Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Zoning commission flags wording and procedural fixes in draft zoning code articles 16–19
Loading...
Summary
Commission members reviewed draft zoning-code Articles 16–19, identifying typos, confusing phrasing (site-plan language, repeated words) and proposed relocations of sentences for clarity; staff will make editorial fixes and return the revised text.
The Brookfield zoning commission spent the latter part of its meeting reviewing draft zoning-code provisions (Articles 16–19) and identified multiple editorial and clarity issues that staff and the commission agreed to correct.
During review of Article 16 (general procedures), members flagged typographical and wording problems — including a line that reads "available at the applicant" that members said should read "at the applicant's option," and a repeated use of the word "however" in the same sentence. Staff and commissioners agreed to reword and fix those instances for clarity.
Article 17 (text amendments and rezonings) drew attention to placement and phrasing of a sentence pertaining to site-plan review and planned developments; staff noted the sentence is technically correct but awkwardly placed and recommended relocating it so that the connection between planned developments and the site-plan review requirement is clearer.
On Article 18 (nonconforming uses and signs), commissioners discussed a provision that would allow nonconforming residential structures damaged by destruction to be rebuilt to their prior condition; members noted this is a change from past practice and requested the language be clear. They also raised longstanding concerns about legacy pole signs along commercial corridors and whether incentives (TIF or improvement funds) could be used to address nonconforming signs over time.
A commissioner pointed out a British spelling in Article 19's enforcement section ("conviction" used in a way that suggested British usage), and members asked for a thorough editorial pass. Staff noted their consultant Arista could not attend the meeting because she was in the hospital; commissioners expressed concern and wished her well.
The commission agreed to continue refining the draft code and to revisit parking-related sections at a future workshop. Members discussed potential meeting dates and confirmed availability for possible April meetings and 7 p.m. start times.
