DeKalb County, Illinois
	Minutes of the Planning & Regulations Committee January 24, 2001

The Planning and Regulations Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on January 24, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East. In attendance were Committee Members Robert Hutcheson, Marlene Allen, James Barr, Howard Lyle, Clifford Simonson, Thomas Smith, Roger Steimel, and Veronica Casella, and County staff Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson. Audience members included Richard Schmack, Greg Milburg, Albert and Elwanda Ebel, and Diane Strand.

Mrs. Allen moved to approve the minutes of the December 27, 2001 meeting of the Planning andRegulations Committee, seconded by Mr. Lyle, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Miller stated that an Interim Special Use may be sought to use land or existing buildings that are not currently in use. Interim Special Uses are intended to be for a short period of time until a permanent permitted or special use can be obtained for the property. The petitioners have requested permission to use a portion of their property at 34621 New Lebanon Road, Genoa Township, for commercial storage units for personal property in three existing buildings, and an exterior, concrete are for storage of privately-owned recreational vehicles (RV’s). The 6.48-acre parcel is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

Mr. Miller said that no one spoke at the hearing for or against the petition. The Hearing Officer recommended approval only of use of the three existing buildings self-storage space, and no new buildings be allowed to be built on the property for the storage use. He added that his recommendation is for two (2) years instead of seven (7) years as requested by the petitioners. Finally, the Hearing Officer recommended that the request for the outside storage be denied.

Mr. Hutcheson asked for discussion from the Committee. He noted that Committee members had received a letter from the petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Schmack, requesting that the petition be returned for further hearing by the Hearing Officer. In the letter, it was indicated that the petitioners would like to present the idea of screening the outside storage of RV’s by erecting a fence along the south property line, and then demonstrating with photos that the RV’s would not be visually offensive. Mr. Hutcheson indicated that the Committee should discuss or ask questions related to the petition as heard by the Hearing Officer first, but then could subsequently decide whether or not the letter contain sufficient reason to refer the matter back to the Hearing Officer. Mr. Hutcheson then stated that the Ebel’s request for using their property for self-storage may be the first such request, but there are other property owners who would like to do the same thing who are waiting to see the outcome of the Ebel’s petition. He noted that the decision will set a precedent.

Mr. Miller suggested that, if the Committee decides to forward the matter to the County Board rather than refer it back to the Hearing Officer for further review, the Committee should restrict it’s reasons to items set forth in the Hearing Officer’s report rather than the letter received subsequently from the petitioner. However, there is nothing that precludes the Committee from discussing the merits of the request to return the matter to the Hearing Officer.

Mr. Steimel asked what is the ceiling clearance to the barn. Mr. Ebel said that it was eight (8) feet.

Mrs. Allen asked what would be stored. Mr. Miller pointed out that the request is to allow people to rent storage space where any personal property could be stored inside the buildings. The outside storage would be for RV’s.

Mr. Lyle asked if he understood that inside storage is the subject of the discussion. Mr. Hutcheson answered both the inside and outside storage proposals are under consideration, but noted that the Hearing Officer recommended that only the inside storage be approved. The Committee should decide whether it wants to go along with the recommendation of the Hearing Officer.

Mr. Steimel asked what would be the procedure if the matter is referred back to the Hearing Officer. Mr. Miller answered that the petition can go back to the Hearing Officer without a public notice in the newspaper, since it would be the continuation of a process that has already included public notification, but that staff would notify the surrounding property owners.

Mr. Lyle asked what would be the height of the proposed fence? Mr. Schmack answered that details would be discussed before the Hearing Officer if the matter is referred back.

Mr. Hutcheson said that he would be opposed to RV’s being stored outside, but would be okay with the proposed inside storage. He said that he would not like to see a trend of outside storage in the rural portions of the County.

Mr. Simonson quoted the Staff Report to Committee, and noted that commercial use in agricultural zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the increased traffic would be a problem, that only the petitioner would benefit, and the use would not enhance the surrounding area. He said that he would worry about the domino effect. He felt it would be difficult to monitor activities if the use were approved. Mr. Simonson said that barns are for agricultural use and add to the County’s landscape, but not storage facilities.

Mrs. Casella said that she did not think RV’s should be allowed to be stored outside because the County has had problems with that before, and she agreed that they would detract from the appearance of the area. She was not sure about storage inside the farm buildings and expressed mixed feelings. She stated that she understood the petitioners’ economic need, but was not sure about the commercial use being allowed in agricultural district. Mr. Lyle agreed.

Mr. Miller suggested that, when the Committee has discussed the request to return the matter to the Hearing Officer, a motion might be in order to establish a record of the Committee’s decision.

Mrs. Casella moved to send the petition back to the Hearing Officer, seconded by Mrs. Allen. The motion carried on a vote of five (5) "yes" and three (3) "no." Mrs. Casella said that the Committee should give the petitioners every opportunity to prove their case. Mr. Simonson said that he thought it was a waste of the Hearing Officer’s time.

Mrs. Casella moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried unanimously.

____________________________
Robert Hutcheson
Planning and Regulations Committee Chairman

  | Home | Return to top | A-Z Index | Return to minutes |