|
Post by hawk on Oct 10, 2013 15:22:54 GMT -6
Paraphrasing is putting it lightly. Misreading, misunderstanding, or misusing is more appropriate. Is this what you have been basing your claim of illegal, excessive restrictions by the city on? If that's the case, I stand by my buttertion that you should have done more research. I may be wrong but it appears that you didnt know what you were doing. This is where he'll come back with important information he failed to mention which he'll believe has no substance to the subject.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 10, 2013 15:24:21 GMT -6
I would like to see an adult entertainment venue opened. The city needs to repeal the ban on this form of artful expression. Bring back the classy and entertaining businesses, that were once, a must see. Besides, local unemployment, might decrease and city tax coffers, will fill. Totally agree. People have $400,000 a month to spend just on video gaming, surely there is at least half that much to spend on some good strippers.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 10, 2013 15:29:30 GMT -6
Nor shall Appendix A be interpreted to allow a use in one zoning district when the use in question is more closely related to another specified use that is permissible in other zoning districts. I take this to mean that you would not be allowed to have Aquaponics in an industrial zone when the use is more closely related to a use such as greenhouses, which are permitted in CBD. If I am wrong, enlighten me, what does it mean?
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Oct 10, 2013 16:08:04 GMT -6
If you had a wedding reception hall with a bar and a kitchen facility. That would fall under a hall in the permissible uses not under a resturant or bar. You could argue that it is a bar or a resturant but it is more closely related to a hall. You should have asked someone to enlighten you prior to going to the city.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 10, 2013 16:33:14 GMT -6
If you had a wedding reception hall with a bar and a kitchen facility. That would fall under a hall in the permissible uses not under a resturant or bar. You could argue that it is a bar or a resturant but it is more closely related to a hall. You should have asked someone to enlighten you prior to going to the city. The same thing applies with Aquaponics, they could argue that it is a chemical processing plant or a smelter, but it is more closely related to a greenhouse. I'll give you credit, I've asked people to read the ordinance several times, it looks like you actually did. So what use did you find in the industrial section that you think they picked to be more closely related to selling fish and plants than a pet store or greenhouse? I think the reason that you found other communities like Pontiac that changed their ordinances to include Aquaponics is because they wanted it to be welcomed in more than just one zoning area. You never answered my question, in your research of other communities requirements for it, how many did you find that allow it only in an industrial zoned area? Please do supply them.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Oct 10, 2013 17:20:25 GMT -6
I don't see where Streator has industrial zoning. From what I see, It has commercial,residential, agricultural, and manufacturing. I see aquaponics as what the zoning ordinance calls a "proposed use is substantially unique". In cases like that, the business is probably a new business type not specifically spelled out as a permissible use in any zoning district. In those cases a special use permit and/or zoning designation is required. It's up to the applicant to present their case. From what I've read, I think aquaponics should be allowed in commercial areas but with a special use permit. That's what appears to be done in many other communities that allow it. I'm not arguing whether aquaponics is a good idea or not. I think it's a good idea personally. I just finally got tired of reading about how you felt the City violated the law when in fact it was you that didn't follow the law. If you had done your homework and talked to people in the industry, I'm sure they could have walked you through the approval process. I doubt Streators zoning process is much different than most communities, you just have to know what you are doing.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 10, 2013 18:11:36 GMT -6
I don't see where Streator has industrial zoning. From what I see, It has commercial,residential, agricultural, and manufacturing. I see aquaponics as what the zoning ordinance calls a "proposed use is substantially unique". In cases like that, the business is probably a new business type not specifically spelled out as a permissible use in any zoning district. In those cases a special use permit and/or zoning designation is required. It's up to the applicant to present their case. From what I've read, I think aquaponics should be allowed in commercial areas but with a special use permit. That's what appears to be done in many other communities that allow it. I'm not arguing whether aquaponics is a good idea or not. I think it's a good idea personally. I just finally got tired of reading about how you felt the City violated the law when in fact it was you that didn't follow the law. If you had done your homework and talked to people in the industry, I'm sure they could have walked you through the approval process. I doubt Streators zoning process is much different than most communities, you just have to know what you are doing. Zoning M-1 is called light industrial, M-2 is called heavy industrial the uses are listed in Section 4.0 in the Appedix: Manufacturing, Processing, Creating, Repairing, Renovating, Painting, Cleaning, Assembling and Warehousing of Goods, Merchandise or Equipment Where did you find in our ordinance that if a "proposed use is substantially unique" it requires a special use permit? I did talk to many people in the industry. Myles Harston is a good example of one, he is considered one of the leaders of the industry in the midwest and holds patents on his designs. He had been busy setting up systems for Universities around the state. He was the one that said I should first go ask the city what our zoning ordinance would require and if they would even be in support of it, because there was no sense in pursuing it further if they weren't. He told us how Chicago considered fish to be livestock and only allowed it in agricultural zoned areas until they changed their zoning ordinance.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Oct 10, 2013 18:37:44 GMT -6
Did Chicago change it on their own or were they shown examples of why it should be changed? The same could have been done here if YOU would have presented it formally. If the council formally, in a meeting, turned it down you could have gone to the P & Z commission. There you could have elaborated and shown them and they could have recommended it be changed to the council.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 10, 2013 19:22:08 GMT -6
Did Chicago change it on their own or were they shown examples of why it should be changed? The same could have been done here if YOU would have presented it formally. If the council formally, in a meeting, turned it down you could have gone to the P & Z commission. There you could have elaborated and shown them and they could have recommended it be changed to the council. I don't know, I haven't been involved in Chicago City politics. I was only telling you what the area's leading expert in the field told me. If, If, If. If pigs could fly. For the ten thousandth time, when the city was not in support of it and gave the extreme restriction, the building owner, not wanting to go against the City, was no longer wanting to proceed. The project was ended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 19:26:16 GMT -6
I would like to see an adult entertainment venue opened. The city needs to repeal the ban on this form of artful expression. Bring back the classy and entertaining businesses, that were once, a must see. Besides, local unemployment, might decrease and city tax coffers, will fill. Totally agree. People have $400,000 a month to spend just on video gaming, surely there is at least half that much to spend on some good strippers. Since Illinois is the gambling mecca of the U.S.. Why not do like Amsterdam with a red light district and ladies in the storefront windows.. Heck we practically had that in the 60's..Why not bring it back............
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Oct 10, 2013 19:37:40 GMT -6
If you had properly presented your proposal the outcome may well have been different. The city arrived at their decision based on the information and presentation you presented them. Maybe it's time to man up and take some responsibility for the project failing.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Oct 10, 2013 19:50:05 GMT -6
If, If, If.
If pigs could fly.
For the ten thousandth time, when the city was not in support of it and gave the extreme restriction, the building owner, not wanting to go against the City, was no longer wanting to proceed. The project was ended.
[/quote] The city, at a council meeting never had the opportunity to support or deny this venture. According to you, in conversation with the mayor, you were given his opinion. It was one that you didn't agree with and then in partnership with the building owner decided not to pursue it. But you both never formally presented it as a business venture. You took the word of someone and dropped it. If you would have gone through the process and fought for it as hard as you fight for it on here you just may have gotten it changed. You say you've answered this 10,000 times and it seems like you are tired of having to keep talking about it. Some of us are just as tired of having it brought up continually. If its over let it go. It's too bad you and your partner chose to let this venture pass. It could have been a good thing. I'm just tired of hearing how its the city's fault when you didn't go about it the correct way. Do you think that in other communities you have talked to that there may be a chance they will have you up thru a formal process and maybe before their P&Z committee?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 10, 2013 20:14:06 GMT -6
If you had properly presented your proposal the outcome may well have been different. The city arrived at their decision based on the information and presentation you presented them. Maybe it's time to man up and take some responsibility for the project failing. Come on, share with all of us what use requiring industrial zoning you think they most closely related Aquaponics to. You also failed to show where our ordinance backs up these statements: I see aquaponics as what the zoning ordinance calls a "proposed use is substantially unique". In cases like that, the business is probably a new business type not specifically spelled out as a permissible use in any zoning district. In those cases a special use permit and/or zoning designation is required. It's up to the applicant to present their case. How do you know what they based their decision on? Would it be smarter to base decisions on information that just anyone tells them, or look into it for themselves? I gave information and links but also said that there are many different places to get information as well. What happened to your claim that it was because they didn't like me? Did you exchange it for I did it wrong? I guess you just gave up on trying to say that the restriction is justified by our laws? Give me a C! Give me an I! Give me a T! Give me a Y! Yeah City!!!!
|
|
|
Post by dog on Oct 10, 2013 20:28:18 GMT -6
If you had properly presented your proposal the outcome may well have been different. The city arrived at their decision based on the information and presentation you presented them. Maybe it's time to man up and take some responsibility for the project failing. Come on, share with all of us what use requiring industrial zoning you think they most closely related Aquaponics to. You also failed to show where our ordinance backs up these statements: I see aquaponics as what the zoning ordinance calls a "proposed use is substantially unique". In cases like that, the business is probably a new business type not specifically spelled out as a permissible use in any zoning district. In those cases a special use permit and/or zoning designation is required. It's up to the applicant to present their case. How do you know what they based their decision on? Would it be smarter to base decisions on information that just anyone tells them, or look into it for themselves? I gave information and links but also said that there are many different places to get information as well. What happened to your claim that it was because they didn't like me? Did you exchange it for I did it wrong? I guess you just gave up on trying to say that the restriction is justified by our laws? Give me a C! Give me an I! Give me a T! Give me a Y! Yeah City!!!! Is the city required by law to give you a legal justification for their ruling? The only thing I see in the zoning ordinance is a process to challenge or appeal their ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Oct 10, 2013 20:29:34 GMT -6
The city, at a council meeting never had the opportunity to support or deny this venture. According to you, in conversation with the mayor, you were given his opinion. It was one that you didn't agree with and then in partnership with the building owner decided not to pursue it. But you both never formally presented it as a business venture. You took the word of someone and dropped it. If you would have gone through the process and fought for it as hard as you fight for it on here you just may have gotten it changed. You say you've answered this 10,000 times and it seems like you are tired of having to keep talking about it. Some of us are just as tired of having it brought up continually. If its over let it go. It's too bad you and your partner chose to let this venture pass. It could have been a good thing. I'm just tired of hearing how its the city's fault when you didn't go about it the correct way. Do you think that in other communities you have talked to that there may be a chance they will have you up thru a formal process and maybe before their P&Z committee? Go back and read the threads. Nowhere did I say that he gave me his opinion in conversation. Let's keep it truthful now. Perhaps when you read the old threads you will remember me telling you that I received their decision in a letter along with an application for zoning change. You will see that I said that the letter states that it was reviewed by him, The City Manager and the Community Development Director. I don't think the council will ever get a chance approve or disapprove of it since the City administration has already set the restriction so extreme I'm not tired of talking about it at all, just tired of telling the same people the same things that we already talked about. This round of conversation on the matter has been excellent. Northsider got us all reading and talking about the details of our zoning ordinance. I'm still waiting for someone to show where it justifies the restriction.
|
|