A committee of Elkhart County land use stakeholders is continuing to react to a December vote by the Elkhart County plan commission to pursue a more restrictive zoning ordinance. That policy direction, according to one plan commission member, represents the views of a “silent majority” who want the county to limit residential growth in rural areas.
Steve Warner, a Goshen farmer and plan commission member, voted with the majority to bar high density residential construction in agricultural zones. The 5 to 4 vote came in December during the plan commission’s final meeting of 2012.
Interviewed last week by telephone, Warner said the approach favored by planners, and the county commissioners, is outlined in a proposal known as Draft E, produced in 2011. Draft E allows residential development to occur on tracts of three or more acres in agricultural zones. However, developments occurring on less than three acres would require a rezoning.
The current ordinance allows homes and subdivisions to be constructed in agricultural zones without a rezoning. Warner said this has led to “explosive” population growth, causing many conflicts.
“I contend that Draft E is perfectly fine,” he said.
Warner added that he hears support for the ordinance from almost everyone he talks with. But he said those people haven’t been speaking up at public meetings.
“There is a very large silent majority,” he added.
Among the critics of Draft E, according to Warner, are the Elkhart County Farm Bureau and tea party supporters. He said those groups have offered few constructive ideas.
“Progress is what we’re looking for and not all of the criticism,” Warner said.
He said Draft E is not a perfect document, but 80 percent of it is “fine.” Warner said, though, that he would like to eliminate the standards for landscaping and home businesses. He added that Draft E is “not the scary thing (that has) been painted” by some critics.
According to Warner, one thing that was lacking in the 2011 debate, and remains missing in the 2012-13 effort, is some sort of communication plan whereby the plan commission can promote the land use proposal to the public. Although the discussions are well underway and the residential-in-ag issue has been decided, he said it is not too late for the plan commission to develop and implement a communications plan.
When Draft E was initially proposed two years ago, the Elkhart County Farm Bureau and other critics said it contained too many regulations. According to the group’s representative on the policy committee, Dwight Moudy, that is still a major concern.
Moudy said Draft E has five agricultural zones, along with “cumbersome” standards for landscaping, fencing and the number of animals allowed.
Last summer, planners appointed the policy committee to review Draft E and come up with ideas for improvement.
Six months into its task, the policy committee—which consists of farmers, realtors, developers and other concerned citizens—is working through Draft E, sometimes line by line. Progress has been slow but steady.
Much of the committee’s time and energy thus far has been focused on the issue of residential development in agricultural areas.
Instead of embracing Draft E, the committee wants to modify the current ordinance to require greater setback distances and notification requirements for homes built downwind of farms. On two occasions, the panel voted unanimously to support that proposal over Draft E.
Moudy is one of 15 members on the committee. He said Elkhart County Farm Bureau’s No. 1 goal in this process is to protect private property rights.
After the plan commission’s December vote, the policy committee asked for clarification—point-by-point reasons why the current zoning ordinance is not working. At the panel’s monthly meeting Tuesday in Dunlap, planning director Chris Godlewski said those explanations would be coming soon.
During last week’s telephone interview, Warner said that he and the four other people who voted with him in the majority were planning to meet to provide the explanations desired by the policy committee.
Meanwhile, county commissioner Mike Yoder, responding to a Jan. 11 editorial published in the Exchange, said in an e-mail that there were certain aspects of the commissioners’ plan that were not communicated properly. He stated that Draft E prohibits high density residential development in agricultural zones. He added that some people mistakenly interpreted the proposal to mean that no residential development would be allowed whatsoever.
At the plan commission’s Jan. 10 meeting, Yoder’s replacement on the panel, fellow commissioner Frank Lucchese, restated the commissioners’ position—that a rezoning should be required for homes built on parcels of less than three acres but not for homes built on three or more acres.
According to Jim Wilson, a business owner and member of the policy committee, that clarification from Lucchese was key. But for other members of the committee, like realtor Dean Slabaugh and farmer Ed Pippenger, they remain upset over the plan commission’s decision to choose a policy direction that is different than the one they supported. They point out that the policy committee began this effort with a good faith belief that its recommendations would receive serious consideration from the plan commission.
But Yoder, in his e-mail, pointed out that Draft E is the product of two years of give and take.
“There is no more room for compromise on this policy,” he wrote.
On Tuesday, Pippenger questioned whether he still wants to devote his time and energy to serving on the committee.
“If it’s all going to be for nothing, (then) I want to walk to the door and get out now,” he said.
Moudy, however, urged fellow committee members to continue their work.
“So as the voice of the people, which we all agree – we’re trying to get a good cross-section – we do our job. We come up with a good ordinance, like we’ve talked about,” he said. “Hopefully, we can convince the planning commission that it’s a good deal. They send it up (to the commissioners), then it’s in their court.”
Also weighing in was county surveyor and plan commission member Blake Doriot. He urged the policy committee to finish its task, thereby putting pressure on the commissioners to either accept or reject the panel’s recommendations.
While the commissioners have the final authority on the makeup of the county zoning ordinance, and can therefore reject the policy committee’s opinions, Doriot said the commissioners will have to defend their decisions during a public hearing at some point.
While the outcome of this debate is uncertain, it is clear that both sides believe the public is with them—whether it be the “silent majority” that Warner cites, or the “voice of the people” that Moudy said is represented by members of the policy committee.
Speak Your Mind