Mr. Steimel, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order. He noted all Committee members were present with the exception of Mr. Slack. Mr. Slack arrived shortly thereafter and joined the meeting.

Mr. Miller began by noting that back in April the Committee discussed these two issues and directed staff to prepare an application for Zoning Text Amendments that would amount to a codification of the interpretations and practices that have been in place. He commented that recent zoning cases have made it desirable to formalize these policies into the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Miller explained that the Hearing was delayed due to a publication error on the part of the local newspaper, but that the Hearing was eventually held on June 26, 2003.

The first item Amends the regulations regarding fees, and allows the County to engage the services of outside consultants both with the review of zoning actions (Special Uses, Text Amendments, Variations, Planned Developments, etc) as well as the administration of any conditions that have been made part of any Special Uses or Planned developments. The costs for these outside services would be borne by the applicant whose request has generated those costs. There had been an assumption that the County has always had this authority, but recent situations have indicated the need to make it clear that the authority is in place.

The second item clarified that the Planning Director has the authority to either require additional information or waive otherwise required information for zoning applications. This had also been previously assumed to be the case and has been a standard practice of the office. The Hearing Officer, having noted these as common past practices, recommended approval of the items.

Mrs. Dubin asked if the County has often hired outside consultants. Mr. Miller responded that, to this point, the County has not. Mrs. Dubin then asked why this is now an issue. Mr. Miler responded that the recent FPL Wind Tower project raised the issue of the County needing to be able to hire consultants to administer certain large projects.

Mr. Sands commented that while he has no disagreement with the first item, he strongly opposes the second item. He went on to elaborate that he felt the change would give the Planning Director too much authority, and he expressed the opinion that if a requirement for a zoning application includes the words "shall" or "must," then there should be no waiver of the requirement that the information be submitted. Mr. Simonson stated that he also was still debating his support of the second item. Ms. Vary asked what had precipitated discussion on this amendment. Mr. Miller responded that during the FPL Special Use application process, he waived the requirement for a Natural Resources Inventory Report, as it was virtually impossible to generate the report, or make use of its conclusions, given the size and nature of the project. He noted that the Natural Resource report is designed to address a project done on a single parcel, pre-identified at the project inception. Due to the fact that FPL had not, and could not, finalize sites until the Special Use was approved, it would have created an impossible requirement for the applicant to satisfy.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that he also supported the first item, but questioned if there was any kind of notification given to the Committee or the County Board when a waiver of a submission requirement is done. Mr. Miller commented that there is no requirement of notification to the Committee or County Board as the amendment is written. He went on to note that this kind of everyday, technical decision has traditionally been left to the discretion of the technical staff, due both to staff’s expertise and experience with interpreting and applying the regulations, and to the additional time and cost it would add to the petitioners and to the Committee’s workload. He also noted that it would make no sense, and would be readily noticeable, if the staff waived truly essential items in a zoning application. The general provisions of the requirements are designed for single projects on single properties. When the requirements are applied to small-scale or large-scale projects, it can become obvious that some of the items may not be useful, possible or relevant.

Mr. Sands commented that he was also disturbed by the lack of requirement for notification to the Committee, and that he was dismayed when the FPL waivers were first disclosed to the County Board by lawyers threatening suit against the County. He commented that he felt it would be far more appropriate to look at the statute language and consider where items might be changed from "must" to "may" to afford the same allowance for waiver without giving it to the Planning Director position outright.

Ms. Vary commented that even if the language were changed to allow for waiver, who would be responsible for applying the waiver? She went on to note it would likely fall to the Planning Director’s position in any circumstance.

Mrs. Allen commented that the Planning Director would be far more qualified to make these decisions than the Committee. Mr. Miller commented that if these decisions were made by the Committee or the County Board, it would add a minimum of two months to the application process, as the applicant would have to receive the information waiver prior to being allowed to complete the application.

Ms. Vary noted that she does not feel comfortable changing the Zoning Ordinance language to be more flexible, as recommended by Mr. Sands. She added that policy making bodies must depend on information and expertise of people trained in this area, allowing them to exercise appropriate discretion, rather than generally loosening the standards.

Mr. Sands countered that anytime the Ordinance requirements are disregarded, there should be an approval process beyond one individual. Mr. Miller noted that this was not disregarding the requirements, it was simply applying discretion to which requirements are reasonable to enforce in a given circumstance. He again noted that it will greatly add to the Committee’s and the Board’s work if they opt to be the entity that decides whether or not zoning application requirements should be waived.

Mr. Miller commented that any decision made by a staff member is subject to scrutiny throughout the process and it falls unequivocally to the staff member to justify their decisions. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently includes certain discretionary items, including that the Planning Director may allow a fence to be closer to the road than the front of a house, and that the Planning Director may allow a detached garage to be in the side yard rather than the rear yard. He explained that exercising that discretion puts the burden on staff to not act in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Miller stated that in making these discretionary decisions, he relies on the same criteria used by the Hearing Officer for making a decision on Variations, and puts that evaluation and determination in writing. He noted that he has always approached the utilization of discretionary authority with great diligence.

Ms. Vary asked if the proposed amendment would really substantively change the current ordinance. Mr. Miller noted that the current zoning code gives the Planning Director discretion to require additional information for Special uses and planned developments. This amendment would open the requirement of additional information to other zoning actions beyond that. However, Mr. Steimel clarified that it was only allowing additional information to be added, not allowing any waiver. Ms. Vary then asked who would be allowed to waive irrelevant or impossible requirements. Mr. Miller stated that no one would then have the authority to waive submittal requirements because neither the Board nor the Committee is granted that authority in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sands went on to comment that if anyone want to remove or waive a requirement, it would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance, rather than exercising individual discretion. Ms. Vary noted that approach would not work with all circumstances and asked if the addition of the words "can waive, subject to the approval of the Committee or Board," would help in any way. Mr. Miller again noted that would add significant time to the zoning action process and work load to the Committee or County Board. Mr. Steimel asked if there were any other examples, beyond FPL, that illustrate waiver necessity. Mr. Miller cited the example of a minor planned development where it was determined that not all of the submissions were necessary or appropriate.

Mr. Miller began by noting that Kingston Township Cemeteries, the property owner, has filed a petition for a Special Use Permit and Variation for the existing cemetery located on the east side of Hunter Road, north of the C. C. & P. Railroad, in Kingston Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District, with a Special Use designation for the cemetery, however, no County Board ordinance specific to the cemetery use has ever been granted. The Special Use Permit, which has been filed in accordance with Section 9.01 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance, and Variation from Section 4.02.E.2, are requested to accommodate the proposed replacement of an existing shed with a larger structure which would have a setback of only six feet in lieu of the minimum required setback of 20 feet. The petitioner is also requesting waiver of the Special Use Permit application fees.

The required public hearing was conducted on July 10, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. Representatives of the Cemetery were in attendance, and explained that the request is based on the need to replace an old maintenance shed with a new, larger shed. The location proposed will preserve space for additional grave sites. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer has approved the requested Variation, and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit.

Mr. Magnuson, a Trustee of the Kingston Township Cemeteries, thanked the Committee. Mr. Steimel noted that this will be forwarded to the County Board at its August 20, 2003 meeting.

Mr. Miller began by noting DeKalb County exercises its authority to zone properties via official Zoning District Maps for each Township. These maps are the official record of which properties are zoned for agriculture, residences, businesses, industry and conservation/recreation areas. As Map Amendments are granted by the County Board, the Zoning Maps are updated to reflect the changes. The Zoning District Maps are occasionally updated all at once, generally as part of the adoption of a new County Comprehensive Plan and attendant changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The DeKalb County Zoning District Maps were last updated as a whole by Ordinance 00-3, on December 15, 1999, as part of the Year 2000 County Comprehensive Plan process.

Because the zoning maps are the official record of zoning in the County, they are frequently referred to by property owners and staff. It is important that the maps be as accurate and unambiguous as possible, so as to reduce uncertainties about which of the County’s zoning

regulations apply to properties. Anything that the County can do to increase the accuracy of the maps and reduce uncertainties only benefits the citizens of the County and reduces the chances for disputes.

The official zoning maps are mylar sheets that date back to 1991. The sheets include photographic images of section and property lines from that year, as well as roads and corporate limits. Overlaid on this background are the boundaries of the various zoning districts and special use designations, which are depicted by dashed lines and letter-number combinations that are applied to the mylar.

The problem with the official zoning maps is that they are often inaccurate with respect to property lines, they do not have new property lines or roads that have been created since 1991, and the lines which depict zoning boundaries are thick and often obscure underlying properties. This makes interpretation of zoning districts sometimes difficult, which can create problems for affected property owners who seek to understand what County regulations apply to them. Further, updating the official zoning maps requires staff to interpret as correctly as possible the location of property lines which might or might not be depicted on the underlying map.

In response to these problems, and in recognition of new technology that has arisen since 1991, the Information Management Office and Planning, Zoning and Building Department have been cooperating over the past three years to create new zoning maps using the County Geographic Information System (GIS). These computer-based, digital zoning maps are now completed, and represent an improvement over the official, mylar maps in several respects. They are more accurate with respect to current property lines, roads and corporate boundaries, since the GIS undergoes annual updates from the County Recorder and Supervisor of Assessment offices. They are more specific with respect to the boundaries of zoning districts, since the GIS allows individual properties to be designated as being zoned a certain way, rather than a thick line being superimposed to represent the boundary of a district on top of underlying information. They are easier to update, since zone changes, annexations, new subdivisions and other property splits, can be input digitally as they occur. And they are linked to other information available on the County GIS, including such things are property owner names, addresses, tax districts, etc.

Mr. Miller, along with Ms. Berkes-Hanson and Ms. Minogue from the County Information Management Office (IMO) presented samples of the digital zoning maps to the Committee. They also provided some of the official, mylar maps for comparison purposes. It was noted that there were certain instances where the project has revealed inaccuracies, ambiguities and questions on the official maps that have resulted in changes on the digital zoning maps. A number of properties throughout the County are shown under different zoning districts as a consequence of the thorough exercise of translating the mylar maps to the digital versions.

Mr. Miller commented that the staff report recommends that the County should now consider making the digital, GIS-based zoning maps the official zoning district maps for DeKalb County. The process for doing so would consist of a formal application, prepared by staff, to adopt the maps, and a single public hearing at which the public will be given the opportunity to review the new maps and the changes they include. The public can be notified of this process by a notice placed in all newspapers that circulate within DeKalb County, a press release, perhaps by the posting of notices in municipal halls and libraries, and announcements on local radio stations. It is hoped that the Public Hearing could occur as early as September, 2003. The GIS web will also be available to the public as of August 1, 2003 and arrangements are being made to have an access station available at the Planning and Zoning Department.

Mr. Simonson asked if the adoption of the digital zoning maps will have any effect on the existing acreage owned. Mr. Miller noted that it will not.

Mr. Sands asked what happens to an owner who believes his land has one zoning and it has now been discovered to be a different zoning. Mr. Miller replied that the final determination by the County will be the final zoning and the notification process, as described previously along with a public hearing provides the owner the opportunity to speak to the issue. Mr. Sands asked if a blanket notification would be sufficient to catch all effected owners. Mr. Miller replied that staff felt it would be the best approach and was consistent with past practice in such instances. Mr. Sands asked if the staff had any idea how many properties might be effected. Mr. Miller responded that there were probably about 200 as a ballpark guess. However, he also noted that to do the research to provide individual contact letters would take a considerable amount of staff time. Extensive discussion regarding the best approach for public contact prior to the hearing. In the end the Committee determined that staff should makes its best effort to identify and notify individual property owners whose property may be rezoned as a consequence of adopting the digital zoning maps.

Mr. Miller began by reporting that since August of last year, staff and the planning firm Land Vision from St. Charles have been working closely with the individual municipalities that are a part of the DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission to update their municipal comprehensive plans. These projects have now resulted in "consensus plans," or future land use plans, for each of the communities that are part of the RPC and have requested County assistance in conducting an update. Staff and Land Vision presented these draft future land use plans to the Planning and Regulations Committee at its May 28, 2003 meeting. The Committee generally endorsed the project, and it was agreed that the County would begin looking at those elements of the Year 2000 DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan which would need to be updated along with the Future Land Use Plan.

To this end, staff has drafted a set of revised Goals and Objectives for consideration by the Committee. Goals and Objectives are contained in the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and work in concert with the Future Land Use Plan in establishing the guidelines, policies and direction for future growth. The draft Goals and Objectives presented have been modified only slightly from those contained in the Year 2000 Plan. This is because staff believes the update to the County Comprehensive Plan should largely be restricted to the inclusion of the municipal future land use plans, with little change in the County’s approach toward growth. The revisions, which are underlined in the text, are intended primarily to reflect the role of the Regional Planning Commission. The only other change recommended by staff is to strengthen the County’s policy of discouraging development in unincorporated DeKalb County, and encouraging growth to occur within, or immediately adjacent to, municipalities.

Mr. Miller asked the Committee if anyone had any discussion on the draft Goals and Objectives. Discussion followed regarding specific text sections and their intended meanings. Mrs. Dubin asked if there have been transportation considerations as the plans have developed. Mr. Miller noted that Mr. Lorence from the Highway Department has been brought in to the discussions. Mr. Sands asked if the greenways and trails group that has formed locally has been part of the discussions as well. Mr. Miller noted that the group had met with him and would be speaking to the Regional Planning Commission as well at their next meeting. Ms. Vary asked about County commitment to establishing more commuter rail lines. Mr. Magdziarz noted that on all of the individual community plans, a rail station is a desired item. Mr. Simonson noted that he strongly objected to the municipality growth shown due to a concern that their increased growth would burden the road systems and cause the County to have to spend more on roadway development and maintenance. Mr. Miller noted that County road impact from the proposed growth was being discussed at the RPC.

Mr. Miller then asked if there were any other changes and invited the Committee members to contact either himself or Mr. Magdziarz if they had future changes or comments. Mr. Steimel asked about the time line for the project overall. Mr. Miller responded that they hope to have a public hearing to adopt a new County Comprehensive Plan by no later than November 2003, with full adoption by the County Board in December 2003.

Mr. Miller began by reminding the Committee that the Regional Planning Commission was created in 2002 as a cooperative effort between the County and the municipalities within the

County addressing issues of regional importance. The first task undertaken by the Commission was the on-going Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO project. DeKalb County has funded this project, including paying for the planning consultant, Land Vision, and reimbursing County staff for time devoted to the Regional Planning Commission. The Unified Comprehensive Plan/Model UDO project is on schedule, and is expected to wrap up near the end of 2003.

The end of this project raises the question of where does the Regional Planning Commission go from there? The possibilities for the organization run the gamut, from disbanding at the conclusion of the Unified Comprehensive Plan project, to continuing indefinitely as a forum to communicate, cooperate and coordinate on issues of regional importance and impact. One such issue that was recently broached by the RPC is that of a countywide approach toward stormwater management. Another foreseeable issue on the horizon is the Prairie Parkway in Kendall and Kane Counties and its potential impact to DeKalb County. Still others may arise at any time, including: the possibility of a new land fill; the creation of a large "mega-subdivision" in unincorporated DeKalb County; a format to address the impacts of a large development in one community on surrounding communities and the County as a whole; and a means to share resources among the smaller, resource-poor municipalities within the County. Staff believes that the RPC has the potential to be a valuable organization for many years and for many purposes, providing as it does a unique opportunity for cooperation between municipalities, and between the County and the communities within it.

The Regional Planning Commission has recently begun discussions about its future. Initial indications are that many of the member municipalities would like to continue the organization. A practical issue is how Commission is to be funded. To date, the County has funded the RPC, reimbursing members for mileage, paying for copies and postage, reimbursing the Director the sum of $300 per month for work on behalf of the RPC, providing a secretary to take minutes at the RPC meeting (the secretary earns "comp. time" for time at the meeting), and providing an office and equipment. Based on the expenditures of the past year, and adding a 3% multiplier, staff has estimated that, if all 13 municipalities help support the RPC financially, the cost would be approximately $500 per community for the next year of operation. It is anticipated that the County would not make any additional allocation of specific funds for the RPC. Rather, the County’s financial contribution would be in the form of continuing to provide the office space and equipment, and continue to compensate the RPC secretary in the form of "comp. time."

At this time, it is expected that the first year of operation of the RPC beyond the Unified Comprehensive Plan project would start on January 1, 2004. By that date, it will be clear which and how many municipalities wish to continue to participate in the organization. The County must also decide whether it wants to continue to participate.

Mr. Sands asked if it was correct that there had been a two year appropriation by the County of $100,000 each year to the RPC, and if so, has the money been fully expended. Mr. Miller reported that about half of the money has been spent, and by the end of this year, it is likely all of those funds will be expended.

Discussion was held regarding continued participation in the Regional Planning Commission, with general consensus that it was worthwhile to continue to support the organization.

On an unrelated topic, Mr. Steimel passed the floor to Ms. Vary to discuss concerns she has had with recent fee-waiver votes taken by the Committee. Ms. Vary commented that she was somewhat disturbed by the recent vote to waive the fees for a private business, Mullins Grain, when it came before the Committee in conjunction with a request by Paw Paw Township. Discussion followed on the path of that particular case and on the principles of fee waiver to other taxing bodies in general. It was decided that the issue will likely be discussed further in the future.