2009-08-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Issue: Determination as to uses not listed. for the Planning Whe zoning code currently provides a mechanismg Commission to determine if a use not specifically listed as permitted, either outright or conditionally, is similar enough in character and impact to those uses which are specifically listed and should be permitted, in the same manner and to the same extent. Any property owner adversely affected by a negative decision of the Commission must appeal the Commission's decision directly to Chancery Court . The Planning Commission does not believe it is appropriate to force a property owner to immediately incur legal expenses in order to appeal a decision of the Commission. The Commission believes that the initial appeal should be to the City Council. Recommendation: Strike the reference to Chancery Court and insert City Council. More specifically, Revise Section X., Subsection VII. E. as follows: E. After the Planning Commission has made a determination,any aggrieved person may appeal such determination to the C-mteery-Getnt City Council. Issue: Conditional Use process The current zoning code allows for certain uses to be permitted in a given zoning district only after the conduct of a public hearing scheduled by the Board of Zoning Adjustment; authority for approving or �nying such a conditional use is further assigned to the Board. There are two major issues: first, by specifically requiring that the Board schedule the public hearing, and because a minimum fifteen day advance legal notice of the hearing is required, an applicant is forced to wait longer than necessary to receive a determination. It would be more efficient to allow the Enforcement Officer to schedule the hearing and initiate the required notices, rather than wait until the next meeting for the Board to act. Normally a public hearing can be scheduled at the next regular meeting following the required fifteen day notice. If time is of the essence, the Enforcement Officer can notify the Chairman of the desirability of a special called meeting. Secondly, state law requires the creation of a Board of Zoning Adjustfrtent and specifies that its duties are to hear appeals from decisions of the enforcement officer and decide on certain requests for variances from the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance. Decisions of the Board can only be appealed to"a court of record having jurisdiction." The Planning Commission does not believe that decisions regarding use should reside with the Board; this would appear to be inconsistent with the statutory intent of the Board, which is specifically limited in its ability to authorize a variance in use. It is not aware of any other city in the state where the planning commission is not assigned this responsibility. More importantly, the Commission believes that applicants should not be forced to immediately appeal a conditional use decision to the courts, but should have to ability to appeal a decision to the City Council first. Recommendation: Move the conditional use process to the Planning Commission, add a definition of "Conditional Use", and allow the Enforcement Officer to schedule required public hearings. More specifically, ittp://docs.google.com/Edit?docid=d22b6fb_12dhg2hjfb Page 2 of 5