BCJ Editorial: Conflicted Perspectives

 

Differing perceptions can conflict when two do not see a reasonable answer to a question arising from the same
perspective. When these conflicts arise, that is where disagreement is found.
The work of the Belvidere/Boone County Planning Department is an interpretive function. Planners are vested with
the authority to determine in a quasi-legal context if an application for a special use zoning or a zoning variance should
be allowed. Yet, there are some here that would prefer the planning department interpret zoning code from a different
perspective and to be less reliant on a legal perception to base their decisions. Ergot, that point is the Genesis of the
conflict.
Some would claim that to evaluate a question within a purely legal context denies other elements of the question that
also have relevance. However, the planning department must review questions through a lens of a legal interpretation
while an emotional context to the question must take a backseat.
These points arise resulting from the Tuesday Boone County Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting that heard
a summary report presented by the planning department. That report repeated previous findings that did not approve
passage of an application for a text amendment to be added to the county zoning code. The application seeks to
establish new setback distances for wind turbines from adjoining property owners. The tone and the tenor of some
of the questions directed to the interim director of the planning department served to compromise the wisdom of the
arguments for passage offered for the text amendment. There is validity in the proposed text amendment but the tone
of some of the questions served to disable the value of these proposed amendments.
The wind turbine debate in Boone County has become more an emotional argument than one based on legal
considerations. That is unfortunate because decisions based on valid legal perceptions are sounder than to base a public
decision on emotional perspectives that are fluid. In the ZBA meeting this week some questioned the interim-director
using hypothetical propositions more as a weapon to trap the director in misstatements than to clarify points. The
questioners might have learned their approach from reporters following the presidential candidates who try more to trap
the candidates than to clarify points in their platform.
The technique is a shabby exercise that panders to the “got-yeah” style of questioning. The interim-director might
have better replied to those hypothetical assertions by responding, “Your question is irrelevant to the subject matter of
our review because your question is hypothetical and not based on fact.”
However, people often desire to answer questions that are placed before them. That can be the case regardless
of how arcane the question may be or even if the question is more based on myth than on any bearing of fact. Some
questions that came to the interim director were difficult even for a casual observer to decipher.
The work of the planning department emerges from their duty to evaluate zoning questions within the context
of current zoning code when balanced beside the parameters of the 1999 Boone County Comprehensive Plan. One
questioner was hampered by their opinion that did not allow them to ascertain how planning personnel would bridge the
gap that exists between current zoning law and the broader goal of a government to protect the public “health, safety
and welfare.” Planning staff are county employees and must consider the public health, safety and welfare but their
first duty is to investigate a zoning application to determine if the question offends or complies with current zoning code
and the Comprehensive Plan, period.
All forms of government in America have the duty to enact and to enforce law to protect the public “health, safety
and welfare.” However, at times, laws that are enacted conflict with that charge. For example, the oil depletion
allowance has been a part of the Internal Revenue Service Code since 1913. Arguably, that tax benefit allowed oil
producers to compromise the public health, safety and welfare when viewed under the lens of potential damage to
environment by burning fossil fuels. Leading to the current condition of that law it could be argued that the law denies
protection of the public health, safety and welfare by allowing for greater fossil fuel production and use because of the
tax advantage the law offers to oil producers.
The final word on if wind turbine technology comes to Boone County rests with the Boone County Board. The report
of the planning department, the evaluation of the regional planning commission and the ZBA and the investigation of
the County Board planning, zoning and building committee are preludes to the final act that will occur with a decision
by the full Boone County Board.
The next step is for the ZBA to allow anyone from the community to present their view on the question. This process
could extend for some time and the exact timeframe of that public hearing is unknown.
It remains unknown if a decision will arise in 2015, 2016 or later. Those that have watched this drama unfold must
remember the focus of the planning department. Posing “got-yeah” style questions is unethical and irrelevant to the
broader question. Those that pander to such base elements are producing “white noise” that allows them to trumpet
their views and to deny reasonable debate of this vital question. Those that descend to such a base level of discussion
assaults the wisdom of the position that they espouse.