be present, though various circumstances could be considered.

Graff said maybe the application could have time limits based on how large the project is, and they could look at them case-by-case.

County Highway Engineer Brett Aukamp asked if other counties had it set up that way.

D'Andrea said other counties do not consider case-by-case because there would be "too much discretion" on time limits.

Commission member Jim Vipond said he thought it might cause problems if some were allowed five years and others only three.

Doug Muck said some of the language should be reworked. Muck said he wants to see the guidelines saying that an operation will not be "detrimental" changed to "substantially detrimental" to soften it. He said in the past, people have sued when there was a failure to follow procedures.
Muck said that when the Sunset Clause says the permit will expire in three years "unless the erection of a building or structure has been started," it would eliminate his use of portable equipment, so he feels that should be more specific.

Muck said a nearby sand and gravel pit has been shut down, but still has reserves, and the language in the clause would not allow them to restart. He said the board should have the power to waive the clause under certain circumstances.

Muck said since moving between parcels for mining would take several years, he would have to keep asking for extensions, though the Board said that is not their intent. He said mining companies fear they will lose the ability to mine the other pieces of land, and want assurances they can operate for many years.

Laurie Muck said the county may be chasing businesses away with no guarantee of many years of business. Companies do not like deadlines since they do not have total control over timetables.

She cautioned the commission to read the statutes together because some may say, "that is not what I meant," but it goes by what it says.

Guest Melanie Blankenship said Sunset Clauses keep communities from looking decrepit if projects are not finished. She did not agree that it would reduce economic development.

Commission member Marty Neitzel said there needs to be consistency or lawsuits may come.

Werth said she would not recommend the Sunset Clause based on the wording and feels it should be more broadly stated.

Commission member Fred Finchum said the intent is not completely clear in the clause, and he does not want the clause to be so restrictive that it steers businesses away.

Zoning Board of Appeals member Scott Noltensmeier said he likes setting a timeline.

Commission member Jeff Hoinacki said they should just recommend parts of the ordinance.
 

Werth said the ordinance should be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Committee for a rewrite to define abandonment, add language about progress being made on a project, add a waiver clause, and allow the zoning officer to grant extensions rather than making operators go through another public hearing. They should not have to prove the project again after three years.

Aukamp said the Sunset Clause should not apply to situations for projects that are in two counties.

The Regional Planning Commission motioned to approve the document with the five amendments.

[Angela Reiners]