Lakewood Board of Supervisors Meeting
Special Meeting – Appeal on Diamond Willow Conditional Use
January 23, 2006
Call to Order: Chair Diane Larson called the Special Meeting of the Town of Lakewood Board of Supervisors to order at 7:00 p.m. on 1-23-2006 at the Lakewood Town Hall.
Present: Supervisors Diane Larson and Tim Musick. Supervisor Leider was absent. Also present: Clerk Gene Bromenshenkel, Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, Town Attorney Tim Strom, and general public (register attached).
Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited by all present.
Purpose of Meeting: Chair of the Board, Diane Larson read the public notice of the Special Meeting. The Chair read the letter of Appeal on the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission granting a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility in the LIU-10 zone on November 22, 2005. The letter of appeal was received from Inese Holte of Lakewood Township.
Presentation by Appellant, Inese Holte: Referenced the Town’s Zoning Ordinance which she sees as a set of rules agreed upon through public process. She referenced the LIU-10 zone language that indicates multi-plexes are not allowed in the zone according to the Ordinance language. Holte also indicated she understands the Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not allow mult-plexes in the township. Her emphasis was that rules should be followed.
Chair Larson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the appeal.
Bob Wolfe: Referred to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the intent of the LIU-10 zone which was established to separate residential and industrial uses and not to mix uses. He sees that a residential use is not compatible with the allowed uses in the LIU-10 zone. He cited five points made by the representative of Diamond Willow at the November 22, 2005 Public Hearing. He also cited the definitions of the LIU from Lakewood Township and from the St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance. He sees that the intent of the Zoning Ordinances is to not put residential uses in LIU-10 zones.
Kate Campbell: Multi-family dwellings are not allowed in the township and the residential uses such as an assisted living facility should not be allowed in the LIU-10 zone.
Gerald Larson: Multi-family dwellings should not be allowed in the LIU-10 zone, the same as for other zones in the township.
Chuck Campbell: Health care industry use is not allowed in the LIU-10 zone.
Mark Hughes: Lives at 9221 East Superior Street. Lives adjacent to the area. Safety for family members is a concern. Feels the additional and fast moving traffic will endanger his family’s and other’s safety in the area. He cited break-ins in the adjacent storage facility units and the location is remote from the standpoint of law enforcement. With removal of vegetation there will be more noise.
Karen Hughes: Is also opposed to the assisted living facility in the area.
Tim Huchthausen: Feels the assisted living use is much more conducive to the residences of the surrounding area as compared to some other uses that are allowed in the LIU-10 zone.
Chair Larson called on those in favor of the conditional use permit granted by the Lakewood Planning and Zoning Commission on 11-22-2005.
Al Eastman: Introduced himself as chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission felt the assisted living use has much less negative impact on the area than many of the uses allowed by the Zoning Ordinance in the LIU-10 zone. He referenced page 18 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan---and views the residential use of an assisted living facility as a limited commercial use. The Commission granted the permit based on the public hearing input on 11-22-2005. He requested the Board of Supervisors to support the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Dick Bodine: Member of Planning and Zoning Commission. Supports the use as a part of the health care continuum industry.
Dan McCorison: Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Supports the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Chris Roningen: Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Feels the Commission made a well-reasoned decision to grant the conditional use permit.
Greg Follmer: Owns the property on the proposed use site. Feels the public hearing was held with good participation and most people present were in favor of the conditional use. The use is a better fit for the surrounding area than many of the proposed uses defined in the Zoning Ordinance for the LIU-10 zone.
Tim Huchthausen: He understands the appeal process is for the applicant and not for anyone in the township.
Ken Butler: Representative for Diamond Willow. He is the attorney for the petitioner, Lakewood Diamond Willow. He again states for the record---his presence does not waive the right of the applicant in relation to the 60-day rule. He cited the Zoning Ordinance which relates to the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission in interpreting the intent of the Ordinance and the compatibility of land use. Article IX of the Ordinance limits the final decision for a conditional use permit to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He recognized the March 7, 2005 revision to the Ordinance allowing for appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Article V of the Ordinance gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the role of determining compatibility of uses for the Ordinance. The Ordinance modification did not change the Commission’s role as being absolute in the decision making process for conditional use permits. As he sees the Ordinance, the Town Board of Supervisors should view the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in terms of whether or not the decision was in any way, made arbitrarily. He raised the question of whether the Board of Supervisors can do anything other than to determine if the Commission did not consider the health, welfare and safety of the general public in the determination of their decision.
Chair Larson asked if there was any additional input on the appeal. There was none.
At this time the Chair of the Board declared the public input complete.
Attorney Tim Strom: Cited the Zoning Ordinance and the appeal language and other language of section 9 related to the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He referred to the situation when a use is not specifically cited in the Ordinance then:
- Is the proposal use consistent with the purpose of the Ordinance.
- Is the proposed use consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
He feels the Ordinance does not specifically outline the process of appeal. The uses outlined in the Ordinance classification table does not list assisted living facilities as an allowed use.
Supervisor Musick: Mentioned that day care was mentioned. Asked Strom about the State Statutes regarding day care.
Attorney Tim Strom: Cited the State Statute 462. about powers of zoning. He sees the State Statutes overruling any local ordinance.
Inese Holte: Also cited the State definition of day care facilities and that they are regulated by those statutes.
Supervisor Musick: Sees nothing wrong with assisted living facilities. During the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, there was reference to the use as being a good transition in the LIU-10 zone and surrounding area. The use however, is not allowed in any of the zones in the township. Maybe the area should be rezoned if the uses are not allowed. He recited that multi-family dwellings and group homes are not allowed in the township. Feels that approving so would violate the Ordinance. He is not about to violate the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion by Musick that the Board of Supervisors over rule the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and to not allow the use in the LIU-10 zone. Second by Larson. Discussion on the Motion: Supervisor Larson cited the language of the Zoning Ordinance, noting that the requested use for an assisted living facility as a use allowed or the use being similar to the uses of the Ordinance for the LIU-10 zone. She stated that the welfare of the public means being consistent for the benefit of the public and consistent with the LIU-10 zone. Call for Vote: Larson-yes, Musick-yes. The Motion Carried. Thus, the Appeal is Supported.
Motion by Musick to recess the meeting at 8:05 p.m. for a period of 15 minutes. Second by Larson. Motion Carried. The Meeting was reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
Attorney Strom developed a draft of the decision of the Board and read it. Motion by Musick to approve the decision language and for the Chair to be authorized to sign the final typed copy of the decision. Second by Larson. Motion Carried. (Copy of Decision attached).
There were no other items brought forth at the Meeting.
Motion by Musick to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Second by Larson. Motion Carried.
Respectfully Submitted;
Gene Bromenshenkel
Town of Lakewood Clerk