Minutes of the
Planning & Regulations Committee

The Planning and Regulations Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on May 22, 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, Marlene Allen, James Barr and Clifford Simonson, and County staff Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson.  Audience members included Barry Halgrimson, Martha Oge, Jeff Schmidt, Dan Klein, Charles Cronauer, Robert Larry, Greg Milburn, Jim Rafferty, Bob Pritchard, Kevin Buick, George Doherty, Kay Philips, Diane Strand and Tom Doherty. 

Mr. Hutcheson called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

Mrs. Casella moved to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2002 meeting, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried unanimously. 

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA    

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

Mr. Hutcheson stated the 4^th item on the agenda, regarding the Alternate Hearing Officer, would be in executive session.

 

LIQUOR CODE AMENDMENT – Request of Oak Club of Genoa to amend Chapter 6 of the DeKalb county Code regarding liquor licenses and hours of sale.

 

Mr. Miller stated that the Oak Club in Genoa has made a request to amend the County Code related to the hours of sale of alcohol on Sundays.  The County issues liquor licenses for unincorporated DeKalb County.  There are not many, but the Oak club is one of two at this time.  The class of liquor license the Oak Club has right now is “A1”.  The class “A1” license is a supplemental license to allow sale of alcohol on Sunday hours,  while Class “A” allows retail sales of liquor for consumption on the premises.

 

What the Oak Club is focusing in on is the restriction in the section 6-3 (d) of the County Code.  It states it shall be unlawful for the holder of a class “A1” liquor license to sell any alcohol on Sunday between the hours of 1AM and 12 PM on Sunday.  The proposal from the Oak Club is to amend that provision to make it unlawful to sell between the hours of 1 AM and 10 AM on Sunday.

 

Mr. Miller stated that this request for an amendment is not subject to a public hearing, because it is an amendment to the County Code not the Zoning Ordinances.  Mr. Miller asked Mr. Jim Rafferty to explain to the Committee why this is amendment is being sought.

 

Mr. Rafferty stated that the reason the Oak Club is seeking this amendment to the County code is that the amenities that the Club holds as a golf course are vital to the kind of play people can get at the Oak Club.  Play is the basis of the Oak club’s revenue.  The Oak club has a very “blue collar” cliental, 70 to 75% of whom come from outside of DeKalb County.  With the cliental being “blue collar”, the one day of week they do not work is Sunday.  The clients look to the Oak Club to offer certain amenities, not only the cheaper charge than other golf courses, but the clients would like to have a beer or other alcoholic beverages in the morning.  Alcohol is part of the Oak Club’s revenues base.  It helps get the Club through the year, because the time frame of the golf season is short lived.  The Oak Club needs to capture the revenue while it be captured.  Serving alcohol starting at 10Am on Sundays would help aid the Clubs revenue base.

 

Mr. Hutcheson asked if the Oak Club still provided “brunch.”  Mr. Rafferty stated that, no, the Club did not have brunch and hasn’t for a few years.

 

Mr. Lyle asked if the customers took the alcohol outside to the golf course.  Mr. Rafferty stated that, yes, customers are able to take alcohol beverages out to the course.

 

Mr. Simonson stated that he was not happy with the 10 AM opening.

 

Mr. Miller stated that other golf courses in the area are open with sales of alcohol on Sundays.  Three of the courses are in the City of DeKalb.  The Kishwaukee Country Club allows liquor sales starting at 10 AM, the Buena Vista and River Heights golf courses at 9 AM and the Indian Oaks golf course in Shabbona at 12 PM.

 

Mr. George Doherty and Mrs. Kay Phillips were present in the audience.  Both came to show their support for the Oak Club and the proposed amendment.

 

Mr. Smith asked if there were any other restrictions during the other days of the week.  Mr. Miller stated that, no, there were not any other restrictions.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the proposed amendment to the County Code, seconded by Mr. Lyle, and passed unanimously.

 

LIVESTOCK FACILITY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING – County Board recommendation regarding a proposed hog confinement facility by Burnett Farms on Hinckley Road in Pierce Township.

 

Mr. Miller stated that the Committee is asked to formulate a recommendation for the full County Board on the application by Burnett Farms for a livestock management facility.  It is the responsibility of the County Board, when it receives a petition of 75 or more registered voters, is to request a public meeting regarding the proposed livestock management facilities.  This proposed facility is a hog operation of 3,000 animal units, which equals 8,000 head of hogs.  The facility would be located on the west side of Hinckley Road, between Owens and Perry Roads, in Pierce Township.

 

Mr. Miller stated that a lot of input was provided during the five-hour lone public information meeting conducted by the Illinois Department of Agriculture on June 13^th at the DeKalb County Farm Bureau.  The Committee’s responsibility is to try to formulate a recommendation to send to the full County Board for its June 19^th meeting.  The recommendation from the County is required to address eight siting criteria, and is non-binding on the ultimate decision, which will be made by the Department of Agriculture.

 

Mr. Miller stated that what was evident at the presentation at the May 13^th meeting was that there is disagreement on the several key points with the operator, Jim Burnett.  Mr. Burnett maintained that each of the siting criteria would be met.  However, objectors to the proposed facility said the facility would not meet the required setbacks from a non-farm residence, which is 1,760 feet, nor would it meet the setback from a populated area.  The setback must be a total of 3,520 feet from a populated area.  A populated area is defined as being 10 or more non-farm residences.  Mr. Miller stated that within the 3,520-foot radius, there are at least 10 residences, perhaps 11, depending on where the line is drawn.  The Department of Agriculture was not forth coming in trying to resolve the questions as to which of the residences qualified as non-farm residences, and whether or not Mr. Burnett’s facility would meet the setback criteria.

 

Mr. Miller recommended that the Committee go through each of the eight criteria.  Staff will then follow the discussion and attempt to draft a recommendation to the full County Board.  Mr. Hutcheson agreed that the Committee should go down the list of criteria and address each one.

 

Mr. Miller stated that the issue of waste management is a concern.  Testimony at the May 13^th meeting stated that a waste management plan was not required until 60 days after the start of operation.  The “if required” part of the criteria would say it is not required.  What it does not say is whether or not there is going to be an adequate enough waste management for this facility.  The Committee was not given enough information to know.

 

Mr. Smith asked if it would be better to talk about the criteria collectively.   Mr. Smith stated he would of liked to have an engineer present to provide more information about the facility’s waste containment structure.  An example would be the cement floor of the facility.  If the cement floor cracked, would there be seepage?  If so, the seepage would not be discovered until the ground was already contaminated.  There should be a study on how the facility could insure the drinking water would not be contaminated.

 

Mr. Smith asked what defines a non-farm residence.  Mr. Miller stated a non-farm residence is one that is occupied by someone who is not engaged in farming.  The Department of Agriculture has the final decision if a residence qualifies as a farm residence or not.  The people in the area are saying that the residences are not farm residences and Mr. Burnett is saying that they are farm residences.  The County does not get to make the call on farm residences, at least not in any binding way.  The Department of Agriculture is suppose to make the call, but will not address the criteria until the County Board makes the recommendation.

 

Mr. Miller pointed out the definition of a farm residence, which is any farm residence on a farm owned or occupied by the farm owners.

 

Mr. Hutcheson asked if there was a definition of a populated area.  Mr. Miller stated that a populated area is defined as any area where at least 10 inhabited non-farm residences are located, or where at least 50 persons frequent a common place of assembly or non-farm business at one time weekly.

 

Mr. Miller stated that the Committee and County Board could say that “yes” they are non-farm residences, or “no” they are not.  What Staff recommends is that the Committee states there is inadequate information to evaluate whether or not this criteria has been met.  Mr. Miller also suggested that on several of the criteria it is appropriate to maintain that the Committee has not received adequate information to make a full recommendation.

 

Mr. Steimel asked if staff had received any further information from the Department of Agriculture.  Mr. Miller stated that staff has not received any further information.  Mr. Steimel stated that it was very disappointing that no further information has been received.

He asked if there was a site plan for the proposed facility.  Mr. Miller stated that only a rough site plan, done by hand, had been submitted.  The area for the four buildings and the waste tank is approximately 700’ x 200’.  Mr. Steimel stated that there should be an engineering drawing documenting the exact distances.  Until that is done there is nothing to work with.

 

Mr. Smith stated that there was no time to get the work done by an engineer.

 

Mr. Smith moved that the County Board make a recommendation to deny the application on the grounds the facility does not meet the required setback from a populated area.  Mrs. Casella seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Steimel stated that it has become a challenge to produce livestock yet preserve community living.  The change in the intensity of livestock operations raises concerns.  Mr. Steimel stated that on May 13^th he came away from the meeting disappointed because the petitioner did not have experts available for questions.  Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to put in the communication to the Department of Agriculture the question of which method would be used to dispose of the hog manure. 

 

Mr. Simonson stated he wanted to address criteria’s 6,7, & 8.  He stated that the homes, in the area of the hog operation, would be reduced in value by millions of dollars.  Mr. Simonson stated that he had contacted the township Road Commissioner and asked what the cost would be to up-grade the road to handle the trucks associated with the proposed facility.  The Road Commissioner’s response was it would cost the Township over $374,000.  That would mean the taxes in the Township would need to be raised.  Mr. Simonson stated that there are 17 compounds of gases in hog waste.  He has studied the properties of gases throughout his career, and he knows that certain of the compounds will flow across the ground like a river of air.  He felt that the petitioner’s application was inadequate to address the effects of these compounds on surrounding property owners.

 

Mr. Steimel stated that the industry is spending millions of dollars to find a solution to pig waste gases.  Mr. Steimel also stated that there is an abandon well on the subject property, near the proposed facility.  There isn’t any documentation of the well being capped or not being capped.  Mr. Steimel asked staff to find out about that situation and could the waste from the hogs contaminate the water.

 

Mrs. Casella stated that the answers to the criteria are vague and inadequate.  Mrs. Casella stated that the Committee should not recommend approval of the facility.

 

Mr. Hutcheson stated that he lives in the middle of 12 times as many hogs and has shown no adverse affects.  Mr. Hutcheson also stated that his family has lived in the same area since the 1840’s and it is not as bad as everyone believes.  Mr. Hutcheson is not happy with the position that the Committee and the County Board is put in by the Livestock Facilities Management Act, but he would vote against any recommendation to deny the application.

 

On the motion to recommend denial, five Committee members were in favor, and two, including Chairman Hutcheson and Mrs. Allen, were opposed.

 

BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT -- Proposal by the Planning and Zoning Department to amend Chapter 14 of the County Code to update building regulations.

 

Toby Petrie, DeKalb County Building Official, stated that staff is proposing some updates to the building codes for the County in order to maintain a level of consistency with other local municipalities in DeKalb County.  He stated the Department proposed to delete the BOCA 1996 Code and adopt the newer, 1999 version.  Staff was recommending that the County continue with the 1996 Electric Code and the 1993 Mechanical Code.  It is recommended that  the 1995 1 & 2 single-family building code be replaced by the new 2000 International One and Two Family Dwelling Code.  The fire codes should be deleted, since they are covered by the various fire protection districts.

 

Mr. Hutcheson asked Mr. Petrie if the several different dates of the codes are confusing.  Mr. Petrie stated that the County used the most widely accepted versions of the code.  Mr. Miller stated that the contractors are the ones who are interested in the codes and have had no problems.  The Planning and Zoning Department has handouts available to the contractors to inform them of the codes used.

 

Mr. Petrie stated that the County Code is similar to the City of DeKalb’s building code.  Mr. Miller stated that staff looked at the codes every 3 to 5 years to stay current and see if updates are necessary.

 

Mr. Lyle motioned to approve the proposals, seconded by Mr. Simonson, and motion carried unanimously.

 

Alternate Hearing Officer -- Evaluation of Candidates

 

Mrs. Casella moved that the Committee go into Executive Session to discuss the personnel issue of appointing a second Alternate Hearing Officer, seconded by Mr. Smith, and the motion carried unanimously.

 

Executive Session.

 

Mr. Smith moved that the Committee end the Executive Session, seconded by Mr. Steimel, and the motion carried unanimously.

 

Mr. Smith moved that the County Board appoint Kevin Buick as the second Alternate Hearing Officer for DeKalb County, seconded by Mrs. Casella, and the motion carried unanimously.