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

Mr. Steimel opened the discussion by asking Mr. Miller to recap the situation and discuss what events have transpired since this issue was last before the Committee. Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that this had last been before them at their April 23, 2003 meeting. At that time the Committee had directed that the public hearing for this petition be reopened for additional testimony. The public hearing was reopened on May 29, 2003 by Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. The Hearing Officer provided Supplemental Findings of Fact following that hearing, summarizing the testimony and additional exhibits that had been provided at the hearing and also going into additional detail regarding his recommendations with respect to the findings on the Zoning Map Amendment and the specific criteria for granting a Special Use. The Hearing Officer closed the Findings by reiterating his recommendation of approval of the project.

Mr. Simonson commented that at the hearing he had posed eight relevant questions regarding the suitability of the soils in the project area to adequately support a septic system that would be sufficient to the church’s needs. He noted that he felt only one of his questions had been answered. He went on to note that based on his personal expertise in the field of soils, he felt the soils were not adequate.

Mr. Steimel noted that based on several conversations he has had with local officials from that area, there would likely be an expansion of city sewer and septic to this area within the next three to five years, making this point moot.

Mr. Simonson went on to comment, again, that he had extensive expertise in the field of soils and that he disagreed with the findings of any other expert who had reviewed this particular project. Mr. Steimel noted that his disagreement would be on record.

Mr. Simonson then went on to say that he also personally believed that the covenants referred to by the opponents of the project were legitimate and noted that his concerns involved a diminished quality of life for the affected neighbors.

Mr. Steimel noted that the covenants in dispute were never recorded at the Recorder’s office. Their recording at any other location would not meet the criteria for making them legitimate. However, he went on to add that the legitimacy of the covenants was not for this Committee to determine, but was a civil issue to be decided. Mr. Simonson noted that irrespective of that, or any other dissenting opinions, he would vote against this project based on his concerns about the quality of life and his continued concerns about and disagreement with the information presented. Mr. Steimel responded that it was his belief that the church would be a good neighbor to the individuals affected and that he intended to vote in favor of the project.

Mr. Slack asked Mr. Steimel for additional information on the three to five year expectation of city sewer and septic to the area. Mr. Steimel reiterated that this information was obtained from conversations with the mayor and others and supported by the known expansion of a development that will be located a quarter mile south of the church. This will bring storm water infrastructure to the area. He noted also that the comprehensive plans being developed for Sandwich also supported development expanding into this area.

Ms. Vary commented that she had also had strong concerns about the project with respect to the water problems in the area. However, she felt secure that the recommendations of engineering experts and County staff assured her that construction of the church may actually solve many of the problems. She further commented that she too had been concerned about the covenants discussed, but noted that they were indisputably not registered in a legally binding way. If there were violations of the covenants, it would fall to the responsibility of the property sellers, not to the church or the County. She closed by noting that with the development rapidly approaching that area, far worse building choices than a church could occupy the property. She stated that she believes the church will work aggressively to be a good neighbor to the individual homeowners adjoining their property.

Mrs. Dubin commented that she supported Ms. Vary’s comments on the water and the covenant issues. However, she wondered if the church had planned a facility large enough to accommodate the potential growth the surrounding anticipated development might bring. Mr. Craig Stevenson from the audience responded that the church had specifically chosen the site and made engineering determinations about the building to allow for expansion of the congregation without too much additional disruption. He noted specifically that the current parking plan is far greater than what the current size of the sanctuary would normally call for. Mr. Zabel, engineer for the project, echoed that sentiment and noted that the County Engineer and the County representative for the Health Department acknowledged that the building had been engineered in a way that far exceeded County requirements. Mr. Zabel also responded to concerns raised by Mr. Simonson. Mr. Simonson reiterated his concerns.

Mr. Sands expressed the thanks of the Committee to everyone for participating in the supplemental hearing. He felt that allowed for issues to be fully and thoroughly addressed.

Mr. Munson from the audience asked the Committee if the County was prepared to offer the surrounding homeowners their personal guarantee that the County will take care of any flood problems from the project. Mr. Steimel replied that he believed the storm water corrections that were already in discussion by the County and the city of Sandwich would mitigate their existing issues. He then asked Mr. Miller to remind the Committee and audience about the requirements of the petitioner with respect to existing conditions. Mr. Miller noted that the County cannot require a petitioner to improve existing situations, but can require that the situation not be exacerbated by the project. Once plans are reviewed and approved by the County Engineer, it will be the County’s responsibility to have inspections to assure that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Mr. Steimel added that it has been repeatedly stated that the plans as presented have been determined by the County’s Engineer to exceed the County’s requirements.

Mr. Miller began by noting that these items share much of the same information and should be considered together. He asked the Committee members to refer to the Plat of Survey included in their meeting packets to help clarify the land swap. Paw Paw Township has filed a petition for a Special Use Permit and a Variation for the property owned by the Township and used for Township business. The site is located on the south side of Suydam Road, on the west side of the C.& N. W. Railroad, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District, with a Special Use designation to acknowledge the Township use. However, no County Board ordinance related to the Township Special Use has ever been granted. The Township is proposing to exchange property with Mullins Grain, the adjacent property owner to the east, which requires a Special Use Permit to cover the new property. The Township also requested a Variation from Section 4.02.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to approve a side-yard setback of only 0.4 feet for an existing building on the parcel that will be acquired by the Township, in lieu of the minimum required setback of 20 feet. That Variation was granted by the Hearing Officer. Finally, the Township requested waiver of the Special Use Permit application fees for itself and for the request by Mullins Grain.

The required public hearing was conducted on May 29, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. Representatives of Paw Paw Township and Mullins Grain were in attendance. The petitioners explained that the land swap will allow the removal of an existing equipment building that is currently located in the Township’s park, as well as allowing the construction of a larger building. The land swap would not require any new access, and would benefit Mullins Grain as well. The representative for Mullins Grain agreed, and explained that the land swap will give Mullins Grain better access to its existing grain bins and increase the setback of those structures from the Paw Paw Township property. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer submitted his Findings and recommended approval of the Special Use Permit for the Township, and approval of the Amendment to the Special Use for Mullins Grain, with a condition that the two parties enter into an access easement agreement.

Mr. Miller stated that, because the properties involve separate Special Uses, separate applications were required, and separate hearings were held. The Committee was requested to take action on each of the Special Uses, even though they are related. Each of the requests for fee waiver require separate motions as well. Mr. Miller stated that the County has had a policy of waiving the fee for other taxing bodies.

Mr. Steimel commented that he agreed with a fee waiver for both parties and then called for any discussion. Mr. MacMurdo asked what the current use is of the existing building on Parcel 5, the piece to be acquired by the Township from Mullins Grain. A representative of Mullins Grain noted that it has no current use. A representative for Paw Paw Township noted that they intended to use it for cold storage of vehicles and equipment.

Ms. Vary asked for clarification of which building would be four-tenths of a foot from the property line, the existing building or the new one being proposed by the Township? Mr. Miller responded that the Variation for the four-tenths of a foot distance from the new lot line was for an existing building. The new building would abide by the current setback requirements.

Ms. Vary asked why the Committee should waive the fee of the private business, Mullins Grain, as if it were a taxing body. A representative from Paw Paw Township commented that the two parties had agreed, at the inception of the process, that the Township would pay all costs associated with the land swap, including the Special Use fee.

Mr. Miller began by noting that David and Barbara Voss, the property owners, have filed a petition for a Use Variation for a vacant 37.9-acre parcel located on the west side of Somonauk Road, north of the intersection with Hiawatha Lane, in Somonauk Township. The request is to allow the construction of one single-family residence on a parcel that is less than 40 acres in size, according to the criteria of Section 10.01 of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that a Use Variation only creates the possibility that a parcel of less than 40 acres in size may be considered buildable for a single-family residence. The Use Variation regulations include very specific criteria, including that the property has existed as a separate, legal parcel since October 20 of 1976, that it was zoned A-1, Agricultural and had no house on it as of 1991, that the owner has owned the property since 1993, that the owner paid a premium price for the property because it was buildable at the time it was acquired, and that the property is not viable for agriculture.

A public hearing on the requested Use Variance was held by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick on June 12, 2003. The petitioners testified that they paid $100,000 for one-half of the property, or $5,277 per acre. Staff recommended denial of the petition, citing the fact that there was no evidence submitted to show that the subject property pre-dates October 20, 1976, that the petitioner acquired full ownership in 2000 as so has not owned the property since 1993, and that the property has been used for row crop production for years, indicating that it is viable for agriculture. Staff also noted that, because one-half of the property was inherited, the actual cost to the petitioners for the whole 37.9-acres site averages only $2,638 per acre, which is substantially less than the average cost of farmland in DeKalb County. One member of the public spoke in favor of the request, and none in opposition. The Hearing Officer submitted his report and recommended denial, having found that the petitioners failed to meet the criteria for granting a Use Variation.

Mr. Sands asked if the property is considered a part of Buck Lake Estates. Mr. Miller replied that it is not.

Ms. Vary commented that supporting this request this would seem to go strongly against the County’s adopted 40-acre requirement for a buildable lot in the A-1 District. She noted that she did not see sufficient evidence to go against the County’s determinations on this rule. Mr. Steimel noted that as recently as two years ago, the County Board had reiterated its support for the 40-acre rule.

Mrs. Allen asked for clarification of why this would be damaging, since the subject property was only a couple of acres shy of 40 and it was her understanding that the land was not usable for row crops. She added that it seemed to her that allowing this family to have the house could prevent further development of the land and would be more in keeping with preserving its agricultural character.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that he had just recently looked at the land in question and noted that it is currently under cultivation, so it is viable for row crop production. Mr. Miller added that granting this petition would not provide any substantive protection against further development if the petitioners should elect to annex the land to the city.

Mr. Miller began by reminding the Committee that at a prior meeting the Committee had directed staff to file a request for two Zoning Map Amendments, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10.03 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is to rezone the 293-acre Potawatomi Woods Forest Preserve and the 570-acre Kishwaukee River State Fish and Wildlife Area, located northwest of the Village of Kirkland, from A-1, Agricultural to FP/C, Floodplain/ Conservation District, in order to reflect the conservation and passive recreation uses of these properties.

The required public hearing was conducted on May 22, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. Staff testified that the proposed rezoning would be more reflective of the use of the subject properties as conservation and recreation areas, and noted that other forest preserves and the Chief Shabbona State Park are zoned FP/C. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the request, although three members of the public asked questions.

The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report and recommended approval of the Zoning Map Amendments. Additionally, the petitioner is requesting a waiver of the $525 application fee for the Zoning Map Amendments. Mr. Miller closed by saying that he had received word that though Superintendent Terry Hannon could not attend tonight’s meeting, he expressed his personal support for the petition as well as the support of the County Board Forest Preserve Committee.

Mr. MacMurdo asked for clarification as to whether the use of a section of the Potawatomi Woods Forest Preserve noted to remain in tillage would be consistent with the zoning requested. Mr. Miller replied that the portion of the Preserve which will continue to be farmed will utilize conservation methods, and therefore the use will be consistent with the Conservation zoning. He further noted that many FP/C areas have multiple conservation uses, so that is consistent as well.