edward
02-03-2009, 02:41 PM
County planning department looks to streamline rezoning
Staff may consider adding new zoning categories
By Shar Porier
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 04:16:35 am MST
BISBEE — When someone requests a rezoning, the applicant may not be aware that the new designation could make existing structures on the property out of compliance, due to set-back requirements.
Currently, that would have made it necessary for the applicant to go before the county Board of Adjustments to obtain a variance at additional cost. However, county planning and zoning staff want to change that and eliminate the step in the process and save property owners a chunk of change to boot.
In a work session held yesterday, county Planning and Zoning Department staff, the county Board of Supervisors, members of the county Planning and Zoning Commission and members of the county’s three-district Board of Adjustments met to discuss that issue and other zoning matters.
Susan Buchan, director of the planning and zoning department, received some direction almost immediately on the variance issue, after explaining that the cir***stances don’t happen very often.
In conversation, county supervisors Pat Call, Ann English and Richard Searle agreed that a necessary variance should just be included in the rezoning process.
Britt Hanson, chief civil deputy county attorney, noted that it was really up to planning staff to provide the action since “there is room for interpretation.”
“That makes more sense for our residents,” Call said. “It leaves discretionary powers in Susan’s hands.”
“If it goes through the planning and zoning commission, and they agree to the rezoning, it makes sense to allow the non-conforming uses to be legal,” Searle added.
Commission member Lee Basnar agreed, “Anything we can do to streamline the process is a good thing.”
A second issue that was discussed concerned conditions that are more often than not placed on rezonings and special-use permits. While some conditions are normal, others can be restrictive. That led into a conversation on considering restructuring the zoning districts and permitted uses.
For instance, a light industrial zoning district permits a landfill. Though that may not be the use proposed by an applicant today, that use would be permitted 20 years from now, because it’s under that zoning district.
By removing contentious uses, like landfills or power plants, and placing them in a separate category that still requires public hearings, adjacent and area residents would be able to have a say on what they want for their area now and in the future. Then a zoning designation would have a clear set of permitted uses with fewer surprises.
The other option would be to allow it as a special use that still goes through the public process.
Call agreed that a close look at the various zoning categories needed to be completed so that proper changes could be made.
“There are some instances that a special-use permit could be used rather than a rezoning,” he added. “If the staff creates more designations, we would dissolve 90 percent of our problems.”
County Administrator Mike Ortega said, “There will be folks opposed to 75 percent of the uses permitted, but they’ll go along with 25 percent.”
“We can take the fear factors out and make them special-use permits,” Searle said.
English added, “Rezoning should be clear and not conditional. If we don’t have the right number of categories, we need to look at that.”
Buchan indicated it could take several months to complete new categories for rezoning and permitted uses and get the changes before the supervisors.
Still, what does the county do with the numerous rezonings for developments on property that has yet to undergo groundbreaking?
“I’m thinking of the harm to the county on a 30-year-old rezoning that had fewer restrictions on it than one today. It wouldn’t fit with today’s county vision,” Hanson said.
When asked if a stipulation that future regulations and requirements have to be met at the time of groundbreaking could be added to all rezoning requests, Hanson replied, “It’s a logical question. I just don’t know if it’s legal.”
The final topic dealt with outside agency requests, like the Arizona Department of Transportation, which may require certain studies to be completed before ground-breaking. In some instances, Buchan said, it appears some development might be harder hit with certain agency requirements, like deceleration lanes and other roadway improvements. Yet, existing development will not be required to chip in on road improvements that would benefit them.
Bill Harmon, ADOT’s planning engineer for the district, said development, the county and ADOT should share in such road improvements.
“We always encourage the developer and the county to sit down at the table with us and work something out,” Harmon said. “We have been profoundly impressed with your staff. They want to do what’s best for the public at large and property owners.”
It was agreed that the county would have the final say on the inclusion of certain agency requirements, though recommendations from outside agencies would still be seriously considered.
Herald/Review reporter Shar Porier can be reached at 515-4692 or by e-mail at shar.porier@bisbeereview.net.
Print this story Email this story
Copyright © 2009 The Sierra Vista Herald
Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.
Ka wrote on Jan 27, 2009 8:18 AM:
" County politics think they must have a say in everything! Planning and zoning want to dictate everything for Pat Call. I heard of one person being told they must have a special floor in the horse shed. Get real! did they want carpeting? "
Staff may consider adding new zoning categories
By Shar Porier
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 04:16:35 am MST
BISBEE — When someone requests a rezoning, the applicant may not be aware that the new designation could make existing structures on the property out of compliance, due to set-back requirements.
Currently, that would have made it necessary for the applicant to go before the county Board of Adjustments to obtain a variance at additional cost. However, county planning and zoning staff want to change that and eliminate the step in the process and save property owners a chunk of change to boot.
In a work session held yesterday, county Planning and Zoning Department staff, the county Board of Supervisors, members of the county Planning and Zoning Commission and members of the county’s three-district Board of Adjustments met to discuss that issue and other zoning matters.
Susan Buchan, director of the planning and zoning department, received some direction almost immediately on the variance issue, after explaining that the cir***stances don’t happen very often.
In conversation, county supervisors Pat Call, Ann English and Richard Searle agreed that a necessary variance should just be included in the rezoning process.
Britt Hanson, chief civil deputy county attorney, noted that it was really up to planning staff to provide the action since “there is room for interpretation.”
“That makes more sense for our residents,” Call said. “It leaves discretionary powers in Susan’s hands.”
“If it goes through the planning and zoning commission, and they agree to the rezoning, it makes sense to allow the non-conforming uses to be legal,” Searle added.
Commission member Lee Basnar agreed, “Anything we can do to streamline the process is a good thing.”
A second issue that was discussed concerned conditions that are more often than not placed on rezonings and special-use permits. While some conditions are normal, others can be restrictive. That led into a conversation on considering restructuring the zoning districts and permitted uses.
For instance, a light industrial zoning district permits a landfill. Though that may not be the use proposed by an applicant today, that use would be permitted 20 years from now, because it’s under that zoning district.
By removing contentious uses, like landfills or power plants, and placing them in a separate category that still requires public hearings, adjacent and area residents would be able to have a say on what they want for their area now and in the future. Then a zoning designation would have a clear set of permitted uses with fewer surprises.
The other option would be to allow it as a special use that still goes through the public process.
Call agreed that a close look at the various zoning categories needed to be completed so that proper changes could be made.
“There are some instances that a special-use permit could be used rather than a rezoning,” he added. “If the staff creates more designations, we would dissolve 90 percent of our problems.”
County Administrator Mike Ortega said, “There will be folks opposed to 75 percent of the uses permitted, but they’ll go along with 25 percent.”
“We can take the fear factors out and make them special-use permits,” Searle said.
English added, “Rezoning should be clear and not conditional. If we don’t have the right number of categories, we need to look at that.”
Buchan indicated it could take several months to complete new categories for rezoning and permitted uses and get the changes before the supervisors.
Still, what does the county do with the numerous rezonings for developments on property that has yet to undergo groundbreaking?
“I’m thinking of the harm to the county on a 30-year-old rezoning that had fewer restrictions on it than one today. It wouldn’t fit with today’s county vision,” Hanson said.
When asked if a stipulation that future regulations and requirements have to be met at the time of groundbreaking could be added to all rezoning requests, Hanson replied, “It’s a logical question. I just don’t know if it’s legal.”
The final topic dealt with outside agency requests, like the Arizona Department of Transportation, which may require certain studies to be completed before ground-breaking. In some instances, Buchan said, it appears some development might be harder hit with certain agency requirements, like deceleration lanes and other roadway improvements. Yet, existing development will not be required to chip in on road improvements that would benefit them.
Bill Harmon, ADOT’s planning engineer for the district, said development, the county and ADOT should share in such road improvements.
“We always encourage the developer and the county to sit down at the table with us and work something out,” Harmon said. “We have been profoundly impressed with your staff. They want to do what’s best for the public at large and property owners.”
It was agreed that the county would have the final say on the inclusion of certain agency requirements, though recommendations from outside agencies would still be seriously considered.
Herald/Review reporter Shar Porier can be reached at 515-4692 or by e-mail at shar.porier@bisbeereview.net.
Print this story Email this story
Copyright © 2009 The Sierra Vista Herald
Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.
Ka wrote on Jan 27, 2009 8:18 AM:
" County politics think they must have a say in everything! Planning and zoning want to dictate everything for Pat Call. I heard of one person being told they must have a special floor in the horse shed. Get real! did they want carpeting? "