Plan commission backtracks on January Chick-fil-A denial
This article is brought to you by Moore's Home Health and Medical Supply. For more than 69 years, Moore's Home Health has been Howard County's leading provider of assistive and adaptive home medical equipment and supplies. Call 765-454-5210 or visit Moore's at 608 W. Markland Ave. to let them help meet your healthcare needs!
Chicken is back on the menu at the Kokomo Plan Commission. The group has set aside its January ruling that Chick-fil-A failed to meet the requirements for developing a plat and has rescheduled a hearing on the matter in March.
The plan commission met on Feb. 11 to discuss its earlier decision, which came after months of remonstrance from area residents concerned about increased traffic near the intersection of Ind. 931 and Markland Avenue, the city’s most congested and dangerous intersection.
What the plan commission found out was they may have fought their battle at the wrong time. As city attorney T.J. Rethlake explained to the board, it is not enough to just deny the development based on a gut feeling or community concerns. Reasons for the denial have to be given – and defended.
Rethlake explained that the plan commission is required by law to provide findings of fact, giving reasons for the denial of a plat that otherwise meets the legal criteria for approval. A copy of those findings is to be provided to the applicant.
These findings of fact were not provided initially, therefore Rethlake requested each of the five commission members who voted down the plat to provide their rationale.
“I've asked the board members to articulate the reasons for the denial so that we can issue those findings of fact, which would then be subject to appeal through a writ filed with the circuit court,” said Rethlake. “To be clear, this is controlled by the subdivision control ordinance.
“The case law basically states that if the plat meets the concrete standards of the subdivision control ordinance, then the approval or disapproval of that plat is really a ministerial act.”
In essence, the plan commission’s only job when it comes to plat approval is to say “yes” unless there is evidence it doesn’t meet the demands of the ordinance. It became clear that the “no” votes issued in January were aimed at issues that were irrelevant to the plat. But what is relevant was not clear to the commission members, at least at first.
Plan commission director Greg Sheline read the definition of a plat into the record. A plat is a detailed map or a plan of a land area that shows the division of a larger parcel into individual lots. It includes specific details about the boundaries, dimensions and layout of each lot within the subdivision.
The plat does not have to detail the structures that will be constructed within its boundaries. The plat also does not have to take into account variables outside of its boundaries, such as traffic control for the surrounding area. Those issues are addressed when a project’s site plan comes to the commission for review.
And therein lies the confusion.
“I thought the traffic was a bona fide, legitimate reason for denial,” said plan commission president Mike Besser, who cast the deciding vote to deny plat approval in January.
Plan commission member Kelly Barker also used traffic flow as her criteria for denial. She stressed that her vote wasn’t against Chick-fil-A, but against the chosen location.
“I want to make it very clear, we would love to have Chick-fil-A,” said Barker. “It was posted in the media by leadership that we did not want this national franchise. We do. That's why I asked if there were other locations, because the community would love to have Chick-fil-A.
“Mine would be the traffic and safety concerns of that location. I understand the entrances, the exits, those things are site plan. I understand that. But we're talking about the most dangerous intersection in Kokomo. This is nothing against Chick-fil-A. I hope you understand that.”
Barker, like the other plan commission members, simply wanted to be told whether or not the plat meets the ordinance’s requirements. Rethlake was hesitant to make such a statement, recognizing that his statement – one way or the other – would certainly influence the commission’s decision.
Commission member Jon Pyke tried to make that statement for him.
“The plat is really the disposition of personal property,” said Pyke. “You're creating a lot, and the plan commission is required to protect property rights, but that also includes the property rights of the petitioner. They have the right, so long as the plat has the right dimensions and is zoned properly, to develop. We violated our ordinance as far as I'm concerned.”
The commission members continued to discuss the matter, but they repeatedly returned to Rethlake, often asking for a “yes or no” from him as to whether they had denied the Chick-fil-A plat illegally. The attorney finally relented.
“My legal opinion is that the plat, as it stands, is in compliance with the subdivision control ordinance,” said Rethlake. “My suggestion to the board would be that we rehear the case on the plat and separately address any ancillary issues at the site plan.”
Having heard this, the plan commission voted unanimously to set aside its earlier denial and to hear the case again in March. The next Kokomo Plan Commission meeting will take place on Tue., March 11, at 5 p.m. in the City Hall council chambers.