Minutes of the
Planning & Regulations Committee

Mr. Hutcheson, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order. He noted all Committee members were present with the exception of Mr.Steimel, Mr. Barr and Mr. Smith.

Mr. Miller reported that the required public hearing was conducted on November 14, 2002 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. At the hearing, the petitioners testified that they seek the ability to construct only one house on the 20-acre site, which is why only 1.93 acres is requested to be rezoned from A-1 to R-1. They do not propose to subdivide the property, so no connection to water and sanitary sewer lines would be required. Staff pointed out that the County’s Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be converted to Low Density Residential use. The County Engineer, Bill Lorence, requested that a new driveway to this property only be permitted if it will be in the same location as a road which may serve

the whole property should it be subdivided in the future. The petitioners agreed to this restriction. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to this request. The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report, and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment.

Mr. Steimel asked to clarify that the tract falls into land designated for low-density residential housing. Mr. Miller noted that was correct. Mr. Simonson asked if the petitioners could sign the restrictive covenants agreed to and then come back in the future and ask to subdivide and further develop the area. Mr. Miller replied that they could return in the future, if they could connect to water and sanitary sewer, and propose further development. Mr. Steimel commented that with the development to the north, that this was mostly a matter of in-filling. Mr. Lyle added that he did not feel that water and sewer lines would be brought to that area in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Miller opened by noting there was a typographical error on the Agenda, noting that the requested rezoning is to the A-1 District, not R-1 District as the Agenda stated. The required public hearing was conducted on November 14, 2002 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. At the hearing, the petitioner testified that the existing structure on the property had been used as a single-family residence for many years, but has not been occupied for over a year. The petitioner would like to purchase the property and live in the structure. However, single-family residences are not a permitted use in the B-1 District. Staff explained that, if the property is rezoned to A-1, Agricultural, it would be in keeping with the recommendation of the County Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the zoning of surrounding properties, even though such a rezoning would create a legal, nonconforming use and lot. Further, rezoning from B-1 to A-1 would be "down zoning," going from a more intensive to a less intensive use. No members of the public spoke in favor of this request. Two persons spoke in opposition, citing the need to retain business zoning where it is currently located in order to support other business uses in Shabbona.

The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report, and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment.

Mr. Hutchinson asked if this property was bounded on the south by the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad. Mr. Miller noted that it was. He also asked what the 4.75 acres to the west of the property was used for and zoned. Mr. Miller noted this was an outboard motor and mower business, zoned B-1 District. Mr. Simonson noted that he was disturbed by a petition that had been distributed to the Committee members prior to the meeting by those opposing the rezoning. It carried the names of several individuals yet, he noted, only two spoke in opposition at the hearing. Mr. Steimel asked for clarification that the petitions were not presented at the hearing. Mr. Miller responded that they were not. Mr. Steimel then asked if this property had ever been used as a business. Mr. Miller noted that it was stated at the hearing that it had been used as a hotel "years ago." Mr. Hutchinson asked if there were further questions. Mr. Simonson asked what was the potential for this residence triggering the possibility of jumping across the road and putting more residences in. Mr. Miller noted that would require rezoning to a residential district. Mr. Hutchinson added that this was a fairly land-locked piece of property and quite unique. Mr. Miller added that it was his opinion that this would have no impact whatsoever on encouraging additional residences. Mr. Steimel asked to clarify what would have been the case if this property had not been vacant for more than a year. Mr. Miller replied that the regulations regarding non-conforming uses would have allowed the re-establishment of the residential use without any zoning action. Ms. Casella asked how long ago it had been a motel and how long people had lived in it. Mr. Miller indicated that no specific time line had been specified as to when it had last been a motel and how long it had been utilized as a single family residence, only that it had been "a long time." Mr. Hutchinson asked if there were any further questions and hearing none, asked for a motion.

Mr. Miller appraised the Committee on the ongoing activities being conducted on the Regional Planning Commission’s Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO project. As discussed in past meetings, the staff and the planning consultant are meeting with the individual municipalities on reviewing and updating their comprehensive plans. The process being used features two public meetings. The first is an "Image Preference Survey," wherein the community views a variety of slides showing commercial, residential, industrial, low density, high-density, etc. and then rates those images as preferred or not preferred on a scale. The consultant uses these scores to create a presentation to assist the community in articulating what it wishes to be. The second meeting is a "charette," a Saturday workshop where the community is invited to draw out future land use plans for the community. The consultant takes all of this information and creates a consensus plan for community review. Finally, the consultant utilizes all of this information to draft a formal comprehensive plan. All communities are now scheduled for the surveys and charettes from now through March of 2003. The overall goal is to then develop from these individual plans a county wide comprehensive plan that everyone can feel comfortable endorsing. A very encouraging thing that came from the Waterman charette was that when presented with a jurisdiction that extended over a mile and a half, they elected to encourage surrounding areas to remain in agricultural use. They did not feel a need to indicate every portion of their planning jurisdiction to be developed in the future.

The Model UDO work is also progressing as well with the RPC having the initial chapters to review and more to be reviewed monthly. As this is developed, it will provide a very useful tool for the communities as they progress with their comprehensive plans.

Mrs. Casella noted that she received very positive feedback from the Waterman meeting regarding the community input. Mr. Hutchinson asked if Mr. Miller or Mrs. Allen had received any input from the Sandwich charette. Mrs. Allen noted that her husband attended, that a very diverse group of people attended and the outcome was quite encouraging.

Mr. Miller noted that this sort of encouragement of community involvement is extremely crucial to creating and sense that everyone is on the same page and helping to clearly define to developers approaching the county, where development is (and is not) being encouraged.

Mrs. Allen wanted to clarify that Sandwich has a comprehensive plan, but welcomed the assistance of the consultant in reviewing and possibly updating that plan. The assistance has been very well received. Mr. Miller expanded on that comment to underscore the importance of the fact that the consultant is solely assisting the communities, but that the work should and must be theirs. That there be no sense that the County is driving or pushing the municipal comprehensive plans in any particular way.

Mr. Hutchinson began by reporting on what has happened with this issue to date. There was a lengthy public hearing held last month at the County Nursing Home, whereby the Hearing Officer made every possible effort to let those who wished to speak be heard. Since that time, there was a discovery that Florida Power and Light (FPL), the petitioner, had not contacted all relevant adjoining landowners. This has necessitated a second public hearing, currently scheduled for December 19^th at 7:30 p.m. at the Farm Bureau Building (the County Nursing Home not being available).

Mr. Steimel then asked what the anticipated schedule would be for when this Committee would receive the item and recommendations. Mr. Hutchinson noted it would likely be the fourth Wednesday in January (if the new Committee retains this meeting schedule). The item would then go to the County Board in February.

Mr. Steimel then noted that he was quite pleased that there is another hearing and an opportunity for more public input, and that he understood Lee County is also having another hearing due to notification issues. He then introduced Mrs. Carlson from the audience who had contacted him with a procedural questions.

Ms. Carlson began by noting that she had a discussion with Mr. Miller wherein she asked to bring a 15-minute videotaped presentation to the next public hearing and play it for the hearing officer and the public attending. Mr. Miller had indicated that there was no precedent for such a thing being allowable and offered her options (such as providing the tape to the hearing officer for his review prior to the meeting), none of which she found acceptable. She was therefore coming to this Committee to seek permission to play the tape of the presentation during the next public meeting on the matter.

Following discussion between Mr. Miller, the Committee and Mrs. Carlson, Mr. Miller’s recommendation that this a question that would require consultation with the State’s Attorney’s office to determine whether an individual has a "right" to expect videotaped information to be played during a hearing. Mr. Miller will contact the State’s Attorney for a ruling and will contact Mrs. Carlson with the outcome.

Another audience member then asked why a written transcript of the hearing was not required. Mr. Miller noted that there is no law requiring a verbatim written record of public hearings. Court applications have also held consistently that the critical record for legal purposes has always been the Findings of Fact document prepared by the Hearing Officer.

Mr. Simonson closed the discussion by noting that Ogle and Boone Counties are also apparently looking at wind farm proposals.

Mr. Miller noted that the current schedule places the December Planning and Regulations Committee meeting on Wednesday, December 25, 2002. Given that the members would likely not wish to meet on or before Christmas day and there appears to be no pressing business that would need to be addressed in December, the Committee might wish to consider cancelling the December meeting. Following discussion, it was determined that the next meeting of the Planning and Regulations Committee would be Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at the same time and location.