Henry County Board of Supervisors rejects recommendation to rezone

MT. PLEASANT — Tuesday morning, July 25, Henry County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to reject an ordinance to rezone a portion of Southeast Section 7 Center Township from Agricultural (A-1) to Industrial (I-1) against the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation.

For the last two months, Planning and Zoning, the Board of Supervisors, and Henry County residents have met several times to discuss changes to a parcel of land purchased by Chad Ebling in hopes of establishing a concrete plant.

At the end of June, a change to the county land use map made it possible to discuss the potential to rezone this area.

Following this, the county Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing in which they came to an agreement to recommend a conditional rezoning the Board of Supervisors.

Tuesday, Ebling, the Board of Supervisors, Planning and Zoning Director Joe Buffington, residents in support and opposition of the rezoning, County Attorney Darin Stater, and Mitch Taylor, an attorney representing “an undisclosed resident,” met for the first reading of the proposed ordinance.

When the supervisors first opened the meeting to the public hearing, the room remained quiet, but did not stay that way long.

One resident opposed to the rezoning and placement of a concrete plant near his residence asked for dimension clarifications on the site map provided by Ebling.

The site map contained a to-scale drawing showing placement of a batch plant, shop, rock and sand bins, truck and trailer parking, fuel area, wash pit, and concrete blocks.

“From North to South that parcel is 315 feet, East to West little over 1100, about 1120 give or take,” Buffington explained.

According to Buffington, the batch plant on the site plan is located approximately 275 feet from neighbor Greg Knight’s property.

Discussions picked up as residents opposed and residents in support of the rezoning began to express opinions on the validity of rezoning at all.

Ebling attempted to focus on discussion of potential conditions for the rezoning.

“I’ve been agreeing to all the terms and the only issues has been the set back,” Ebling said. “I cannot fit a plant, as you can see, set back 750 feet. It just can’t be done. You couldn’t move in there and I have no future growth.”

As discussion continued, Taylor identified himself as a lawyer and asked to view the land use agreement meant to be discussed at this meeting.

“We do have one that is still evolving, apparently, we do have what has been talked about thus far, but it is subject to change before this hearing closes,” Buffington stated. “ … we will go through that and come to a final agreement before this hearing closes.”

Taylor continued to question the process as he raised concerns about Ebling’s application for a zoning permit.

“I don’t believe this is properly before the Board of Supervisors according to your own rules,” Taylor said. “Your rules dictate in the county ordinances that a site plan be provided by the applicant.”

Taylor then quoted Henry County Planning and Zoning Code 6-2-17-2 which states, “Each application for a zoning permit shall be on approved forms and shall be accompanied by a site plan, drawn to scale, showing the actual dimensions of the lot or tract to be built upon or use, the size, shape and location of the structure to be erected, and such other information as may be necessary to provide for the enforcement of this Ordinance and other County Ordinances …”

He further claimed Ebling’s application was invalid because it did not contain an appropriate site plan.

“What he was reading from was completely irrelevant,” Buffington stated the following morning.

According to Buffington, the ordinance before the board on Tuesday dealt with an amendment to the zoning map. If this amendment passed the three readings with a 60% vote in favor of the rezoning, then Ebling’s application for a zoning permit would be considered by Buffington, not the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Additionally, Buffington stated in the meeting and the following day, “What he turned into me was sufficient.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, the supervisors sought insight from County Attorney Darin Stater

who agreed that the validity of the application was up to Buffington.

“After talking to Joe, it appears that there was an inclusion of this map on the original application,” Stater said. “I read the city ordinance and it says it was to be drawn to scale not that dimensions were on it.”

“ … I’m not telling you what to do, but I believe you can properly go forward today if you’re comfortable in making a determination of yea or nay on this then if someone wants to challenge it later that is for the courts to decide whether it actually met the requirements,” Stater told the board.

Supervisor Marc Lindeen asked Taylor to clarify his position on the topic.

“I believe that the Board of Supervisors should express this to the third reading and deny it to allow the applicant to go back and apply appropriately under the ordinance,” Taylor responded.

Despite Buffington telling the supervisors, “The presumption should be that the application is sufficient. It has been all along,” they went out of public hearing where Lindeen motioned to express the reading to the third reading and deny the rezoning.

“As an administrator it is my job to decide the compliance with the zoning ordinance,” Buffington stated the following morning. “If there was a disagreement with the interpretation it was up to the board of adjustments.”

Lindeen did state that he understood if anyone had a question about the procedural validity that it could go to the board of adjustments, however, he felt that would “just slow the whole process down,” and that starting over would be the quickest resolution.

“I like the idea of following the rules from straight off the git-go clear through,” Supervisors Chad White stated after the board denied the rezoning. “If we have to do that again and go through the process, I’d encourage you [Ebling] to get with somebody to put together that plan and bring it forward.”

“Who would that be?” Ebling asked White as he sought clarification on expectations moving forward in restarting the process.

“That would be someone of your choosing to follow the ordinances and regulations and look it up,” White responded.

“So Joe [Buffington] wasn’t the right person?” Ebling asked.

“He’s not working directly for you on this,” White said. “I think it was partly some of his [Buffington’s] doing on your direction and everything like that.”

Once it was all said and done, Buffington stated he felt “like it was going to be rejected regardless because I don’t think they were going to come to an agreement on the set back, but I could be wrong, they could have hammered it out. We’ll never know.”

Comments: AnnaMarie.Ward@southeastiowaunion.com