[August 09, 2013]The Logan County Planning and
Zoning Committee met for their monthly meeting on Wednesday.
Committee members present were Pat O'Neill, Kevin Bateman, Robert
Farmer and Jan Schumacher, along with Will D'Andrea, Logan County
zoning officer.
In addition, there were nearly 50 guests, most of whom were curious
as to recent discussions the committee has been having concerning
zoning laws.
The discussions arose with a recent land rezoning.
There was a lack of a precedent for this specific type of
conditional use permit and a subsequent lack of guidelines. Doug
Muck, the owner of the rezoned land, was one of the guests present
at the meeting.
In December, the county board voted to approve the rezoning of
Muck's land to M-3 extraction for the purpose of mining. In the
following months, an appeal was filed by the Schreiner family, one
of the neighbors of the potential limestone mine.
At the July meeting of the committee, D'Andrea was instructed to
begin looking into new language for conditional use zoning. The
process would be a series of written drafts containing new language,
followed by approval from the committee with each draft. The
committee members agreed that this should be done to aid in similar
future endeavors.
As part of the discussions, it was also decided that the
committee would ask for legal counsel from State's Attorney Jonathan
Wright. Wright has now sent a letter to the committee, which was
quoted by the board members as saying: "It is my advice, as the
legal counsel for Logan County, that the proposed amendments be
postponed indefinitely, until the pending litigation has been
resolved."
Robert Farmer, county board chairman, said that as a result, the
discussions on the matter would cease after the meeting, and no
action would be taken. He added that public comments could still be
taken.
Kevin Inman of Inman Trucking, a guest at the meeting, said he
does not understand why the board would be trying to reverse their
decision to approve the land for mining.
Kevin Bateman said there has not been any intention to reverse
the vote, only to look into new legislation for the future.
Jan Schumacher agreed, saying that new legislation would have
nothing to do with what has been decided in the past.
Inman suggested to the committee multiple times that Logan County
should seek injunctive relief on the appeal while it is in the state
court.
Muck disagreed with Bateman and Schumacher, saying he had
listened to Bateman's comments at previous committee meetings.
"He (Bateman) sought an amended ordinance and declared that there
was no need to wait for the state's attorney to give an opinion,"
Muck said. He quoted Bateman as saying, "‘With the exemptions
provided by new ordinance, Doug Muck's land would not have an
operating mine, so it would not be exempted.'"
Bateman said he had only been asking D'Andrea if Muck would have
to go through a new hearing.
Muck also quoted D'Andrea as saying, "If we pass that ordinance
and it withstands attack, he would have to go through another zoning
proceeding."
Muck also pointed to a quote by Bateman in which Bateman referred
to Muck as a liar and indicated that Muck had provided false
information concerning a signed document with Hanson, the company
that would be operating the mine. Muck said that such a document was
irrelevant to the issue that has arisen.
"I don't know where you're coming from, but you gave me a cause
of action against you and the county if I want to bring it," said
Muck.
Muck told Bateman he wants to know why Bateman made the comments
he made and why he was so eager to see new legislation passed on
this issue.
Bateman said he originally wanted to table the conversations,
beginning in January, until after the pending appeal. Bateman said
he made the motions he made in July because "we (the committee) were
under the assumption that the state's attorney said we could move
forward with a discussion." He added: "Nothing came forward out of
this committee to change mining."
Schumacher read from a copy of the meeting minutes from July.
Originally, a motion was made to move permitted uses in an M-3
district (mining is one of these uses) to special use under an ag
district. After discussion, the motion was withdrawn, and a new
motion was approved to begin discussions about new language.
"The motion was directing Mr. D'Andrea to put together new
language that we could look at for discussion," said Schumacher. She
added that since then, Wright has advised that the committee cease
the discussions, and that is now the committee's intent.
Bateman added that he was one of the 10 board members who voted
to approve the rezoning in December, and he only wanted to see a
discussion on a new ordinance. Furthermore, mining is only one of
the uses that fall under M-3 as it stands.
"I don't know where this is coming from," Bateman said. "I just
wanted to move forward on some zoning changes that we have been
discussing. … The only motion that was made was to move forward to
discuss it. It never left this committee."
Comments were made by multiple guests that from their
perspective, the county board was backing down from their vote in
December, and that stalling the mine's operation will prevent growth
in the county.
Schumacher and Bateman both said there was no intention to back
down from their decision to approve the rezone.
"To bring things forward for discussion does not mean you're
anti-growth," said Schumacher.
Laurie Muck added that additional legislation would only make it
harder for anyone in the future who wants to operate a mine in Logan
County, and she asked why the county would want to make this harder
on corporations.
"Why are we seeking to condition that use?" asked Laurie Muck.
"I didn't know any of this was a problem until 48 hours ago,"
said Bateman. "When this blows over, feel free to come to the zoning
meetings, because I think the word ‘conditional use' is being ramped
up. If you listen to the discussions, we're not putting huge
conditional uses on it, and there was a discussion if we moved it to
conditional use, that it would be too stifling, so we reversed our
conversation to bring it back to M-3 and change some of the
conditions to be more pro-business."
Bateman added that he had no agenda behind his comments, and he
thinks everything has been blown out of proportion. Bateman
apologized to Muck for any offensive remarks, saying that he has a
habit of getting caught up in the heat of the moment during a
discussion.
"This was a surprise to me," said Bateman.
At the end of the meeting, the committee voted to follow Wright's
recommendation. As a result, no more discussions or actions will be
taken on this topic until the pending litigation has been decided
upon.
