Home | Back

Voters to weigh in on the fate of Deerfield zoning: "Yes' on Issue 29 would repeal code

Share_print Print Story    |    Comments    |   

Diane Smith
October 28, 2009

 

By Diane Smith

Record-Courier staff writer

DEERFIELD — Voters will decide whether the township needs a zoning code when they consider Issue 29 on the November ballot.

A “Yes” vote on the issue would repeal zoning in Deerfield. A “No” vote would keep zoning. And if voters decide to keep zoning in place, another referendum could not be put on the ballot again for two years.

Miles Felmly, chief of the township’s fire departement, said he was part of the group that helped form the township’s original zoning code at the urging of Ralph Binkley, who was fire chief at the time. Now, although he didn’t initiate the referendum, he’s a supporter of the campaign to repeal the zoning code.

“It never was the intent at the time zoning was established to continually amend it over and over,” he said.

Felmly contends that enforcement of the code is inconsistent. 

“I know people who have had to tear down a foundation because it was a foot too close to the property line,” he said. “And other people were allowed to build too close to the line. Some businesses have been allowed to expand 1,000 percent, and other businesses that were not allowed to expand.”

In the 1980s, he said, there was a move to repeal the zoning code, and the township offered to fix the code to address the concerns. More than 26 modifications followed.

Although Issue 29 would not put a new zoning code in place, Felmly said he would support a new zoning code only if it could not be modified unless there is a vote by the people.

Trustee Mike Rach said he knows of no instances where zoning was enforced unfairly. If people disagree, he noted, they are free to appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

He said many amendments resulted from court decisions, which forced the township to make its regulations more specific. Others came about as a result of growth in the township.

“Now we’re talking about solar panels and windmills,” he said. “Who would have thought of that in 1979?”

 




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Recordpub.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
 4 Total Comments
4.
    Posted by soulforgotton November 3, 2010
As far as any junkyards, auto salvage yards, used auto dealerships go, the state regulates all of these businesses not local zoning. Zoning is sometimes good if it regulated fairly and not used as a tool for neighbors to harass people they do not like. Deerfield had many violators of the old zoning code, but only certain people were ever bothered. Deerfield zoning spent too much money on litigation of preexisting businesses and that caused a lot of financial hardships on legitimate business owners and the result was a town that could not advance like other towns. People spoke last year and had zoning removed. It is an insult for township trustees to waste money on trying to get the same old code back in. The fire department could use some money for new equipment that would benefit all of Deerfield.

3.
    Posted by able6504 October 29, 2010
As far as Deerfield zoning is concerned, I have recieved mailings that state there has been no new changes like JUNKYARDS. Is that suppose to be a joke? I'm not laughing at all. Are they trying to hide the fact that a local portage county junkyard has started to expand their operations In Deerfield? If you do not believe this then drive north of Deerfield circle about 2 miles and look to your right. ( across from Allseasons mobile home park ) Lots of trailers and now junk cars even a bus in the woods. Tell me are we all as stupid and blind as they hope we are? Just Vote Yes On Issue 18 and help us keep are area clean of this trash

2.
    Posted by May - Fong November 4, 2009
Wow what Rock is Rach living under... If he Knows of no instances of zoning being enforced unfairly.

Home | Back