|
|
DeKalb County, Illinois |
Minutes of the
|
The
Planning and Regulations Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on April 24,
2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room
East. In attendance were Committee
Members Robert Hutcheson, Roger Steimel, Howard Lyle, Veronica Casella, Thomas
Smith, and Marlene Allen, and staff members Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson.
Audience members included County Board members John Wilson, Jeff Metzger
and John Gueler, Doug Dashner, Dick Auten, Ron Bairer, Bill & Jenny
Cleveland, Robert Johansen, Dorothy Troeger, Grace Adee, Winifred & Don
Frederick, Robert Becker, Shaun Van Kampen, and Richard Schmack.
Mr.
Hutcheson called the meeting to order. He noted that all committee members were
present except James Barr and Clifford Simonson.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
Mrs.
Casella moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2002 meeting, seconded by
Mr. Steimel, and the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA
Mr.
Smith moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lyle, and the motion carried
unanimously.
USE
VARIATION – Request of Dorothy Troeger for a Use Variation for a vacant
4.64-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Quigley
Road and Bethany Road in Cortland Township, Petition CO-02-3.
Mr. Miller
stated that a Use Variation is a procedure that creates the possibility that a
parcel of less than 40 acres in size in the A-1 District may be considered
buildable. A public hearing on the
request by Dorothy Troeger for a vacant 4.64-acre lot at Quigley and Bethany
Roads was held on March 7, 2002. Four
members of the public spoke in favor of the petition.
Staff recommended denial. The
Hearing Officer submitted his findings and recommended approval of the request.
The Committee
members had no questions regarding the petition.
Mr. Steimel to moved to approve the Use Variation, seconded by Mrs.
Casella, and the motioned carried unanimously.
At this time, Committee member Clifford Simonson joined the meeting.
ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENT – Request of several persons represented by Attorney Richard
Schmack for three separate Amendments to the text of the DeKalb County Zoning
Ordinance, including:
A.
Allow 20-foot-wide lot width for division of farmhouses that are set back
300 feet or more from the road:
Mr.
Miller stated that the staff received a petition for three amendments to the
text of the DeKalb County Zoning. A
public hearing on the proposed Text Amendments was on March 7, 2002.
The attorney and the petitioners indicated their support and rational for
each one. Staff reviewed each one
as well.
The
first proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance related to the provision that
allows a farmhouse to be split off of the farm on less than 40 acres.
The Ordinance requires that the resulting lot be a minimum of two acres
in size and have a minimum lot width of 200 feet.
Typically, this results in a rectangular lot that is at least 200 feet
wide. However, sometimes houses are
set back significantly from the road. The
proposal is that if the house is sitting back more than 300 feet, it could be
served by a lane of only 20 feet in width, and then include a larger parcel of
at least two acres around the house itself.
The rationale is that less land would have to be conveyed along with the
house.
Staff
recommended denial of the proposed Amendment for reasons set forth in the Staff
Report, and the Hearing Officer recommended denial also.
Mr.
Steimel asked Mr. Miller if staff had many requests for situations like this.
Mr. Miller stated that there are anywhere from one to two dozen splits of
farmhouses each year. Of those,
most are close to the road and lot width is not an issue. There may be one or two a year where the house is set back
significantly far from the road.
Mr.
Simonson moved to deny the request, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion
carried unanimously.
B.
Allow
minimum lot size of 40 acres or “one quarter of a standard quarter section”
in the A-1 District:
Mr. Miller stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires 40 acres for a new house in the A-1 District. This proposal would add a second minimum lot standard of “one quarter of a standard quarter section.” The petitioners’ reasons are set forth in their application materials. Staff recommended denial of the proposal for reasons contained in the Staff Report. The Hearing Officer recommended approval.
Mr.
Simonson stated that the County had a public hearing regarding the update to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance in 1999.
Everyone had a chance to speak out about the 40-acre rule at that time if
it were an issue. Nobody mentioned
that it was necessary to change the rule, and in fact everyone strongly
supported the 40-acre rule. He
noted that the DeKalb County Farm Bureau also has submitted a letter strongly
supporting the 40-acre rule as written with no changes.
Mr.
Simonson made a motion to deny the Amendment, seconded by Mrs. Casella.
Mr.
Steimel stated that what bother him is that this would be a substantial change
to the County’s rules, and he felt a more complete review would be necessary.
He also stated that there was not a public outcry at the hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan that took place only two years ago.
The goal of this rule is to preserve farmland, not to see how many houses
can be fit into a section. He noted
that the 40-acre rule was originally intended so that a son or daughter might
build a house on the family farm, but now new residents from the east are coming
to the County and buying 40-acre residential lots.
It is also difficult to farm the land or raise livestock when there are
homes surrounding the farmland.
Mr.
Simonson stated that if we allow the “quarter of a standard quarter section”
there would be 16 houses per section and that would light up the sky.
Mrs.
Casella stated she agreed with Mr. Simonson and Mr. Steimel.
A change to the 40-acre rule should involve input from more people and
organizations.
Mr.
Smith asked Mr. Miller if everyone was taxed on a quarter of a quarter section.
Mr. Miller stated that to his knowledge they were taxed on acreage.
He stated that the petitioners had mentioned being taxed as 40 acres,
even though the parcel might be slightly less, was part of the rationale for the
proposed Amendment. Mr. Smith stated that farmland would be more valuable, then,
if it were a full 40 acres. Mr. Miller agreed, because a person could build a
house on the land.
The
motion to deny carried unanimously.
C.
Revise
the definition of “zoning lot” to eliminate requirement that a lot be
located entirely on one side of the street.
Mr.
Miller stated that this is a proposed Amendment to the definition of a “zoning
lot.” One of the changes that
were made to the Zoning Ordinance as part of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan was to
clarify that a zoning lot had to be on one side of a street, as opposed to being
partially on both sides of a street. This
was one way in which the policy of limiting the number of houses in the
agricultural portions of the County was strengthened.
The proposal is to remove the change that was made.
It would go back to saying that a zoning lot simply consists of all
property under common ownership treated as a single unit, regardless of the
presence of a road.
The
petitioners’ rationale was contained in the application, and staff recommended
denial for reasons set forth in the Staff Report.
The Hearing Officer recommended denial of this Amendment.
Mrs.
Casella moved to deny, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried
unanimously.
ZONING
TEXT ADMENDMENT – Request of DeKalb County Broadcasters for an Amendment to
the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow radio towers of up to 399 feet in
height as a Special Use in the A-1 District, Petition DC-01-35.
Mr.
Miller stated that this proposed Amendment relates to a Special Use in the A-1
District. The Special Use allows
radio towers, but not higher than 200 feet.
DeKalb County Broadcasters require a tower twice that height, but can’t
get a Variation to allow it because the Special Use itself specifically states
that a tower cannot be higher than 200 feet.
DeKalb County Broadcasters filed a petition to add language to the effect
that a tower can go up to a height of 399 feet, if it has been approved by the
FCC and FAA.
A
public hearing was on March 21, 2002. No
members of the public spoke at the hearing. The Hearing Officer recommended
approval with modified language, to the effect that the base of the structure
should be located from any adjacent road at least 90% of the tower height.
Mr.
Steimel asked if the County had approved a tower at a taller height than 200
feet before. Mr. Miller stated that
there are taller radio towers in the county.
Mr. Steimel asked if any existing towers have been or would be increased
in height? Mr. Miller stated that
if any existing tower was proposed to be raised in height, it would require an
amendment to the Special Use for that tower.
Mr.
Smith asked if existing towers are at 90% of their heights from adjacent roads?
Mr. Miller stated that tower setbacks vary.
Mr.
Simonson asked why not have a 100% set back from the road?
Mr. Miller stated that the towers are built to collapse partially if they
fall.
Mr. Smith moved to approve, seconded by Mrs. Casella, and the motion carried unanimously.
USE VARIATION – Request of Robert and Donald Johansen for Use Variation for a
vacant 34-acre parcel located on the west side of Annie Glidden Road, north of
Cherry Valley Road, in Kingston Township, Petition KI-02-8.
Mr.
Miller stated that the petitioners are seeking a Use Variation to allow a house
to be built on the vacant parcel. A
significant portion of the site is wooded, and only about 10 acres are used for
row crops. The public hearing was
conducted on March 28, 2002. The
petitioner testified that the parcel and owners met the requirements for a Use
Variation. The Hearing Officer
agreed with the assertion that there was a hardship, because the federal estate
taxes the client paid that for at the time that this was inherited exceeds the
value of the property. The Hearing
Officer recommended approval.
Mr.
Hutcheson asked if the parcel was mostly wooded lot?
Mr. Miller stated that over half was wooded.
Mr.
Lyle stated that he took a drive out to the property and it does not look like
it is good farming land.
Mr.
Lyle moved to approve the Use Variation, seconded by Mr. Simonson, and the
motion carried unanimously.
INTERIM
SPECIAL USE – Request of Donald and Winifred Frederick for approval of an
Interim Special Use to allow a mobile home for dependent relatives behind their
house at 15541 Gurler Road in Cortland Township, Petition CO-02-6.
Mr.
Miller stated that a public hearing was conducted on the petition on March 26,
2002. It was proposed that a mobile
home be placed behind the house for elderly parents.
The application includes landscaping to help screen the appearance of the
mobile home. This is a situation
where, if the Interim Special Use is granted, the applicant has to annually
reaffirm that the mobile home is still occupied by the person for whom it is
intended. At such time that the
person is no longer residing there, the mobile home has to be removed. The
Hearing Officer has recommend approval.
Mr.
Smith moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Lyle.
Mrs.
Allen asked whether an additional septic tank is needed for the mobile home.
Mr. Miller stated that the applicants had to address sanitary system and
water as part of their application. Mrs.
Allen asked if the applicants had to come in every year to sign a affidavit.
Mr. Miller stated that they do.
Mr.
Simonson stated that granting these kinds of Interim Special Uses is one of the
nicest things the County Board can do. It
takes a load off the caregiver of elderly parents.
The
motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL
USE PERMIT – Request of Richard Auten for a Special Use Permit to allow a
self-storage and mobile storage business at 158 Gletty Road in Sandwich
Township, Petition SA-02-7.
Mr. Miller
stated that this Special Use Permit request is relying on a new change to our
Zoning Ordinance that allows retail and service uses to be located within and
around agricultural buildings that are no longer used for agriculture.
The main intents the preservation of the farm buildings, allowing them to
be used and maintained rather than left vacant and becoming eye sores. The
petitioner is currently operating a mobile storage business from the site. The business utilizes containers that are transported to a
customer and loaded, and then transported to another property or stored for a
while on the subject property.
A
public hearing on the request was held on April 4, 2002.
The petitioner explained the operation.
There was discussion on the appearance of the property.
The petitioner agreed to extend fencing on the north and south property
lines to help screen the appearance of the storage containers. There would also be interior storage in the agricultural
buildings. The petitioner is in the
process of repairing and maintaining the agricultural buildings.
There will be a security gate installed as well.
The Hearing Officer recommended approval with a number of conditions.
Mr.
Simonson asked if there would be open storage of vehicles.
Mr. Miller stated that there is no proposal for storage of vehicles as
part of this use.
Mrs.
Allen asked if there were going to be as many as 50 storage units at one time.
She also asked how tall they were. Mr.
Auten stated that they were 11 feet tall. Mrs.
Allen asked about the 6-foot-tall fence, and how would that conceal an 11-foot
unit? Mrs. Allen stated she was
concerned about the 6-foot fence would not be enough security.
Mr. Miller stated that the fence was not for security, but to soften the
appearance. Mrs. Allen stated that
the petitioner asked for the landscaping to be waved in the back.
Mr. Miller stated that the landscaping Variation that was granted by the
Hearing Officer was from the County’s parking standards, not for the entire
site. The petitioner did commit to
building a berm along the north property line, and to planting additional trees
in front.
Mrs.
Allen moved to deny the Special Use request, seconded by Mr. Simonson.
Mr.
Hutcheson asked about a renewal of the Permit if granted.
Mr. Miller stated that the Hearing Officer’s recommendation is that the
Use only be permitted for five years, after which time the petitioner must
return for a new Special Use Permit.
Mr.
Smith asked what was on the property now? Mr.
Miller stated that a house and the agricultural buildings.
Mrs.
Allen expressed her concern that this area was next to bank and house, and that
the use would not be appropriate for the area.
Mr. Miller stated that no one spoke against this at the public hearing,
and that the County’s Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be Commercial.
The
motion to deny failed on a vote of two “yes” and five “no.”
Mrs.
Casella moved to approve the Special Use, seconded by Mr. Lyle.
The motion passed on a vote of five “yes” and two “no.”
Mr.
Smith moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Casella, and the motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully
submitted,
___________________________
Robert Hutcheson, Chairman
Planning and Regulations Committee Chairman
| Home | Return
to top | A-Z Index | Return
to minutes |