Danville commission votes to reopen Shaker Town Road rezoning with new public hearing

The Danville City Commission voted to reopen consideration of a proposed map amendment for Shaker Town Road and directed staff to schedule a new public hearing so the full commission can develop its own record. The motion passed by roll call vote 4-0, with Commissioner Holland recused as a neighboring resident.

Commissioner Donald Peake moved the action after describing his review of prior hearings and saying the planning commission record was incomplete. "I would move that we hold a new public hearing and develop our own record in order to make a determination and further direct staff to organize the same to organize the hearing with the proper notice with the law," Peake said during the meeting.

The vote came after several commissioners said they spent hours reviewing recordings and written minutes from earlier Planning & Zoning hearings in February and March and concluded the commission needed to start fresh. Commissioners cited unanswered questions about process, water runoff and neighborhood access as reasons for requesting new presentation and testimony before this body.

City Attorney (name not given) outlined the legal process the commission must follow if it holds a new hearing. "The statute, found in CARES 100 will govern our process. We will essentially take the place of the planning commission to develop a brand new record, and that will mean that the public hearing process will start over from ground 0," the city attorney said, explaining procedural requirements the commission must respect.

The attorney told the commission the new hearing will require at least 30 days' advance notice to adjacent property owners, posting of signs, and publication in the Advocate Messenger between seven and 21 days before the hearing. He also said the commission must act within 90 days of when the completed application was forwarded to staff; failure to act within that statutory period would have legal consequences tied to the application. Staff estimated the hearing would likely be scheduled roughly 45 to 60 days from the meeting so the city can meet notice deadlines.

Mayor James J. H. Atkins and staff also described how the hearing will operate. The applicant will present the application anew, the commission may question the applicant, and then members of the public may speak during the public hearing portion. The attorney emphasized that the commission may only consider evidence presented at the new hearing and cannot rely on the underlying Planning & Zoning record when deciding the map amendment.

Commissioners also asked staff to organize logistics to encourage orderly public participation: a 9 a.m. start time was suggested and commissioners discussed sign-in procedures and a possible three-minute speaking limit for individual participants, with the city attorney noting he would advise whether strict time limits are legally permissible. The commission asked staff to coordinate notice, sign placement and publication once a date is selected and to work with the city attorney to ensure procedural compliance.

The commission recorded a roll call after the motion: Commissioner Caudill—yes; Commissioner Peake—yes; Mayor Atkins—yes; Commissioner Sarris—yes. Commissioner Holland declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the vote. The motion to set a new hearing also directed staff to ensure all parties, including applicant representatives, are encouraged to attend the new hearing so the commission can hear live testimony.

The commission's action does not decide the zoning request on its merits. Instead, it restarts the formal process, creating a new administrative record for the commission to consider at a future meeting. Staff indicated the commission's subsequent decision would be tied to the city's future land use map and comprehensive plan, per the legal standard described by counsel.