|
 Present: Pat O’Neill; Emily Davenport; Kevin Bateman; Gene
Rohlfs; Dave Hepler; Dave Blankenship
Absent: Guests: Gary, Logan County Farm Bureau; Angela Reiners;
Jan Schumacher Staff: Will D’Andrea
Mr. O’Neill called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
A motion was made by Mrs. Davenport, seconded by Mr. Rohlfs, to
approve the minutes from the October 7, 2015 meeting as printed.
Motion passed.
Old Business:
Subdivisions Ordinance Rewrite: Mr. D’Andrea reported no
meeting was held in October. He will schedule a meeting with Mr.
Bateman and Mrs. Schumacher before next month.
Sunset Clause for Conditional Use: Mr. D’Andrea questioned
how to structure the ordinance language; should it be a simple
statement summarizing the 5 year deadline or make it complex where
it addresses other issues as well.
 Mr. Bateman stated he liked the premise of requiring forward
movement but not necessarily being operational within the 5 year
deadline. He expressed his interest in the Zoning Officer having the
power to issue a temporary stop without having to go before the full
Board.
Mr. Blankenship stated he preferred a 3 year deadline. A motion was
made by Mr. Blankenship, seconded by Mr. Rohlfs, to amend last
month’s motion by setting the sunset clause for 3 years on all
conditional use permits. Motion passed.
Mr. Hepler stated that he disagrees with the 3 year deadline because
some projects may take several years due to the planning, which may
not look like ‘forward movement’.
Mr. D’Andrea clarified that this sunset clause would not apply to
subdivisions.
Mr. Hepler stated his concern that the committee is assuming that
everyone that is coming to rezone land is for a project and
overlooking that it is sometimes advantageous to have parts of the
County pre-zoned for private development; he said it will discourage
rural land owners from pre-zoning for developers to look at it for
possibilities.
Mr. D’Andrea explained that the need for a time limit stems from the
time, technology, and community changes that take place during the
process that could negate the appropriateness of a previously
approved project.
Mr. Bateman inquired about amending the clause per application; Mr.
D’Andrea said no, it would be a set part of the conditional use
approval and he is uncomfortable with the idea of it being
subjective.
Mr. Hepler inquired about whether the Board can draft the language
to say “up to 5 years.”
Mr. Rohlfs discussed setting the extensions to a deadline of 1 year
each.
Mr. Blankenship discussed limiting the number of extensions allowed.
Mrs. Schumacher agreed that a 3 year sunset clause with up to 2
extensions is preferable.
 A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mr. Rohlfs, to amend
the original motion by setting the sunset clause for 3 years on all
conditional use permits with the ability to request up to 2 one-year
extensions with an extension fee equal to the original permit fee.
Motion passed.
Mr. Blankenship addressed setting the standards for what constitutes
enough progress for an extension.
Mr. D’Andrea expressed that would be a difficult standard to set and
the advantage of having some vagueness and discretion as to what
constitutes a meaningful improvement.
[to top of second column] |
 Mr. Bateman discussed setting at least one guideline of forward
movement as some form of actual construction work begun within the 3
years and not just paperwork or planning.
Mr. D’Andrea discussed the revocation clause (McLean #3) and
abandonment clause (Mclean #2). He addressed removing RPC from
Criteria section as it has never reviewed an application against the
criteria, nor is it structured to hear both pros and cons of the
issue.
A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mr. Blankenship, to
strike the Regional Planning Commission from the Criteria Section.
Motion passed.
Mr. D’Andrea addressed the Definitions of Conditional Use (15.10)
saying “Planning Commission” because that’s the role of Zoning Board
of Appeals.
A motion was made by Mr. Bateman, seconded by Mr. Blankenship, to
remove the name of the Planning Commission and insert ZBA. Motion
passed.
Mr. D’Andrea addressed the approval criteria.
Mr. Rohlfs stated he would like to expand approval criteria #1 to
include language adding specific conditions, such as “conditions to
be satisfied are listed, but not limited to: sound, dust, pollution,
fencing, berms, aesthetics, vibration, ground water, drainage, well
water, and traffic” so that the Board and ZBA know exactly what they
have to consider.
Mr. Rohlfs would like to expand #2 to include language
“establishment of property value at (whose?) expense, prior to 1
year of operation of the establishment.” Mr. Rohlfs said it would be
the same criteria in #2 that is listed in updated #1 with the
addition of the property value.
Mr. D’Andrea expressed his concern over the wording sound like
actual conditions instead of criteria for approval.
Mr. Blankenship expressed that he believed the wording spelled out
areas for applying conditions.
Mr. Bateman stated he does not believe it needs to be spelled out
specifically.
 Mr. Blankenship stated that he thinks business owners will want to
know what criteria is going to be looked at. A motion was made by
Mr. Rohlfs, seconded by Mr. Blankenship, to adopt this language for
Logan County’s Conditional Use Approval Criteria. Motion passed.
Mining Rezoning: Nothing new to report. Remove from agenda.
New Business: None.
Zoning Officer’s Report: The Enterprise Zone application is
still in the approval process, but it should be in good shape to
make an application for December.
Public comments: None
Communications: None
A motion was made by Mr. Rohlfs, seconded by Mr. Bateman, to approve
the bills. Motion passed.
A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, seconded by Mr. Rohlfs, to
adjourn the meeting. Motion passed. Meeting ended at 7:25 pm.
[Copied from Logan County website] |
