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 Douglas Massier, representing the property owner, had filed an application for a Special Use Permit for a private gun club. The request was filed in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.01.B.2 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance to allow the establishment and operation of a gun club on approximately two acres of a 45-acre parcel located on the west side of Anderland Road, south of Keslinger Road, in Milan Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

A public hearing was conducted on September 11, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. The petitioner provided testimony and exhibits in support of the requested Special Use, and gave copies of letters from adjoining property owners indicating no objection to the request. Staff suggested several conditions related to any recommendation of approval, including restricting the gun club from having shooting activities on Sundays or federal holidays. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer recommended approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions.

Subsequent to the Hearing, a number of residents in the general area requested that the public hearing be re-opened to allow additional testimony and exhibits. The Planning and Regulations Committee recommended, and the County Board agreed, that the matter should be returned to the Hearing Officer for further consideration. Accordingly, on November 6, 2003, the public hearing regarding the application to allow the operation of a gun club was re-opened. The petitioner responded to some of the concerns that had been raised regarding number of members, hours and days of operation, pollution from lead shot, restrictions on the caliber of weapons, adequacy of the shooting backstop, the septic field, and neighbor complaints about noise. The hearing was attended by more than 60 residents of the area, and included a written report from the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office on the safety of the shooting range design. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns over noise, safety, and negative impacts on property values. The re-opened hearing lasted three hours and forty-five minutes. DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick has submitted his revised report, including as attachments several letters of opposition. The Hearing Officer, after careful consideration of the criteria for granting a Special Use, recommends approval of the Permit, with 12 specific conditions.

Mr. Steimel noted that the Committee had quite a large volume of materials to consider on the issue and asked for any questions or comments.

Mr. Sands noted that he had four questions on the matter. First, he asked Mr. Massier to review for the Committee the circumstances that led him to build the structure on the site without a proper County building permit. Mr. Massier responded that two years ago he had contacted the County and was told that a permit wasn’t needed. Mr. Sands then asked Mr. Miller if Mr. Massier needed to obtain the Special Use Permit in order to address the building permit issue. Mr. Miller responded that Mr. Massier did not have to wait for the Special Use to retroactively address their building permit need, however if the Special Use if not granted and the building is used primarily for agricultural purposes, it will change the number of inspections that will be needed. If the Special Use is granted, then outside inspectors will be hired to handle inspections. Mr. Sands then asked if Mr. Massier intended to incorporate the gun club operation. Mr. Massier responded that he did. Mr. Sands asked if Mr. Massier intended to have liability insurance for the operation. Mr. Massier responded that he already had property insurance and insurance on the building and had liability insurance arranged for and would finalize it if the gun club is approved. Mr. Brown noted that liability insurance is not required nor in place at this time and would become necessary when the club formally organizes and begins charging dues. Social shooting activities would still be permitted on the property regardless of the outcome of the Special Use application. Mr. Sands asked if someone were injured on the property after a gun club was approved who would hold primary responsibility, the gun club or the property owner, Mrs. Kirkhus. Mr. Brown noted that in the event of a liability Mrs. Kirkhus as well as the gun club operation would certainly be involved. Mr. Sands then noted that he had a question regarding the recommendations contained in the report prepared by the Sheriff’s department. He noted that he had spoken directly to Bill Kaminski at the Sheriff’s department and clarified that the department recommendation is that the club be limited to a pistol range only with shotgun skeet shooting, no rifles and no shotgun slugs.

Mr. Slack asked Mr. Massier to verify that the maximum number of club members would be 100. Mr. Massier responded that was correct. Mr. Slack then asked how members would be selected, and would there be invitations or advertisement. Mr. Massier responded that they wanted to keep membership restricted to those individuals who are already known to those who have used the target area in the past. He went on to state that he did not anticipate doing any kind of advertising for members. Mr. Slack asked what sort of fee the club intended to charge. Mr. Massier responded that they were considering $120 annually. Mr. Slack asked if there would be a charter for the organization. Mr. Massier responded that there would be a Board of Directors established through the incorporation process. Mr. Slack then asked if the petitioner might consider having one of the neighbors serve a role on the Board in some oversight capacity. Mr. Massier and Mr. Brown indicated they would want to take time to consider such a recommendation. Mr. Slack commented that it might be beneficial to assuaging some of the neighbors concerns regarding monitoring the conditions that may be imposed if the Special Use is granted. Mr. Slack then asked if Mr. Massier had been monitoring for lead or lead contamination. Mr. Massier responded that there is very little shotgun shooting and that the lead shot from pistols strike the steel backstop and then fall back into a sand pit for collection. The intent is to use steel shot in the future and add biodegradable clays to assist in decomposition. He also noted that they intend to regularly collect the small amount of lead shot still remaining from pistol use and sell it to a recycler or reloader.

Mr. Simonson asked Mr. Cronauer from the audience to express a concern he had with the noise information presented at the last public hearing. Mr. Cronauer noted that he felt there was a discrepancy between the test results presented and the report by Officer Gladden. Mr. Simonson then asked Mr. Seilheimer from the audience to remind him how many times he had spoken to the petitioner. Mr. Seilheimer responded that he had spoken to Mr. Massier on two occasions. At Mr. Simonson’s urging, he also noted that he had sent a letter to the County Board members, one to Mr. Miller and one to Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. Mr. Simonson asked if Mr. Seilheimer had written a letter of support for the gun club dated 10-31-03. Mr. Seilheimer responded that he had not, but that a letter had been sent to the County in his name and he had written a subsequent letter denying knowledge of the first letter. Mr. Simonson asked Mr. Hegland from the audience to discuss the relative cost differences between types of shot. Mr. Hegland provided information related to the difference between steel and lead shot. Mr. Steimel reminded Mr. Simonson that only information presented at the public hearing could be discussed this evening. Mr. Simonson then asked Mr. James from the audience how late he had ever heard gunshots from the property in question. Mr. James responded that he had once heard a shot fired after midnight. Mr. Simonson then asked Mr. Miller to speak to the percent of the proposed conditions his office felt they could monitor or enforce. Mr. Miller responded that he had not had time to evaluate a specific percentage, but could make some brief observations. He then provided a response per condition noting if items were difficult to monitor, would require input from the gun club operators or neighbors or would be difficult or impossible to verify.

Mrs. Allen asked Mr. Massier if the people who would be at the range would already have some shooting training or if there would be individuals who had no training attending. Mr. Massier responded that it was his feeling that everyone there would have had some sort of prior training, but that there had been interest in conducting classes and training on the site. Mrs. Allen then asked if Mr. Massier had already identified the potential 100 members or if there would be additional advertising used to increase membership. Mr. Massier responded that the 100 figure was not set in stone, but was gleaned from an approximation of the number of people who have been to the site over the past 15 years. He reiterated that he had no intention to advertise and instead wanted to restrict membership to individuals with whom the club officers were familiar. He closed by noting that the number of people who would actually be shooting at any particular time would be only a dozen or so monitored by a range officer designated by the club board.

Ms. Vary asked Mr. Massier to clarify a statement she recalled from the first public hearing. She noted that he had said he would have no rifles on the site, yet at the second hearing, he had indicated he would allow .22 caliber and .45 caliber rifles to be used. Mr. Massier responded that he intended to restrict caliber to .45 and under to keep the targets in shape. He further noted that it was his understanding that the Sheriff’s officer had intended to recommend that rifles as well as pistols could be used, provided they did not exceed the .22 and .45 caliber limitations. Ms. Vary went on to ask about the name the club indicated it would be identified by, Northern Illinois Firearms Training Institute. She asked if the "Training Institute" designation would require the club to perform certain types or levels of training. Mr. Massier responded that the name was selected merely to reflect the fact that the club had individuals who were certified as instructors. Ms. Vary then asked if the club had been approached by 3M to be a part of the club. Mr. Massier indicated that he had heard a rumor that 3M might be interested, but he had not been personally approached.

Mr. MacMurdo asked if people taking part in the training aspect of the club would be club members only or would not be members. Mr. Massier indicated that these could be people in addition to the specifically identified members. Mr. Brown also noted that it had been repeatedly stated that members could also bring guests to the facility. He went on to say that the application clearly states that there are two aspects to the organization, the first as a club and the second as a training facility.

Mr. Sands asked if any of the members were certified with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for Hunter Safety Training. Mr. Massier was not clear if the certification was through the IDNR or not.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller if the Special Use would be issued in the name of Mr. Massier even if he is not the designated property owner. Mr. Miller replied that it has been County practice to attach Special Use Permits to individuals or organizations. Since Mr. Massier’s organization has not been created, the Permit would be attached to him with a provision that should he no longer be affiliated with the operation, the Special Use would expire. Mr. Steimel then asked if there were any provisions to restrict social shooting on the property if the Special Use were denied. Mr. Miller responded that to the best of his knowledge there is no restriction on social shooting. Shooting that is determined to be dangerous or a nuisance is handled by the County Sheriff’s office on a case by case basis as reported.

Mrs. Dubin asked Mr. Massier if he had received any complaints over the 15 years that he had operated informally. Mr. Massier responded that he had not received one complaint. Mrs. Dubin asked Mr. Massier how many people he would estimate have done any shooting on the site over the 15 years. Mr. Massier responded that it would be approximately 100 people. Mrs. Dubin then asked how many people Mr. Massier anticipated in the classes he proposed. He responded that he thought it would be about 12 people per class.

Mr. Lyle noted that after visiting the site, he felt there should be a larger berm constructed. He then went on to ask Mr. Massier if he stopped any shooting if neighbors were working their fields. Mr. Massier responded that they always stop when they are aware of anyone in the fields.

Mr. Slack asked Mr. Cronauer from the audience if it was his investigation that showed nuisance level readings at the neighboring properties. Mr. Cronauer responded that information came from the report submitted by Officer Gladden to the Hearing Officer. Mr. Slack then asked if he could help him to clarify what level constitutes a nuisance level of noise. He also asked if there were differing levels for urban or rural environments. Mr. Cronauer responded that noises reaching 60 decibels would be considered a nuisance in any environment. Mr. Slack asked if Mr. Cronauer had any decibel information for, say, a combine in operation. Mr. Cronauer responded that he did not have any data regarding combines. Mr. Brown from the audience then noted that the 60 decibel designation as a nuisance level came from the City of DeKalb and he was not aware of any established nuisance level for the County. He closed by noting that the discrepancy Mr. Cronauer alluded to earlier was likely based on the fact that levels taken at the Seilheimer and Dietrich properties by Officer Gladden were taken gratuitously as both gentlemen were on record as supporting the club at the time. The readings were not included in some documents as they were not intended to be used as evidence against the project.

Mr. Slack then asked the Committee members if any had found evidence that the petitioner had not met any of the required criteria for a Special Use Permit.

Mr. MacMurdo moved to accept the recommendation of the Hearing Officer, seconded by Mr. Slack.

Mr. Sands proposed a friendly amendment to Mr. MacMurdo’s motion with the following changes to the Hearing Officer’s conditions:

Mr. MacMurdo accepted the friendly amendment to his motion and discussion continued. Mrs. Allen asked if the Committee could put a two year sunset provision onto the Special Use. Mr. Steimel noted that this should likely be a formal motion.

Ms. Vary asked Mr. Miller if a new hearing would then be required at the close of the two years. Mr. Miller responded that would be correct. When a sunset provision is used, the petitioner must submit a new application, submit to a new hearing and then the Board would determine if the use would be extended permanently, given another sunset provision or allowed to expire.

Mr. Slack asked if a sunset provision were to be added, what would be Mr. Massier’s motivation to make the necessary changes and investments required by the conditions, if the use might be revoked within two years. Mr. Miller responded that he believed Mr. Massier would have every motivation if he desired to have the Permit continued, since the whole point of reviewing the Special Use again would be to determine compliance and compatibility with the neighbors.

Ms. Vary asked Mr. Miller to clarify why the Special Use will be placed on the entire 45 acre property, when the club will only be operating on two acres of the site and what would keep the use prohibited to the two acres specified. Mr. Miller responded that if the Special Use is granted in this form, any sale or division of any portion of the 45 acres would result in the Special Use requiring reconsideration or elimination.

Mr. Lyle asked Mr. Miller to clarify that the Special Use would have no effect to divide out the two acres the club would operate on. Mr. Miller replied that was correct, this was simply a vote regarding use of the land, not a division.

Mr. Steimel asked the Committee members if they had any statements regarding their support or opposition to the proposal at this time.

Mr. Simonson commented that he had several questions that went to the credibility of the proposal information provided by the petitioner. He went on to say that he was especially concerned about the question of lead contamination from the bullets and the potential danger to the population that it may create. He also wanted to state that he had no personal opposition to gun usage in general, but felt strongly that it was not an appropriate use for this property. He noted that he had quite a bit of expertise in the area of soils and contaminants and felt that the petitioner had not developed a sufficient and specific enough plan for handling the lead impact on the property. He continued by noting that he felt there were two criteria for Special Use that the petitioner had not met. First, he felt that the petitioner had not shown that the project would not be detrimental to the public welfare and to surrounding property values. Second, he noted that the use was not desirable to promote the health and general welfare as required by the Special use provisions. Following additional comments regarding his beliefs that the soils in the area of the building on the property were not conducive for septic fields, he closed by commenting that he found it disturbing that all letters written in support for the proposal were from people who did not live anywhere near the proposed site, but all the letters opposing were from the direct neighbors. For this reason and the others listed previously, he noted that he would be voting against the proposal.

Ms. Vary indicated that she had two concerns with the project. First, she commented that she shared Mr. Simonson’s concerns about this proposal meeting the requirement to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the population. Her concern centered on the noise levels and nuisance potential that the club would generate. She closed by noting that she also had concerns regarding the "essential" nature of a gun club for the County and for the reasons noted, she would be voting against the proposal.

Mr. Sands commented that a gun club can promote public safety through gun classes and hunter safety classes, however, he noted that the petitioner had not seemed enthusiastic about the hunter training aspect. He closed by noting that various items in the Hearing Officer’s report coupled with the strong opposing sentiments of the residents living nearby would lead him to vote against the proposal as well.

Mr. MacMurdo spoke in favor of the proposal. He noted that safe gun training and handling does benefit the general welfare. He went on to note that there were two other gun clubs that had been approved for operation in the County that did not have anywhere near the restrictions that this club would have if approved. That could lead some to ask if the County were arbitrary or capricious in its treatment of the various proposals and could open the County to potential litigation. He also noted to the Committee that if the proposal were rejected, Mr. Massier would still have the ability to conduct social shooting activities, unrestricted and unmonitored, on the property as he had been. This could, he closed by noting, leave the neighbors with a worse situation than they might have if the club were approved with conditions that the County could regulate.

Mr. Slack commented that he felt that the petitioner had addressed his concerns regarding lead contamination and that what Mr. Massier is doing meets all existing EPA and IEPA guidelines regarding dealing with the issue. He commented that he felt great care needed to be taken with the nuisance issue in an agricultural environment. Opening the door to certain decibel levels could open the door to more urban land buyers contending that agricultural equipment or processes were equally a "nuisance" and create all manner of problems for the County. He also noted that the club had operated for the last 15 years without, from what he could see, any appreciable loss of property value for the surrounding properties. He closed by noting that he agreed with Mr. MacMurdo that voting "yes" and regulating this project with specific conditions as opposed to voting "no" and allowing it to continue as it has, would be better, ultimately, for everyone.

Mr. Lyle commented that he too agreed with Mr. MacMurdo regarding the reasons for voting to support the proposal. He added that he was concerned about the number of people speaking in opposition to the project, but felt that a two year sunset provision and review added to the Special Use should allow for everyone’s concerns to be addresses.

Mr. Steimel noted that he had rarely seen, in his years with the County, a situation where there was 100% opposition to a project by the immediate neighbors. He commented that he wished Mr. Massier had done additional groundwork with the neighbors prior to coming to the County and asking for this major change in the nature of the club. This lack of concern for the impact on the surrounding properties, coupled with the uncertainties as to whether this would be an essential or advantageous thing for the County placed him, he noted, in the position of having to vote against the proposal.

Mr. Miller noted that staff will prepare two ordinances for the County Board, one approving, and one denying the petition. He noted this is standard procedure to avoid having to return the issue to Committee if the County Board should vote to approve the petition despite the recommendation of denial.

Mr. Miller began by reporting that Gary and Marie Hoffman have filed a petition for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a public stable, including horse breeding, boarding, selling, training and riding lessons, on property at 6135 Baseline Road. The 80-acre subject property is located on the north side of Baseline Road, approximately 1,300 feet west of Ault Road, in Franklin Township. The parcel is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick conducted a public hearing on the request on November 6, 2003. The petitioners presented evidence and testimony in support of the requested Special Use. They explained that allowing the boarding of other persons horses and allowing horse training and riding lessons will enhance their horse breeding and training operations. They also stated that there would be no shows or other activities on the property that would draw large numbers of people to the site at one time. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions.

Ms. Vary asked if building had already begun and, if so, how much had been completed. Mr. Miller responded that the petitioners had obtained a building permit and received approval to begin building the barns. The Special Use is specific to the issue of allowing boarding to occur at the stable.

Mr. Steimel asked about the current use of the ground and whether it was currently in pasture or hay. Mr. Hoffman replied that it was currently in hay and they hoped to expand that usage. Mr. Miller noted that the Hoffman’s are also doing a terracing project with the oversight of the NRCS to better prepare the ground for the buildings and usage.

Mr. Lyle asked if any land would be taken out of row crop to make room for the buildings. Mr. Hoffman replied that any land being used has been a horse pasture for the past four or five years. Mr. Simonson asked about the soils in the area and Mr. Miller noted that the Soils and Water Conservation report had included that information.

Mr. Miller reported that for the past 1½ years, DeKalb County has been cooperating with 13 of the 14 municipalities within its boarders on the creation of a Unified Comprehensive Plan. This project, which has been overseen by the DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission, has entailed the creation or updating of 13 municipal comprehensive plans, and the integration of the future land use plans from those city plans into the County’s own Comprehensive Plan. The goal of this project has been from its outset to adopt a common vision for the future of the County which crosses government jurisdictional limits, and the creation of a common approach toward growth and development. Seven of the communities have adopted their new comprehensive plans, and the others, with the exception of the City of DeKalb, are scheduled to do so by the end of November.

A public hearing on the Unified Comprehensive Plan, which represents an update to the County’s Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and features the Unified Future Land Use Plan, was held on October 30, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. The DeKalb County Planning Director presented the new plan and highlighted the updates, noting in particular that the Unified Comprehensive Plan strengthens the County’s policy of discouraging scattered development through the rural, agricultural portions of the County, concentrating that development instead in and around the municipalities where the public infrastructure and services needed to support development is located. Several members of the public attended the hearing and asked questions. No one spoke in opposition to the plan. The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report and recommends that the County Board adopt the Unified Comprehensive Plan as presented

Mr. Steimel commented that he was concerned about the projected increase in County population that the plan indicated. Mr. Miller pointed out that it is critical to keep in mind that the plan represents, for the majority of communities, an ultimate build-out that could take up to 50 years to achieve, if ever. He went on to note that this plan has opened lines of communication between the communities and the County that will assist in managing the overall growth throughout that build-out period.

Ms. Vary noted that as she read over the profiles in the Comprehensive Plan text, she had become a vigorous proponent of impact fees to offset future costs. She asked if there had been impact fee discussions as a part of the overall plan. Mr. Magdziarz of Land Vision, Inc. replied that every community he had worked with had begun discussions and many were at the point of taking action to establish some kind of fee structure. Mr. Miller noted that he had conversations with a local community requesting input on an upcoming subdivision annexation. Because this line of communication was opened he was able to note to the community that they needed to be very attentive to how the law allowed them (as a non-home rule community) to assess the fees and developer offerings and was able to help them to avoid missing valuable opportunities.

Mrs. Dubin offered her compliments to all involved on the scope of the work completed. She noted her concern as well that the growth the communities are showing will dramatically change the nature of the County. She also questioned why so many communities allow developers to purchase land for "future" development that may not begin for six or seven years. Mr. Miller replied that much was changing due to this project and again, noted that the conversations with the County were allowing for the communities to receive more help and assistance to make good long-term decisions. He closed by noting that it was very encouraging to see how many communities had shown quite a bit of their mile-and-a-half planning jurisdiction remaining in agriculture. Mr. Magdziarz added that communities were also being more attentive to boundary agreements with their neighbors to avoid the communities generically blending together as had happened so often in Counties to the east.

Mr. Steimel commented that while communities may not think they need the County, they certainly will be coming to the County for roads, jails, etc. He noted that the needs for services certainly appeared to make it advisable for communities to keep the lines of communication open with the County, whether they were required to by law or not. Mr. Miller noted that the continuation of the Regional Planning Commission should certainly help keep the discussions flowing. Mr. Steimel commended the Kaneland School District for requests of land and fees it is making to developers. He hoped that this could be a model for the DeKalb School District and others in staying attentive to additional costs growing out of increased development. He then closed by asking if Cortland had completed their plan at this time. Mr. Magdziarz noted that they had approved a new Future Land Use plan.

Mr. Simonson asked why Kane County seemed to be able to assess fees that our County non-home rule communities could not. Mr. Miller responded that DeKalb communities for the most part had the same allowances as Kane, but that there had been a court case this year that restricted non-home rule communities from requiring impact fees or land-for-cash arrangements with developers. It restricted the community to receiving land only as a concession. However, he noted that if the communities were attentive to the fact that they can ask for these fees and developer exactions at the time of an annexation agreement, they can still put themselves in a better long-term position.

Mr. Simonson closed by noting that he had recently conducted some personal research into the impact fees charged by surrounding Counties and that they were substantially higher than anything he had heard discussed in DeKalb. Mr. Miller noted that the higher fees are likely a function of population pressure.

Mr. Sands extended commendations to Mr. Miller and the staff for the work done on the Plan and for the cooperation that was achieved throughout. He noted that when this had begin, there were people who never thought the communities could be brought to the table and agreements reached.

Ms. Vary also asked how the arterial roads are regulated to prevent the rampant expansion of strip malls. Mr. Miller noted that the County does restrict curb cuts which limit access and therefore limit the potential for several small businesses to gather. The greater the capacity of the roads, the greater the distance between the curb cuts. Ms. Vary then noted that the encouragement of green space between the communities could be assisted by the expansion of a purchase of development rights program. Mr. Magdziarz noted that there are green space discussions being held during the boundary agreement processes. He noted again that this seemed to be supported by the communities wanting clear delineations between them. Ms. Vary closed by asking if discussions on mass transit and how the County and communities could bind together to receive greater opportunities were being held. Mr. Miller noted that the consensus is that there is little that can be done yet, but that the communities and County will be continuing to work together on rail and other opportunities. Mrs. Dubin asked what the role of the MPO is in this issue. Mr. Miller replied that it is currently focused on federal funding of road projects. Ms. Vary asked if the absence of specific plans in the Comprehensive Plan could be limiting to the County. Mr. Miller replied that it does not limit the County in any way to not have specific plans in the document. He noted that there is also not a clear consensus at this time to encourage rail access.

Mr. Jim Schneider from the audience noted that he was concerned that this planning effort did not sufficiently defend the County against the onset of developers. He went on to note that he felt that the overall plan should not be approved because the City of DeKalb had not fully completed its planning process. Mr. Miller noted that there has been extensive and exhaustive public input into the development of this overall plan. He closed by noting that holding up the work done by all the other communities and the County for one community (a community that was keeping the County informed of their work as they proceeded) did not seem a prudent move.

Mr. Miller noted that he had provided a memorandum noting his follow-up to requested changes in the public notification process requested by the Committee. Ms. Vary thanked Mr. Miller for his efforts.

Mr. Miller commented that at the last County Board meeting, an issue came up related to waiving the petition fees for a land owner, Mr. Vernon Thornton, who would be seeking a re-zoning following the recent adoption of digital Zoning Maps by the County. He noted that no action was required by the Committee at this time as the land owner had not yet formally made application. This item was simply informational at this time, but would be presented at a meeting following receipt of the application.

In an unrelated matter, Mr. Steimel commended the Committee on their work and diligence on the items presented this evening and noted that they were performing their jobs admirably for the citizens of the County.