 |  |  |  |
Zoning Board recommends cutting down to five members, asks village board
not to disband zoning board
By Byron Painter
Editor
The Riverton Zoning Board last Thursday night voted to recommend to the village board that the zoning board stay intact, though with fewer members.
There are supposed to be seven members on the board, but two have resigned; two more did not show up at the meeting last week, so only three members (Cecil Funk,
Ralph Willoughby and Jim Mileham) were in attendance. Because two members resigned, leaving the board with five, the meeting had a quorum and could be conducted. Funk
was voted temporary chair.
The purpose of the public hearing was to discuss a proposed Riverton Village Board ordinance that would abolish “the Zoning Board and Plan Commission, provide for a
Hearing Officer to conduct public hearings required by the Zoning Chapter and by State law, and transfer duties of the Plan Commission to a committee of the Village Board.”
If the village were to adopt a new comprehensive plan, attorney John Myers noted, any hearings could not be done by a hearing officer.
Under the current zoning ordinance, Myers continued, if there are textual changes to the ordinance, the zoning board must hold a hearing.
Trustee Rich Pottier, one of three trustees in attendance, cited “redundancy” of the zoning board in his comments, noting that also having to go through the zoning board
“deters progress” for developers.
Both Funk and Willoughby expressed disappointment on how this situation has been handled (comments mentioning that the zoning board members did not check out the
Trader property before voting, the lack of communication between the village board and zoning board and the board not meeting as often it should, among other issues), with
Funk even asserting that the village board has already made up its mind to abolish the zoning board.
Trustee Pat Faires said budget issues were his impetus for exploring the abolition of the board; he also echoed the redundancy comments of Pottier. He is a former member
of the zoning board and left that position when he was elected to the village board.
Money budgeted for the zoning board could be used elsewhere, Faires said.
Funk disputed the redundancy, saying the zoning board members could come from different areas of town, and the zoning board also “shortens down” the village board’s
responsibility on a particular zoning issue by holding a separate meeting/hearing.
The Trader property decision permeated the meeting and was brought up more than once during the meeting (the zoning board voted down annexation, but the village board
overrode it, and now the village is being sued by one of the property owners affected).
“We felt we did what was asked of us,” said Mileham, referring to the Trader decision.
Trustee Joe Bartley then spoke; he said any decision to abolish the zoning board would not be related to any one specific decision. He said he has not decided how he will
vote.
Getting a more committed number of people for the zoning board is important to him, if the zoning board is to be kept.
Funk once again reiterated the lack of communication, and he said that the village board needs to be more responsive to the people of the village.
“I will side with the people of this village” over a developer or business, said Funk. “You guys need to talk to us too,” saying that the village board has not been fair to the zoning
board.
Bartley once again asked the three members in attendance what the best number would be; the three said that five members usually attend the meetings when they are held.
Pottier spoke again, reiterating the redundancy issue.
“I do not recall anything” at the beginning of the conversation about the job performance of the zoning board, which was alluded to during the meeting.
Budget concerns were there, but “the main focus” in Pottier’s mind was the redundancy of the zoning board.
Any developers had to start with the village superintendent, then the zoning board and then the village board, and he called it a “web of detriment” to developers/businesses.
If you have one person or five, Funk said “you would still have to go through the same hoops.”
“I do not expect them to jump through hoops,” continued Willoughby, but he expects developers to follow local ordinances, instead of granting them variance after variance.
To end the almost hour-long meeting, the zoning board voted 3-0 to recommend to the village board to keep the zoning board, and to make it a five-member board (also 3-0).
“I think it would be a mistake to go to just one individual,” said Mileham. “It will also take some time off the hands” of village board members.
The village board is expected to make a decision at the next meeting, July 19.
not to disband zoning board
By Byron Painter
Editor
The Riverton Zoning Board last Thursday night voted to recommend to the village board that the zoning board stay intact, though with fewer members.
There are supposed to be seven members on the board, but two have resigned; two more did not show up at the meeting last week, so only three members (Cecil Funk,
Ralph Willoughby and Jim Mileham) were in attendance. Because two members resigned, leaving the board with five, the meeting had a quorum and could be conducted. Funk
was voted temporary chair.
The purpose of the public hearing was to discuss a proposed Riverton Village Board ordinance that would abolish “the Zoning Board and Plan Commission, provide for a
Hearing Officer to conduct public hearings required by the Zoning Chapter and by State law, and transfer duties of the Plan Commission to a committee of the Village Board.”
If the village were to adopt a new comprehensive plan, attorney John Myers noted, any hearings could not be done by a hearing officer.
Under the current zoning ordinance, Myers continued, if there are textual changes to the ordinance, the zoning board must hold a hearing.
Trustee Rich Pottier, one of three trustees in attendance, cited “redundancy” of the zoning board in his comments, noting that also having to go through the zoning board
“deters progress” for developers.
Both Funk and Willoughby expressed disappointment on how this situation has been handled (comments mentioning that the zoning board members did not check out the
Trader property before voting, the lack of communication between the village board and zoning board and the board not meeting as often it should, among other issues), with
Funk even asserting that the village board has already made up its mind to abolish the zoning board.
Trustee Pat Faires said budget issues were his impetus for exploring the abolition of the board; he also echoed the redundancy comments of Pottier. He is a former member
of the zoning board and left that position when he was elected to the village board.
Money budgeted for the zoning board could be used elsewhere, Faires said.
Funk disputed the redundancy, saying the zoning board members could come from different areas of town, and the zoning board also “shortens down” the village board’s
responsibility on a particular zoning issue by holding a separate meeting/hearing.
The Trader property decision permeated the meeting and was brought up more than once during the meeting (the zoning board voted down annexation, but the village board
overrode it, and now the village is being sued by one of the property owners affected).
“We felt we did what was asked of us,” said Mileham, referring to the Trader decision.
Trustee Joe Bartley then spoke; he said any decision to abolish the zoning board would not be related to any one specific decision. He said he has not decided how he will
vote.
Getting a more committed number of people for the zoning board is important to him, if the zoning board is to be kept.
Funk once again reiterated the lack of communication, and he said that the village board needs to be more responsive to the people of the village.
“I will side with the people of this village” over a developer or business, said Funk. “You guys need to talk to us too,” saying that the village board has not been fair to the zoning
board.
Bartley once again asked the three members in attendance what the best number would be; the three said that five members usually attend the meetings when they are held.
Pottier spoke again, reiterating the redundancy issue.
“I do not recall anything” at the beginning of the conversation about the job performance of the zoning board, which was alluded to during the meeting.
Budget concerns were there, but “the main focus” in Pottier’s mind was the redundancy of the zoning board.
Any developers had to start with the village superintendent, then the zoning board and then the village board, and he called it a “web of detriment” to developers/businesses.
If you have one person or five, Funk said “you would still have to go through the same hoops.”
“I do not expect them to jump through hoops,” continued Willoughby, but he expects developers to follow local ordinances, instead of granting them variance after variance.
To end the almost hour-long meeting, the zoning board voted 3-0 to recommend to the village board to keep the zoning board, and to make it a five-member board (also 3-0).
“I think it would be a mistake to go to just one individual,” said Mileham. “It will also take some time off the hands” of village board members.
The village board is expected to make a decision at the next meeting, July 19.
Issue Date: July 15, 2010
