Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Tarry Feiss, Nick Held, Ken Nelson, Robert Laws, Dennis Kraus, Jr., and Ralph Thompson.
Absent: Mark Mitter and Patrick DeMaynadier
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Planning Director, Mike Ionna, Assistant Planner shared with West Harrison and St. Leon, and Arnie McGill, Attorney. Absent: Kate Rademacher, Enforcement Officer
1.Variance for driveway spacing to allow direct access to Lake Tambo Rd (a collector)was granted to Eugene and Melanie Cappel for 31.5 acres for their son to build a home on the family farm I Jackson Township. Dennis Kraus , Jr. stepped down for this item and his father, Dennis Kraus Sr. presented the case for the Cappels. Sight distance was 1000 ft in each direction and the driveway access was needed in this area to prevent using up space for eth soybean fields and accessory barn. Thompson motioned and Nelson 2nd to grant the 137 ft variance because it met all 4 criteria though Thompson questioned the one about “public morals.”
Nelson also asked for clarification on the difference between subdivision ordinance variances and dimensional variances.
2.Proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance were discussed:
Section 1640 changed the language to allow more than one person to decide whether a change to a development plan was major or minor- it is now proposed to have tech review look at them rather than just the Planning director. More examples of minor changes were discussed and it was noted that minor changes can have a cumulative effect- therefore they were only going to allow one per year- if more they have to go to PC. Most of these used examples of issues with Sugar Ridge, where they did some changes and considered even the lawns on each lot as part of the “open space” requirements in a so -called minor change. Thompson motioned and Feiss 2nded to do more review on this. All ayes.
Section 315 on conditional use permits – particularly multi-family housing was approved to go to the commissioners with Thompson motioning and Feiss 2nd all ayes. It includes language encouraging concept development plans for these cases. These uses go to both PC and BZA. There will eventually be more residential divisions in the code. As an aside it was noted that Farruggia had lost their options on the Stateline Road property for Classic Properties, a case where this multifamily use might have been used.
Sewage and water supply ordinance was discussed with a presentation from John Grace of the County Health Dept. This was difficult to follow without seeing the actual language changes and Grace’s presentation had some VERY SMALL text. The PC members were given written copies.
Ewbank had prepared a version of this ordinance at Hughes’s request and the PC had 60 days to act upon it. There was concern that the commissioner’s version was not legal as it was less stringent than the state requirements.
Grace stressed that the Health Dept works with people to allow time to fix their septic tanks and leach fields. He also noted that there is NO GRANDFATHERING of older approved systems that are no longer approved by the health dept. There have been numerous issues with requests to remodel homes, build pools, or pole barns where NO ADDITIONAL LOAD is put on the septic system and yet the permit requires the system to be checked to get the permit. The Health Dept recommended they leave the ordinance as is or use #2, #3 with setbacks changed to 50 ft on the downhill side of the leach field, or develop another option with Plan Dept, Health Dept, and Building dept. input. Grace also cited Ind Adm Code Rule 410 and bulletin SE 11.
Thompson was concerned they would use reviewing septic supply to force people onto sewers. Grace said that in areas with small lots there were no options except costly ones.
Thompson motioned and Laws 2nd to do option #3 as proposed by the Planning Dept with changes to be 50 ft on the downhill side of the leach field as a minimum distance for the building. Passed to go to commissioners for approval.
Thompson also suggested they look at SDRSD and Greendale in particular to see how public sewer systems should be built.
ADMINISTRATIVE:
Staff is working on grants to help Bright Fire Dept get water tanker. Hoping to get $100,000 from Lawrenceburg for this as the increased development in the area has overloaded Bright’s ability to handle it all financially.
Margaret Minzner (GIS) also helped them with their FEMA grant.
There was a vague question regarding someone approaching the PC next month and whether or not it should be on their agenda.
The future land use material will be available around the end of June and the PC plans to have the public hearing in August or September to be sure to set it at a time where most people are NOT on vacation.
McCormack also noted there was some talk at the last Advisory Board Meeting for the Master plan about getting outsiders to help with maps. He noted historically this has not been successful with Corradino and HNTB plans failing and more recently the Capital Improvement Plan and parts of the Sewer Study even. He wanted the PC to let him know if they wanted to pursue this or if they wanted staff to change their approach. Thompson told him that he wanted to commend staff on how they handled the planned and the data they produced. He asked that they not feel the frustrations of the committee were addressed to them specifically. PC members seemed to concur with this- nodding as he said that.
The fiscal impact model is being considered with OKI and the County Extension office as sources.
Staff is also working on amendments to the zoning districts.
Staff requested a change in the code to upgrade costs for certified mail to reflect new postal rates. Granted.
Two places were open for a seminar on Tuesday evening on Historical and Preservation Codes. Plan members will let Cathy know if they can attend.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
16 comments:
This process needs to be reviewed by a professional consultant because the advisory committee is just that an "Advisory Committee".
Ex: Just like building a new church, you will have a "Steering Committee deterimining needs, then the professionals design the structure, engineer the building structure and so forth.
Zoning, to have any meaning or impact, must remain consistent.
If folks spend their hard-earned dollars to purchase or maintain land that is zoned, for example, agricultural, it is unconscionable to permit speculators to purchase land within such zoning parameters and sanction any and all zoning changes to meet and be in line with said speculators’ business plans.
Zoning gives evidence to all what is expected and allowable.
However, to some, zoning permits the purchase of land and properties at lower rates than other commercial properties, then, utilizing their considerable political sway, they plead to their installed political operatives, that said zoning negatively affects their property rights and they should be permitted to develop their properties to the fullest extent, with little or no regard to fellow landowners, infrastructure or the like.
This cannot be condoned.
"This process needs to be reviewed by a professional consultant because the advisory committee is just that an "Advisory Committee".
The process IS constantly reviewed and guided by a professional- what do you think the County Planning Director is? Plus there are professionals on the Advisory Board and their are professionals on teh Plan Commission.
"The process IS constantly reviewed and guided by a professional..."
Some of the PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE exhibited in the past:
"Most of these used examples of issues with Sugar Ridge, where they did some changes and considered even the lawns on each lot as part of the “open space” requirements in a so -called minor change."
This makes a joke of both the Intent and the Spirit of the land planning process.
Too long this joke has been perpetuated on the taxpayers of this County for the benefit of the politically connected few!
The planning director never once said his expert opinion to the committee. He only did what the loudest told him to do. It was a poor planning process. Name the professional experts on the advisory committee and when you do tell me why you never listened to them. It was always alternate A or AA or AAA because it was less growth. What a silly process.
"The planning director never once said his expert opinion to the committee. He only did what the loudest told him to do. It was a poor planning process. Name the professional experts on the advisory committee and when you do tell me why you never listened to them. It was always alternate A or AA or AAA because it was less growth. What a silly process."
All parties who may have been unhappy with the manner(s) in which the future land use planning process has been handled / has evolved have had more than one outlet to address their concerns. Those who are taking personal shots the Planning Director, the staff, the Plan Commission, and the Advisory Committee should do their homework on these individuals and take their problems to these parties--rather than take easy, 'cheap shots' on them on this website.
All individuals, including the Planning Director and the other aforementioned individuals, asserted their recommendations and personal opinions--to the extent possible with a sixty person working group and a very involved public. Further, what is "silly" is the idea that attention was only given to the "loudest" people who bothered to show up and participate at meetings. Were the future land use workshops, surveys, advisory committee, and all other efforts supposed to just be 'for show'?
I wonder how much the person who posted the quote above really knows--and cares--about planning for the people...
I also believe that the Future Land Use map is not created as a good planning tool. It does need to be reviewed by an outside Planning Consultant. It would be wise to get some review for some suggestions or ideas we might be missing. These could be ideas or suggestions we are missing because most people are suck in their own little world. The map does not include any of the things from Map C which was what the other half of the county voted on during the public vote. I think there should be a mix of the two maps.
I also believe the the professionals at the Advisory Committee meetings were not listened to by the citizens.
Also there is Planning for the people and there is Planning for disaster. The Plan AA which is up for review is a plan for disaster for the county which will altimately be bad for the people.
Your opinions and contributions to this process have no doubt been noted, if you in fact were an active participant in this process...YOU represent 1 / 50000, so you certainly cannot speak for an entire 'half' of the county!
I would like to know where the realtors/developers got the idea that those of us who have lived in the County all our lives, or those who chose to move here, somehow have deep-seeded desires to turn our country side into another Hamilton, Butler or Warren County?
Maybe I live a sheltered life...but I have yet to meet one person who pines for the urban/suburban headaches of our neighboring counties in neighboring states.
I have contributed to this process of the Future Land Use Map and the Comprehensive Plan. Also I have been very active in the process. I guess I should correct myself in saying that the other half I refered to was in regards to the received surveys. Since the entire county did not vote I don't think anyone should be able to say one map wins over the other. So for that reason I believe the Map A and Map C should have both been considered and combined.
Also just because you have growth does not mean you will be like Hamilton or Butler Counties. I live in this county and I believe that there should be open spaces and agricultural areas. But I also believe that we need Commercial and Industrial Development. Just to say that this county should not have residential, commercial or industrial development is close-minded. Growth is going to happen as long as everyone still has the dream of having a family. The Future Land Use Map is a way to direct growth and the Zoning Codes and Subdivision Regulations are a way to make sure the quality and designs are structured to maintain the character, open space and agricultural desires of this County.
The Future Land Use Map is a way to direct growth and the Zoning Codes and Subdivision Regulations are a way to make sure the quality and designs are structured to maintain the character, open space and agricultural desires of this County.
The Future Land Use Map is only of value if followed.
As long as the developers and realtors have their hand-picked minions installed in the political process, the Land Use Map can be nit-picked into insignificance.
Development is fine. Development intiated from already existing infasatructure is fine.
It is the leap-frogging, that, if permitted, will ruin the rural character of the county.
Simply because a land speculator can make more money developing farmland for industry and its like, does not mean the taxpayers have to subsidize their incomes by permiting every zone change that feeds their needs.
Finally, the secretive process of the DCEDI, concerning development, needs to be abrogated.
And please, if you do respond to my comment, please address the secretive, closed door manner in which the DCEDI conducts discussions and planning concerning OUR County.
In the past, DCEDI types have been loath to discuss this aspect of their "closed" process.
Since the entire county did not vote I don't think anyone should be able to say one map wins over the other.
Only in the world of "American Idol" do we see large numbers of folks voting.
That said, we can only go by the "hard" numbers, of those who did feel strong enough to participate in the surveys, what the majority mindset is.
Further, development, in the abstract, is always more palatable to the citizens, as compared to real development, in the "backyards" of the of such citizens. This factor, alone, has a direct impact on the individual feelings of the citizens, on whether "development" adds to or subtracts from their respective qualities of life.
"I also believe that the Future Land Use map is not created as a good planning tool. It does need to be reviewed by an outside Planning Consultant."
If, in fact, additional planning consultants would be involved with our local planning processes, what kind of success could be reasonably expected?
Who would select these consultants?
What type of background / criteria would be used to select these consultants?
How involved would these consultants be in the community?
How would all of the affected groups receive these consultants?
Is it likely that all of the affected parties would be satisfied that the consultants' recommendations and findings are objective--rather than subjective?
How much more time and money would it cost the county taxpayers to bring in these consultants?
What do we do with all of these consultants and their recommendations and findings in the end?...Let's not forget to consider the history of consultants' track records in the county.
These are all things that should be considered before we bite into those bullets.
Well- let's look at how great the county did at picking their latest consultant- Vieste,LLC. It's hard to have confidence in county selections lately.
Outside consultants do not CARE about the county the way the citizens do.
"It's hard to have confidence in county selections lately."
Consultants should be hired with the benefit of the ENTIRE community in mind, not just the few, interested and conflicted, who view County Goverment as their personal cash cow.
Consultants should not be hired and utilized to find ways around public consensus but should instead be used to integrate and work within the parameters of public consensus and the wishes of the community at large.
"I wonder how much the person who posted the quote above really knows--and cares--about planning for the people..."
"People", as defined:
$5,000 a member, mostly Developers, Bankers and Realtors, members in good standing, DCEDI "People."
Post a Comment