Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission met on December 5, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East, in Sycamore, IL. In attendance were Commission Members Robert Pritchard, Frank Altmaier, Becky Morphey, Don Pardridge, Ruben Allen, Paul Rasmussen, Lee Luker, Jerry Thompson, Les Bellah, Rich Gentile, Bill Nicklas and Mark Todd, and staff members Paul Miller, Marcellus Anderson and planning consultant Walt Magdziarz. Also in attendance was Dennis Ragan, representing Village of Lee. Absent were Commission Members Mike Schafer of Lee and Ben Suppleland of Cortland. Audience included Mike Heiderscheidt from the Village of Waterman.

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard noted all members were present except the representative of the Village of Cortland.

2. Approval of Agenda -- Mr. Nicklas moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen. The agenda passed unanimously.

3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Pardridge noted four discrepancies or typos in the minutes on pages 6 and 7. Mrs. Morphey moved to approve the amended minutes of the October 24, 2002 meeting of the Regional Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. Pardridge. The motion to approve the amended minutes passed unanimously.

Mr. Miller began with an update on the municipal comprehensive plans projects to date. He reminded the Commission that this major undertaking consists of two components; the Unified Comprehensive Plan and a companion Model Unified Development Ordinance. The first stage of the process is well underway to help communities to update their individual comprehensive plans. These in turn will be combined with the County’s plan to create a single unified document. The municipal comprehensive plan update process features two public input sessions. The first is an Image Preference Survey, wherein community members are shown various images of possible land uses and asked to rate those images. The information from this meeting is taken by the consultant, summarized and then brought back to the community. The preferred images help identify what types of development the community wants for its future. After this is completed, the community has a "Charette" meeting. This is typically held on a Saturday and community members are asked to draw up their version of a future land use plan. The consultant takes the various plans and develops a consensus plan that is then brought to the community for final approval. These steps have already been done for Waterman and Sandwich.

Mr. Todd commented that Waterman’s response to the consultant and the processes has been extremely

positive. Mr. Magdziarz has met with the Waterman Planning Commission and he has walked the Plan Commission through the consensus plan. Some changes came out of those discussions and he will take those changes back and return to the Planning Commission with a revised plan in January. Most of those changes were related to future residential growth on the north and east sides of the Village. The only regret anyone had about this has been related to low numbers of persons who participated in the meetings. However, despite the numbers, the participation from those who did come out was quite good. And the Planning Commission also feels they have a good feel for what the community wants and will buy into.

Mr. Magdziarz commented that he was very happy that the people who turned out for the Charette in Waterman were also in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. It was a very positive experience.

Mr. Miller commented that he was happy to hear that the community felt ownership of the plan they developed. The intent was that the communities should believe that the comprehensive plan was theirs, rather than being driven by the wishes of the County or the RPC. In the Waterman meetings, he was very heartened to see that, without prompting from the County, the community opted to leave a section of their mile and a half planning jurisdiction specifically devoted to Agricultural usage. He noted that many communities feel a need to "color that all in" with low density housing and that Waterman’s actions constituted a very strong statement of support for agricultural preservation in the County.

Mr. Allen then reported on Sandwich’s experiences with the processes. He felt that LandVision has been very well received. The only disappointment was that out of a total population of 6000, only 15 turned out for the Image Preference Survey and Charette. But that group was at least a good cross section of the City and all those individuals came back for the consensus plan meeting. Conversations were still being held up to December 4, and there were some changes still being proposed.

Mr. Magdziarz wished to comment on Mr. Allen and Mr. Todd’s references to turnout. He believes it is critical not to become too hung up on the quantity of the participation as much as on the quality of the input received. He felt that in both communities, though the numbers were low, the individuals were enthusiastic and engaged. There were some very insightful recommendations made. There were even items that he noted he had considered recommending, but did not know if the community would be ready. He was quite pleased when the community participants raised them without prompting. Three examples of this at the Sandwich meetings were a commuter rail station, agricultural preservation and a desire to focus on and improve appearance (especially at the gateways and corridors). In the Waterman meetings, the greatest surprise was the amount of land the community was comfortable developing.

Mr. Allen noted that despite the work, this plan would likely only be good for between seven to 10 years and perhaps as little as five due to encroaching development. Mr. Miller commented that five years was a fairly common time frame for communities to re-evaluate their comprehensive plans. He added that the east side of the County would likely face more rapid need for re-evaluation than the west side. Mr. Magdziarz noted that exercises like this help communities to put the future much more in focus. All of these activities are designed to help them paint that picture.

Mr. Bellah asked if the representatives from Waterman and Sandwich could comment on whether the people who did participate were more new or more "home grown" individuals. Mr. Todd noted that he felt that there was a mix of people who had been in Waterman quite a long time, but some who had only been residents for five years or less. Mr. Allen reported that he felt it was about a 60/40 split for Sandwich, with 60% being more "home grown" and 40% transplants. Mr. Miller commented that it was very good to have a mix of longer- and shorter-term residents. That each has a stake in the future of the community and bring diverse perspectives.

Mr. Altmaier asked what Waterman and Sandwich had done to encourage turnout and what they felt was successful and what was not. Mr. Allen stated that he felt that perhaps they needed more publicity and shouldn’t have held the events so soon. Mr. Todd noted that they had done a mailing, a reminder mailing, posters, a notice on the portable village sign and had the 4 local churches announce it in their services. He asked if Mr. Heidersheidt from the audience had anything he would add. He felt that the mailing on the Monday or Tuesday before the event had very little impact.

Mr. Miller reminded the Commission members of Mr. Magdziarz’s statement about not getting too hung up on turnout numbers. Apathy is an unfortunate reality in many communities and people tend not to become involved unless something effects their specific property or is in "their back yard". The good news is that this process is designed to work with as few as two people or more than 200, and if even if no one but a Village Board chose to be involved, a viable plan could still be developed. Getting the word out is important, but again he noted that the quality of the input was more critical than the quantity.

Mr. Todd added that one thing he is quite pleased with is a message he is hearing from several community members that they have faith in the efforts of their elected officials and trust them to take care of these things.

Mr. Pritchard asked if there were any additional questions on the Sandwich and Waterman meetings and hearing none moved on to the remainder of the report. Mr. Nicklas stated that Sycamore has scheduled meetings for its comprehensive plan update. The Image Preference Survey will be held on January 7, 2003, and the Charette on January 11, 2003. The consensus plan meeting would be shortly thereafter. He noted that Sycamore has been working on a full plan with a special emphasis on the city’s northeast side.

Mr. Rasmussen noted that he had received word from the City Manager that as long as there are no costs to the City, an Image Preference Survey for DeKalb could be scheduled. However, he added that the current discussions of a growth summit have caused quite a bit of confusion. He passed out a handout documenting some information he had been gathering in anticipation of the summit. He commented that it was the general feeling that this would not involve just DeKalb, but Sycamore and Cortland and the County as well. However, the representatives from Sycamore and the County noted that they had received no invitation to attend the event, tentatively scheduled ( and discussed in the press) for January 16^th or 17^th. Mr. Rasmussen stated that he would ask the City Manager and the Mayor whether any formal invitations had been prepared. He commented that this was not being handled through his office, so he had little first-hand knowledge of the event. He also noted that he is trying to get the focus of the event away from just how much growth and how fast, to more qualitative discussions about how the city wants to grow. He also reported that he has been gathering quite a bit of trend data prior to the event, and found an interesting fact. In an analysis of population growth for municipalities within 25 miles of the City, Oswego heads the list for tremendous growth, and only two communities show lower growth rates than DeKalb, those being Shabbona and Rochelle. Also, he observed that there had been development growing fairly steadily in the City years back, but that growth had gone into a negative trough during the previous administration. He speculated that perhaps what people see now as explosive growth is merely a readjustment to the previous rate from a greatly reduced situation. Also, he noted that the school district in the city had shown a 3% growth rate while city growth had only reached 1.8%. One possible reason for this could relate to the individuals moving into what had been student housing at one point, but was vacated as the students migrated to newer housing to the west. Many of those occupying the older housing stock are families with greater numbers of children.

As to the current work progressing on the DeKalb Comprehensive Plan, he noted that he had been told that he was to take the final plan to the Plan Commission and then it would be given to the people involved with the growth summit for their deliberation. The Mayor has indicated that he wants this all completed within a four- to five-month time frame.

Mr. Miller commented that he hoped the Commission members realized how extraordinary what has been happening on this project is. That it is highly unusual to see an entire county with a myriad of separate governmental entities all looking at their futures and planning simultaneously.

Mr. Pritchard noted that the summit situation has great relevance for the County and that community representatives should participate. He noted that Mr. Allen’s comments earlier about how to handle explosive growth might be a relevant topic and that he, especially, should be attentive to the summit.

Mr. Miller noted that whatever any individual community decides will ultimately impact the County overall and it was important for everyone to stay informed.

Mr. Bellah added that he had recently attended a presentation on growth presented by the former mayors of Indianapolis and Rockford and that he felt he had received useful information.

Mr. Pritchard then shifted discussion to the UDO portion of the project and turned the floor over to Mr. Magdziarz.

Mr. Magdziarz opened by recapping what had been agreed to at the last meeting. He reminded the Commission that he would distribute one or more new chapters at each meeting for discussion at the following meeting. The Commission had previously received Chapters 1 through 3 for discussion this evening, and had Chapter 4 in their packets for discussion in January. Chapter 1 contained nothing that seemed to warrant extensive discussion, so he asked if the members could turn their attention to the second chapter which focused on administration, decision making and responsibility. He wanted to point out that while the document refers to a Zoning Administrator, that there is also language revolving around public improvements. Therefore a Public Works Director might also have responsibilities mentioned in this section. Also, there is reference to the advisory level group (Plan Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals) and a Hearing Officer that might replace the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that many communities are moving away from a Zoning Board of Appeals and toward a Hearing Officer due to the logistical difficulties in gathering a group of people to handle these responsibilities. Finally, at the top level in the document, are references to the elected officials (Village Board or City Councils) who would make recommendations.

Mr. Thompson asked if all of this was fairly standard, boilerplate language they were looking at. Mr. Magdziarz indicated that it was. But he noted that they should be aware of places in the document where two entities could be either/or such as the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Hearing Officer.

Mr. Nicklas then asked what would happen if after all the work is done at the RPC to craft a consensus document, that certain communities opt (at final review) to make changes or not to endorse the document at all? Would that have a very hurtful impact to the County?

Mr. Miller responded that it would not irrevocably harm the process if some communities did not buy in to the process. The message has been consistently that while the RPC wishes to develop a unified document, what individual communities want could work as well. It is understood that the development review documents will vary from community to community at the end of this process. However, the actions of the RPC are intended to encourage overall consensus on those regulations. In the pursuit of this, when the process is nearing completion, Mr. Magdziarz and staff will individually review each communities documents to see how their current regulations compare and what might or might not need to be changed or addressed. This will, of course, be done differently depending on the community. For example Genoa and DeKalb already have fairly sophisticated regulations not requiring much alteration.

Mr. Thompson asked at what point they should present the document to their individual community decision makers? Should they be working with them now, or wait until there is a finished document?

Mr. Miller noted that it is hoped there would be ongoing discussions throughout this process, perhaps occurring as frequently as monthly, to keep everyone abreast of what the RPC is doing and how work is progressing. The final plan is to present the UDO at the time the UCP is completed, with the message that the UDO can be the major tool to implement the UCP.

Mr. Pardidge noted that it is desirable to try to do this consultation early, but it often just doesn’t work out that way. Mr. Pritchard noted that perhaps the best approach is to keep the various decision making bodies informed and let them determine when to weigh in. Mr. Pardidge added that he was concerned about getting enough input.

Mr. Miller noted this was a common concern and that it has been his experience that many communities are not even aware of where their existing regulations are located or how old or obsolete they may be. It is simply hard to find individuals to do the work in those communities that do not have professional staff. Many such communities may simply welcome the model UDO as cleaner and clearer than what they currently have.

Mr. Magdziarz added that he has found that many of communities recognize that their current ordinances would prohibit the development of many things they identify as desirable in their Image Preference Surveys. There is recognition that what they currently have must be adapted and regulations changed. Many have asked what the next step is following the surveys, Charettes and consensus plans, and he has noted that it would be to bring their zoning ordinances into line with their future visions.

Mr. Gentile asked for clarification of how the Commission members were to handle the information from Mr. Magdziarz, if they were to review and discuss what they like or don’t like. For instance, his community would prefer to call the Zoning Administrator referenced in Article 2.2, a Development Administrator. Mr. Magdziarz replied that each community should make such nomenclature decisions. Terminology has been specifically kept generic to encourage the communities to make those decisions individually.

Mr. Miller added a reminder that these initial sections are boilerplate language designed for "Anywhere, Illinois". It would be best for the Commission members as they read to focus on items that they feel would be glaringly problematic if applied in their communities or in general. Staff can handle the general issues of proofreading.

Mr. Altmaier then asked what if a community doesn’t have zoning officers, public works directors, etc?

Mr. Magdziarz replied that the title is insignificant. It’s the responsibilities that are key. Mr. Miller reinforced that the intent is to focus on the duties more than on staff positions that may or may not exist. Mr. Gentile and Mr. Bellah noted that in their communities, they hire independent contractors to handle many of these duties (building inspections for instance). Mr. Miller reminded the members that County staff can also be called upon as a shared resource for the various communities and that had been a core concept at the initiation of the RPC.

Mr. Gentile noted one area he has been extremely appreciative of assistance has been with setting up escrows on new developments. If a development wants zoning changes, these accounts can be established to handle the costs associated with the request. Mr. Miller noted that language for this is included in the draft UDO and that it is perfectly legal and acceptable to use these funds to pay for expert assistance to do this sort of work. Mr. Magdziarz added that even basic staff (not specifically hired experts) can be reimbursed for their time as well as long as a community sets up good time accounting practices.

Mr. Pritchard asked if there were any additional comments on the chapters? He went on to ask specifically about Chapters 2.1 through 2.5. No questions were forthcoming. He then proceeded to the balance of Chapter 2.

Mr. Nicklas asked if comments and recommendations could be forwarded at any time to Mr. Miller and Mr. Magdziarz. Mr. Miller responded that they could do so. Mr. Pritchard added that it would be helpful to have as much of the conversations as possible during the Commission meetings to keep everyone on the same page. Mr. Magdziarz added that he would be providing edited updates as changes were suggested and made. Mr. Nicklas then asked if it was the intention of the consultant to provide a digital version of the document to all communities when the work was completed. Mr. Miller noted that would help with editing of current regulations and also provide a tool to help the members in presenting the process to their Boards and communities. Mr. Magdziarz added that the final versions sent will also have the individual critiques per community included on what may need to be adjusted in their current ordinances.

Mr. Luker noted that his biggest concern was with high density housing. Hinckley, for example, would have great difficulties due to vague or inadequate high density housing standards. He is looking for assistance with controlled growth. Mr. Magdziarz noted that is a common issue. Communities are often less concerned about development as much as about large concentrations of this kind of growth.

Mr. Magdziarz then turned the conversation to Chapter 3 and the issue of non-conformities. He noted that this section contained much that would be policy matters for Boards and Councils. He added that non-conformities can be handled in a number of ways. Some communities may want to be very aggressive about restricting non-conformity. Others may only want to focus on the length of time a non-conformity can exist. He pointed specifically to Article 3.4 on Page 5 which has language intended to provide exemptions for non-conformities and how communities can build in tolerances for them within their ordinances.

Mr. Pardridge asked of this was all related only to new developments. Mr. Rasmussen interjected that this could be extremely relevant to older sections of a community as well. If a section of town had existed with grid streets and smaller lots, but a new ordinance was passed requiring wider streets or larger lots, land uses in that older section would become legal, non-conforming. Property owners could find themselves having difficulties finding loans for property improvement, which could lead to blighting of the area. Mr. Miller noted that he felt that in the County’s case, the language on non-conformity that already existed would be retained because it adequately addressed. Mr. Nicklas asked about Section 3.5.3 on Elimination of Non-Conforming uses. What would happen with a use that is rendered non-valuable by non-conformity? Mr. Magdziarz noted that it is zoning maps, not land use maps, that create issues of non-conformity. Mr. Miller cited the example in the County, whereby allowance is made for repair and maintenance as well as the ability to expand the non-conforming structure. But, he noted, some communities might want to restrict allowance to just repair and maintenance.

The review of Chapters 1 through 3 then concluded with Mr. Pritchard encouraging members to send any additional comments to Mr. Miller and Mr. Magdziarz and to be ready for a discussion of Chapter 4 at the next meeting.

Mr. Nicklas reported a great deal of interest in the northeast portion of the mile and a half planning jurisdiction of Sycamore. Farms are being optioned on the fringes or just outside the present or planned extension. As far as commercial development, they are on the edge of a very hot node of commercial development in DeKalb. After that fills out it traditionally washes over to Sycamore. The City is also involved in some historical renovations (the Community Center and the old Henderson’s building). Bids are going out on the Community Center in 30 days. The land being moved by B&B development (at Peace Rd and Rt 23) is also generating questions. This is mostly coming from the public who aren’t as aware of what is planned for the future as city officials may be.

Mr. Gentile notes that Genoa is anticipating extension for Oak Creek Estates of 180 homes. The developers are a bit shell shocked at the way impact fees have risen. There is also a 135-acre development on the northeast side of the City for light industrial or commercial use. Mr. Gentile closed by noting that he couldn’t say enough about how the UCP/UDO exercise has helped them with dealing with development processes.

Mr. Nicklas asked if he could just add that in future meetings, he would like to ask the Commission for input regarding urban design guidelines, what the other communities may be considering about those guidelines and any other creative ways they may have to manage that aspect of development.

Mr. Gentile noted that they had placed in their ordinances guidelines on the types of buildings, roof designs and elevations, and that had been quite helpful.

Ms. Morphey commented that Somonauk is finishing the storm sewer project, have finally gotten their permit from the railroad and have borers out today. They are also working on a final for a 33 condo subdivision and another small one is doing a final plot. Also, though the Village has lost their hardware store, the space will soon be occupied by other businesses.

Mr. Pardridge stated that, in Shabbona, the nursing home continues to be on-again and off-again as to what kind of facility will be used. There is no change on the Rt. 30 project and it should be complete next Summer. A proposed subdivider is holding conversations with the Village and they have been turned over to the Planning and Zoning Committee. Some proposals had the development at 17 homes per year, and others at 12 to 17. The other issue currently is the proposed wind farm, and Mr. Pardridge noted that opponents have been pressing him at home and contacting his wife at her school to discuss the issue. He closed by noting that he was extremely pleased that Waterman, Shabbona and Lee had managed to pass school referendums during the recent elections. He was especially proud of the fact that there were surprises in the voter turnout. Many individuals (elderly, etc) who may not have been expected to support the referendums did and recognized the need for improvement and upgrading of the schools. The Village is also considering placing the home rule issue on the March ballot.

Mr. Rasmussen reiterated that he will speak to the Mayor of DeKalb and others about the notifications for the upcoming growth summit. He also wanted to say that he had been chatting with the construction manager for Pepper Construction (currently renovating Northland Plaza) and noted that they have done very quick work on the Plaza. The Panera Bread building will go up within six weeks. He also stated that at the International Conference of Shopping Development (ICSD) it was noted that our area is quite hot and on the radar of retailers. He felt that everyone will benefit from this in the future. Also, he noted that DeKalb had recently raised their fees and had taken in a check for $79,000 for fees and permits on Northland Plaza. The Savannah Greens subdivision will go before the Planning Commission on January 11, 2003. He noted that in response to concerns about school overcrowding, the developer had agreed to provide a school. However, they had then removed proposed shopping areas, parks and a swimming pool, greatly reducing the attractiveness of the development. It is questionable if the project will be approved.

Mr. Thompson reported that he is glad to hear someone say there are benefits to be achieved through development, given how it is frequently maligned. He stated that there are three or four vacant lots in Malta that have had new homes built on them, as well as the updating and modernization of a commercial lot. Another contractor has extended a street and hopes to put three new homes on it. Additionally, a property owner on the west side of town had been working with a developer, but when the developer was told the size and number of fees and costs it would have to bear for infrastructure, the deal fell through. The owner is now working with someone else. Mr. Thompson closed by handing out materials on fees and development challenges.

Mr. Todd noted that Waterman is in the process of reviewing water and sewer as it pertains to new connections and the project on Rt. 30. It does not look, at this point, as if the Village will have to borrow funds for this. They are also deeply involved in the redevelopment of downtown Waterman. During the process, some structures have been identified as being in very bad shape and one needs to be razed. However, the issue has turned contentious as a long-time resident owns one of the structures and is opposing the demolition. The Village is working with them to come to some resolution. Additionally, there was a large tract of land south of Waterman (700 acres on Preserve Road) that has recently been purchased by a sportsman’s club currently located on a 40 acre parcel in Aurora (on Bliss Road). The interesting thing about this is that the Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, is reportedly a member of the club. The deal is currently to cash rent the farm for two years and in year three, convert it to the sportsman’s club. It is unclear at this point how annexation may apply. The land was purchased for between $5,400 and $5,500 per acre and all of this has created quite a buzz in the town.

Mr. Ragan noted that Lee has two projects worth mentioning. The first revolves around the fact that Lee has no water tower, but rather a pressure tank. The EPA had placed the village on a watch list due to tank capacity (not water quality). They now have a new pressure tank and are working with the EPA to be taken off the list. Also, about three years ago the Village signed a contract with the Postal Service to build a new post office on a parcel of land they have been leasing with an option to buy. They are currently on year three of the five-year lease, so the Village feels something will have to be decided fairly soon about whether they intend to build or not.

Mr. Bellah reported that the Kirkland Fire Chief has retired and due to the financial situation caused by Hines Lumber, they may not be able to immediately replace the position. Kennedy homes is moving along quite well, with much of the infrastructure in. The Village has reached an agreement with Bob Rood on impact fees, but may have problems on annexation. The new Marathon station is very nice. A man from Dubuque, Iowa phoned seeking a 40-acre parcel for heavy industrial use. Mr. Bellah referred the gentleman to Roger Hopkins of the Economic Development Corporation.

Mr. Pritchard reminded the Commission that there will be a second public hearing on the proposed wind farm issue, necessitated by notification problems FPL had discovered. He noted that FPL has been very thorough about coming forward and trying to share information. The Board has forwarded concerns to them. Mr. Ragan asked if FPL had made any kind of statements about what they would do if one County approved the proposal, but the other did not. Mr. Pritchard replied that he had never heard FPL address that question. Mr. Miller supported that statement, noting that while FPL has consistently referred to this as a single project, they have never addressed the issue of what they would do if one of the effected counties did not approve and the other did. Mr. Pritchard noted that out of the proposed 123 towers, 77 would fall into DeKalb County.

Mr. Luker noted that the Hinckley Village Hall was nearing completion. The sewer plant is also complete, but they cannot seem to get EPA to take them off their list. They also are moving forward with a 10 million dollar school project involving two schools in Hinckley and one in Big Rock. They are in discussions to borrow some Park District land to use some of the land and roads for egress from the highway. A discussion followed about whether or not schools needed to apply for building permits or were restricted by local zoning restrictions. There was a response that since the school was on IDOT land, it was overseen by the State and there would be no local requirements for building permits, however they would be required to comply with local zoning ordinances. Mr. Miller suggested that perhaps the Village should conduct a review of their requirements and than have their village attorney initiate a conversation with the superintendent of schools to discuss the matter.

Mr. Allen reported that Sandwich Economic Developer Paul Barich continues to be very busy. Though he is also the VP of Old Second Bank in Aurora, he is spending a great deal of time working for the Village. Also, on the east side, the City took in the Vandermeer Subdivision (50 homes) near Kendall County at Groswold Springs and Sandy Bluff. There had been a lift station put in there that will now start to pay for itself with 51 homes coming on line. There was a firm in town seeking a site for a satellite junior college preferably on Rt. 34. The sewer plant continues to be on schedule to be online in June. Sewer crew has been taking lessons and are actually in the plant a couple of days a week. Dirt is also being moved on a grade school and 251 homes on Castle Street. Walgreen’s received their final approval on Monday and plans to start the demolition of the former church on June 1. The hospital is in it’s new facility and the renovation of the old structure continues. Mr. Allen closed by extending thanks to Mr. Magdziarz for his presentations and work with the city.

Mr. Altmaier noted that Kingston had two community development items of note. First, that the Casey’s was firming up and would be started in Spring 2003. There is also a small coffee store that has been trying to open but hit a few snags with permits. They currently plan for a December 14 opening. There has also been a share library established in the Village Hall with individuals from the community donating books so a library can be established.

Mr. Pritchard asked if anyone had anything further. He asked the group if anyone had any familiarity with the increasing number of Farmland Trust transactions of late. Some speculation that it was generated from the Rockefeller Foundation as well as other funds generated by local river boats.

9. Adjournment -- The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be January 23, 2003. Mr. Rasmussen moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Altmaier, and the motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,