DeKalb County, Illinois
	Minutes of the Planning & Regulations Committee February 28, 2001

The Planning and Regulations Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on February 28, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East. In attendance were Committee Members Robert Hutcheson, Roger Steimel, Clifford Simonson, Howard Lyle, Veronica Casella, James Barr, Thomas Smith, and Marlene Allen, and staff members Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson. Audience members included Richard Schmack, Greg Millburg, Donald Overton, Donna Pinion and Debbie King.

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

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

Mr. Miller stated that a public hearing on the Zoning Text Amendment and Variation request was held on January 11, 2001. He noted that the amendment would give the County Board and option for granting a waiver of the 180-day restriction if a property owner can demonstrate unique circumstances, particular hardships and no negative effects on the surrounding area. Mr. Miller stated that, while in general the County does not intend that nonconforming buildings should remain in place, there may be instances where allowing them to be repaired or replaced, even if it has been longer than six months, may be justified. Currently, the County Board does not have the authority to waive the 180-day standard. No one spoke in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Miller indicated that Mr. Tarleton has also filed for a Variation based on the proposed amendment, and that a single public hearing was held for both matters rather than two separate hearings. At the hearing, the petitioner’s attorney explained that Mr. Tarleton had been unable to afford repair of the damaged house, and the County adopted the 180-day rule years after the damage had occurred. He explained that Mr. Tarleton is disabled and has limited income, and sale of the property as a site where the existing house can be demolished and replaced represents an important asset to the property owner. Mr. Miller explained that the proposed buyer is the daughter of the owner of the adjoining farm.

Mr. Miller stated that the Hearing Officer recommended approval of both the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and the Variation. The Committee was requested to first consider the change to the Zoning Ordinance and forward their recommendation to the Board. If the Amendment is approved, the Board may then consider the Variation request.

Mr. Steimel asked when the 2.5-acre site was subdivided? Mr. Overton, the owner of the adjacent farm, answered in the early 1960's. Mr. Schmack noted that the house was rebuildable at the time it was damaged.

Mr. Simonson asked if this was an agricultural residence? Mr. Miller answered that it was not. Mr. Schmack added that it was an underutilized, vacant property that has become an eye sore.

Mr. Steimel stated that he thought this property met requirements of a special situation. He said the site is an eye sore, and residents of the general area are very interested in seeing it cleaned up. He stated that Mr. Tarleton clearly has particular hardships. He moved to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the Hearing Officer’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Smith. Mr. Simonson asked to speak before the Committee voted on the Variation. Mr. Hutcheson said that the focus of the first motion is on the Text Amendment only. The motion carried unanimously.

Mrs. Allen moved to recommend approval of the Variation, seconded by Mrs. Casella. Mr. Simonson said that, while he agreed this particular case had unique circumstances and particular hardships, he felt that in general property owners do not avail themselves of programs that could help them reduce their taxes and lessen the hardships associated with their properties. There are State programs that allow taxes to be deferred, and property owners who come to the County claiming the financial burden justifies a Variation should explore those options first. The Committee then voted on the motion to approve the requested Variation, and the motion carried unanimously.

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

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