Mr. Steimel, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order. He noted that all Committee members were present.

Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that it had previously directed staff to prepare a petition for a Zoning Text Amendment to make the digital version of the zoning maps the official zoning maps for DeKalb County. Accordingly, staff prepared a petition for an amendment to Section 3.02 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance, which designates which maps set forth the zoning districts in unincorporated DeKalb County. The Amendment would identify the digital zoning maps created by the County Information Management Office, with oversight from the Planning, Zoning and Building Department, as the official zoning maps for DeKalb County. The proposed Text Amendment to adopt the digital zoning maps would replace Section 3.02 with the following:

The required public hearing for the Zoning Text Amendment was conducted by Hearing Officer Ron Klein on September 25, 2003. Staff presented the petition and testified as to the rationale for adopting the digital maps, explaining that the digital zoning maps will be an improvement in clarity, consistency, and facility over the current Mylar zoning maps. Four members of the public attended the hearing, with one property owner objecting to the zoning depicted on a portion of a property located south of Corson Subdivision in Sycamore Township. No other members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer has filed his report and recommends approval of the Text Amendment, including that the digital zoning maps be adopted as presented at the public hearing.

Mr. Simonson asked if this action will have any effect on zoning amendment petitions coming to the office in the future. Mr. Miller noted that this would have no effect on future zoning or Special Use requests, it is simply a better and more accurate depiction of the zoning districts.

Mr. MacMurdo asked about the notification to individuals whose properties showed discrepancies between the Mylar and the digital maps. Mr. Miller replied that 20 properties were identified and their owners were sent notifications. One of those individuals came to the hearing to object, two others simply asked clarifying questions and had no objections. Mr. MacMurdo asked what had happened to the objector. Mr. Miller reported that the Hearing Officer agreed with the staff’s classification of the property’s ambiguities and noted that if the property owner feels the parcel should be zoned something other than is shown on the digital zoning maps, he should apply for a Map Amendment on that specific property rather than seeking to have his property zoned via the County-wide adoption of the digital maps. Mr. MacMurdo asked if the objector had taken any further action after the hearing. Mr. Miller replied that the property owner’s attorney did submit a document formally noting the objection.

Ms. Vary asked that the issue of notification be added to the report to the County Board to make it clear that the Committee directed staff to send a notice of the public hearing directly to the potentially affected property owners. Mr. Miller noted that the minutes of this meeting will reflect that direction came from the Committee that staff should identify as many property owners as possible whose zoning might be changed as a consequence of adopting the digital maps, and that the staff did so.

Mr. Steimel began by noting that a series of issues had arisen of late regarding certain aspects of the public hearing process. He noted that there were three distinct aspects of the situation for the Committee to discuss. First, there had been concerns raised regarding the notification for public hearings. He commented that this issue can be exacerbated by the current procedure to allow open discussion only at public hearings (established approximately five years ago). The second aspect relates to the conditions and circumstances justifying the re-opening of a public hearing, and the final aspect relates to the costs associated with re-opened hearings.

Mr. Steimel began the discussion by noting that the recent gun club Special Use application represented the first time in the five years since the process was adopted that he felt there may have been some inadequacy in the standard notification process. However, he went on to comment that it illustrated for him the complexities of finding a process that could predict the full scope of individuals who may feel they are effected by a zoning matter. To this end, the County has followed or exceeded the requirements of State statutes and notified adjacent property owners. He stated that the Committee may want to consider expanding notification beyond the established guidelines in situations which may be potentially controversial.

Mr. Sands commented that as the County is growing, more and more people appear to be (or feel they may be) affected by zoning decisions, and issues have become magnified that might have been rudimentary in the past. Therefore, he supports expansion of notification farther than the current practice allows.

Ms. Vary had four suggestions for the Committee to consider. First, could the County arrange for a more visible placement in the local newspaper for notices rather than the legal notices section in the back. She recommended discussing a "County Corner" in the front section of the paper similar to Chairman Pritchard’s County update currently run in the Midweek. Second, she asked if the placement of information on hearings on the website be made more visible and easy to locate. Her third recommendation would be to expand the signage for hearings so that major roads and transportation corridors could be used to call attention to hearings occurring in more remote locations. Current practice requires signage only on the effected property and therefore may be in a location where traffic is very light or non-existent. Her final recommendation mirrored Mr. Steimel’s regarding increasing sensitivity about who may feel effected and increasing notification appropriately.

Mrs. Dubin asked if anyone knew if the local newspapers were aware of or connected to the County’s website. She also asked if it were not true that the newspapers published agendas for upcoming County Board meetings. Ms. Vary commented that it was her observation that they rarely published the agendas of the Board’s subcommittees.

Mrs. Allen asked the Committee to consider the question of how far is far enough with respect to expanding notification? She then asked if anyone who opposed the project was contacted and if so, why did they not come to the hearing to speak in opposition? It was noted that the common understanding was that the majority of those directly notified of the public hearing for the gun club were family or friends of the petitioner. There was one individual in opposition, but that individual chose to not attend the hearing.

Mr. Slack asked if the County were opening itself for accusations of arbitrary or capricious action if they treated cases differently based on staff determinations of the potential for controversy. Is there inherent liability in treating petitioners differently? Mr. Miller responded that as long as the County meets the minimum standards of State statute, they would likely be able to defend a challenge. However, he added that the State’s Attorney should be asked to make a ruling on the potential hazards of treating petitioners differently, especially where costs may differ greatly depending on how the file is handled.

Mr. Miller went on to comment on the suggestions made so far in the discussion. First, on the topic of increasing newspaper coverage, he cautioned the Committee that it has been his experience that the local news outlets would likely assess costs to any requests for increased coverage. He noted anecdotally that the County often has difficulty getting the newspapers to print that which we already pay them to. He went on to add that the process as it currently stands does not fully recover all costs associated. To add additional costs will likely pass more burden to the taxpayers overall. However, that being said, he noted that he would hold conversations with the local newspapers about expanding coverage as well as encouraging them to place the County website information at the conclusion of every County story. Mr. Miller then addressed the issue of making the website clearer with respect to upcoming hearings and noted that he would speak with the individuals in the County responsible for the website construction and maintenance. With respect to notification, he stated that staff could routinely notify more property owners of a public hearing, for instance, not only those that own property adjacent to a subject site, but those who own property adjacent to the adjacent properties. He closed with a comment that he was somewhat uncertain about the efficacy of the recommendation to add signage.

Mr. Lyle commented that he agreed with the principle that the attitudes of area residents are changing and that issues seem to be effecting a broader segment of the overall population. He closed by noting that, unfortunately, there may be people who will use an accusation of inadequate notification to mask an intent to block a proposal the individual does not agree with.

Ms. Vary added that this is likely caused by the increase in population making it more prevalent that any project might be stepping on someone’s toes. This may be heightened by a fear of change or an anger at feeling personally harmed by a project that involves greater good.

Mr. Miller pointed out that it should be recognized that there is no system that will notify every person who feels they are or may be affected, every time a project is proposed. Equally problematic is the concept of trying to predetermine controversy. He cautioned that future staff may make very different determinations from current staff. He closed by posing a question for the Committee’s consideration regarding the frequency of notification problems. He pointed out that in any given year, the office handles 30 hearings. From those 30, 28 to 29 annually have no issues regarding notification. Could it be premature, he wondered, to consider changing an entire system over one or two circumstances.

Mr. Slack commented that perhaps the issue is not simply about notification, but rather about the public’s comprehension that a hearing is the only place they will be allowed to give testimony. He noted that in many other types of governmental processes, the individual is also allowed the opportunity to speak at the committee level.

Mr. Steimel provided a bit of history regarding the rationale for restricting testimony to the hearing. In the past, he noted, there were occurrences where individuals would bring forth new information at the committee level that was not given under oath, that the petitioner would have not heard at the hearing level and would have no opportunity to cross examine. This would then happen again at the County Board level and the process was greatly muddied. The end result was a necessity for the State’s Attorney to rule that the process for receipt of testimony was best handled during a process requiring individuals to be under oath and subject to cross-examination. This protected the Board from potential liability. Mr. Steimel asked if the current public hearing notice could have a statement added the hearing will be the only opportunity for giving testimony. Mr. Miller replied that staff could add such a statement.

Mr. Sands commented that he felt there should be some expansion of the uniform guidelines as well as using discretion to expand notification. He proposed that the Committee consider adopting the standard of "adjacent to the adjacent" properties for all notifications in the future suggested by Mr. Miller. Ms. Vary asked if they could consider adding standards for expanded notification if the project generated noise, traffic, changes in landscape or quality of life for the surrounding areas or if it were in a very remote area where people were not likely to see signage on the property. If any one of these criteria were evident, then notification would be expanded.

Mr. MacMurdo asked if Illinois had adopted a notification practice recently adopted in California that allowed internet notification to stand as the sole notification standard. Mr. Miller responded that Illinois did not adopt this standard and noted that he had provided the Committee the current Illinois state requirements in his staff report on this subject. Mr. MacMurdo stated that he felt putting staff in the position of trying to determine what zoning application might be controversial would not be practical.

Mr. Simonson expressed his concern that the entire hearing process does not provide individuals in opposition to proposals sufficient time to prepare adequate arguments. He commented that it seemed unfair to him that a petitioner may have years to prepare his case, but adjacent landowners only have the time from notification to hearing to be alerted and prepare to speak. He closed by commenting that it was his belief that the County should "bend over backwards" to assure all citizens the opportunity to be heard prior to determinations being made.

Ms. Vary commented that she was still not sure all cases require expanded notification and expressed concern about the expanded costs to the taxpaying petitioners as well. Mr. Miller pointed out that if a case occurred where the property adjacent was then subsequently adjacent to a city, where there are many property owners, the costs of notification could be greatly increased. Mr. MacMurdo commented that if that expansion of costs saves the County potentially greater litigation costs, it would have value. Mr. Miller closed discussion by reminding the Committee that however the notifications are determined, they will be sent only to those individuals listed in the tax records as property owners.

Ms. Vary asked if the staff needed a motion to discuss expanding newspaper notification and signage questions. Mr. Miller reported that they do not need to make this a formal motion, as he could simply report back to the Committee.

Mr. Steimel began by noting that under the current provisions of the Zoning Code, only the County Board has the authority to re-open a public hearing. Recent circumstances have demonstrated that this can cause excessive delays and a recommendation is being made to change the language of the code to allow the Planning and Regulations Committee to have that authority as well. Mr. Miller noted that this will require a Zoning Text Amendment to be initiated by staff and taken through the full Text Amendment process. He explained that an amendment could be drafted which would not remove the County Board’s authority to send zoning matters back to the Hearing Officer, but would add that authority to the Committee.

Mr. Steimel noted that this topic would contain the questions of who should bear the costs for additional hearings requested. Mr. Miller noted that at this point there is no mechanism to recoup any of the costs for a second hearing. However, he noted that he had made recommendations in his staff report for this meeting to require anyone submitting a written request to re-open a hearing to provide a fee to cover the costs of the hearing. Then when the issue comes before the Committee, the Committee would determine if the reasons for re-opening the hearing were valid and whether or not the fee should be refunded to the requesting party. If the Committee determines that re-opening a hearing would not be appropriate, the fee would be refunded as well.

Mr. Sands clarified that the written request must be received before the Committee meets, and not after the matter has been referred to the County Board. He also recommended that the Committee consider making the fee non-refundable to decrease the possibility of capricious or frivolous requests.

Mr. Simonson commented that he had a strong disagreement with asking opponents of a petition to pay anything for a re-opened hearing. He noted that he based this belief on statements he had made previously this evening that the hearing process is already tilted strongly in favor of the petitioner, to the disadvantage of opponents.

Mr. Steimel noted that it is often the case that the size and scope of the projects do not become apparent until the first hearing, and opponents may be caught totally unprepared to make strong arguments. However, as Mr. Miller pointed out, the Committee can make a decision to not assess costs against the individuals for requesting a re-opening of a hearing. He commented that it might be quite rare for the Committee to ever determine costs should be borne by opponents. Mr. Miller noted that there can be circumstances where the motivations behind a request to re-open a hearing might justify requiring the person making the request to bear the costs.

Mr. Steimel asked if there were an option for a continuance to a hearing. Mr. Miller commented that such a process currently exists and is handled by the Hearing Officer. Mr. Slack asked if there were some process, similar to the discovery process of a legal proceeding, that would allow opponents to be fully aware of the details of a case before it comes to hearing. Mr. Miller noted that was the purpose behind the Public Notice being sent and inviting individuals to come in and review the files or phone the Zoning office for details. The notice appears in the newspaper 18 days before the hearing, and the notices are mailed to surrounding property owners almost a week before that.

Mr. Miller then noted that many of the inherent difficulties with handling zoning actions hark back to strongly held public beliefs that an individual should be allowed to do what they want on their own property. He stated that zoning laws impinge on this right, and that is why many state laws and regulations favor the petitioner or property owner rather than objectors. State law and court cases have indicated that the government should deny an individual the proposed use of their land only if there is a good public reason for doing so. It wasn’t until 1920 that the principles of zoning, of separating potentially incompatible uses for the sake of the public good, came in to play.

Mr. Sands asked what the proposed fees for re-opening a hearing would be. Mr. Miller responded that it would be $350 for a Variation and $450 for any other process. Mr. Lyle commented that if people want to oppose an issue, he did not feel that the petitioner nor the County should have to bear the costs. He commented that he hoped the Committee would not find itself endlessly re-opening and re-visiting issues.

Mr. Miller noted that it will require the Committee members to be well-informed and capable of making the difficult decisions of when a process has been fully reviewed and when debate should be ended. Mr. Sands asked what would be done if a request came from a County Board member to re-open a hearing. Mr. Miller replied that the treatment would be at the discretion of the Committee to determine if the Board member were acting as a private citizen or as a County entity. Mr. MacMurdo noted that it should also be clear that the Committee can re-open hearings without petition if they feel such an action is justified.

Mr. Miller noted that the Committee seemed to favor adding a provision to the report recommendations requiring individuals to present their requests to the Committee no later than 24 hours prior to a meeting where a decision is to be reached. The Committee agreed by consensus,

Mr. Simonson asked for clarification of who could be charged the fee for re-opening the hearing. Mr. Miller replied that anyone requesting that a hearing be re-opened would be required to pay a fee, which may or may not be refunded by the Committee following a review of the rationale for the request. Mr. Simonson commented again that he would not agree to any proposal that required an opponent to bear any costs for re-opening a public hearing.

Mr. Steimel opened the conversation by noting that the work of the County Board is done primarily through Committees, and Committee minutes provide the primary source of communications between Board members and staff. Discussions were recently raised as to whether the minutes of the Board committees were adequate enough and detailed enough to convey the full scope of conversations held by the members in session. Each Committee of the Board has been asked to review their minutes and determine if any changes are needed.

Mr. Steimel noted that he had received positive feedback on the quality and quantity of the P&R minutes. However, he raised the point that in the event of a voice vote, should the minutes reflect the names of the members voting in opposition or should the individual(s) specifically request to be identified. He commented that it might be difficult for staff to identify everyone correctly on a voice vote.

Mr. Miller noted that this topic had been raised approximately three years ago when Board staff and Committees had discussed uniform processes and formats for Board minutes. At that time, the it was determined that dissenting votes were always to be identified, even in the event of a voice vote. He closed by noting that if there were questions, the staff would clarify the identities at the time of the vote.

Mrs. Allen noted that if a Committee member has a concern that individuals are not properly identified at the time of a vote, then the member should call for a roll call vote.

Mrs. Dubin commented that the final vote outcome may not be the only issue to be discussed. She noted that it is often the positions taken by the Board members during discussions that should be reflected clearly for the record.

Mr. MacMurdo clarified that any Committee members who feels there may not have been clear identification of position at a vote can ask for a division of house. Additionally, any member feeling that an item has not been sufficiently covered in the minutes can submit a minority report that would go to the record with the formal minutes.

Mr. Simonson commented that he felt it was critical to keep names attached to specific voting outcomes as that fact alone could have an influence on the determinations by the County Board.

Following discussion, the Committee decided to continue the current practice of recording votes without alteration or revision. The Committee also praised the work of the secretary who prepares the Planning and Regulations Committee minutes.

Mr. Sands passed out copies of a proposal that has been distributed in the community. He noted that this proposal originated from the Prairie Band Potawatomi and was sent to the Governor’s office sometime in March of this year. He noted for the Committee’s specific attention the very large scope of the proposed development. Mr. Miller commented that it is a wildly optimistic proposal containing water parks, shopping malls, RV park. nature areas as well as the central casino facilities. Mr. Sands noted that the casino itself would be on 128 acres and there are 600 additional acres optioned outside the reservation for development, 7,000 employees, 13 million visitors per year, and $100,000,000 as an up-front payment to the State of Illinois.

Mr. Steimel cautioned that Board members should be cautious about making any statements that seem to imply this has been finalized in any way. Mr. Miller commented that it was his understanding that nothing has been finalized at this point. In terms of what sort of influence the local area might have on the final outcomes, he noted that it has been repeatedly advised that the County or municipality would have to gain a seat at the table when the Governor’s office negotiates the gaming license with the tribe. Mr. Miller closed by commenting that a contact had been made with the tribe at the recent dedication of the Potawatomi Forest Preserve and it was expressed to the tribe that the local community very much wanted to be a part of the talks.

Mr. Sands noted that the Prairie Band has made statements publically that they do want to work with the community on the process. He closed by noting that he felt it was best to keep all lines of communication open while the process was proceeding.

Mr. Simonson asked if most regulations concerning this project would be State or Federal. Mr. Miller responded that the majority of regulations will be Federal, with the gaming license possible at the State or the Federal level.

Ms. Vary asked if there were additional ways for the local community to lobby the State for input. Mrs. Dubin commented that she has had some contacts with State government and is continuing those discussions.

Mr. Miller commented that it might be useful for the Committee to consider that another option for the Prairie Band would be negotiate for another location.

Mr. Sands commented that the Prairie Band’s Kansas location is currently the second largest tourist attraction in the state.

On an unrelated issue, Mr. Steimel noted that the re-opened hearing for the Massier/Gun Club petition is scheduled for November 6, 2003 at 7:30 and that Planning and Regulations will be meeting on Monday, November 24, 2003 due to the Thanksgiving holiday.