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

Mr. Miller began by reporting that the Sycamore RV Resort, represented by Dale and Anita Cappel, the property owners, has filed a petition for an Amendment to a Special Use Permit and Variations for the existing recreational camp located east of State Rte. 23 at the east end of North Street in Sycamore Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District and FP/C, Floodplain/Conservation District, with a Special Use Permit for the recreational camp. The Amendment to the Special Use Permit, which has been filed in accordance with Section 9.01 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance, and Variations from Section 4.01.K.10, are requested to accommodate the proposed addition of a caretaker’s residence, a bath house, and a pavilion for the recreational vehicle camp. The Amendment to the Special Use Permit is needed to allow the additional buildings, because the combined area of the structures would exceed ten percent of the combined area of existing buildings on the property. The Variations are requested for each of the three proposed buildings because none would meet the requirement of the FP/C District regulations that the lowest floor be two feet above the base flood elevation.

The required public hearing was conducted on August 7, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. The Cappels presented testimony and exhibits in support of the request for the Amendment to the Special Use and the Variations. They explained that the pavilion would be constructed at ground level so that it would not obstruct flood waters. They also indicated that the bathhouse was needed to provide a better shower and laundry facility for the camp guests, as well as double as a storm shelter. The proposed caretakers’ house would allow the Cappels to remain on site and oversee the camp, and they testified that such residences are typical in other RV camps. They indicated that the proposed house would have a basement that would be four feet below the floodplain elevation, but stated that during the 1996 flood, water did not approach the area where the house is proposed. Staff recommended that, if the house is approved, the lowest floor should meet the two-foot freeboard requirement, since a basement with living space or containing a furnace would create the potential for damage during a flood event. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request, and one asked questions about the floodplain elevation.

The Hearing Officer has submitted his Findings. He approved the requested Variations from the two-foot freeboard requirement for the pavilion and the bathhouse, but denied the requested Variation for the caretakers’ residence. The Hearing Officer recommended approval of the Amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a pavilion, bathhouse and caretakers’ residence. Mr. Miller commented that the caretaker’s residence could still be constructed, despite the denial of the Variation. However, the Cappel’s would have to adjust their plans to adhere to the two-foot freeboard requirement.

Mr. Steimel noted, before opening the floor for discussion, that he had just visited the facility and was extremely pleased with the work the Cappels have done in improving the property and making it a true asset to the community. Mr. Simonson asked why the caretaker’s residence needed to be as large as indicated on the plans, and also expressed some concerns regarding the engineering information provided in the application. Ms. Vary commented that she agreed with the determination on the bathhouse and pavilion, but shared the concerns about the caretaker’s residence. Mr. Miller replied that the residence is currently planned for a berm area and will be required to adhere to floodplain regulations. Mr. Lyle commented that if the floodplain regulations were met, he would have no objections. Mr. Slack commented that he had been to the site many times and felt it was a tremendous addition to the community and agreed that as long as the floodplain restrictions are adhered to for the caretaker’s residence, he would also have no objections. Mrs. Dubin joined in the general agreement, but asked why the caretaker’s residence couldn’t have a second floor rather than a basement. Mr. Miller replied that would indeed be an option for the Cappel’s as they redesign the structure. Mr. MacMurdo also spoke in favor of Permit approval and commended the Cappel’s on their work with the facility. Mr. Steimel commented that he agreed with the denial of the basement and that such denial reinforced the County’s determination to keep a firm hand on these sorts of floodplain issue. Ms. Vary commented that she had seen a recommendation in the staff report to have a topographic study done and asked if that would be done. Mr. Miller replied that it would be done at the time that a required Site Development Permit is processed.

Mr. Miller commented that at the Committee’s last meeting, they had directed staff to identify properties that might be considered rezoned as a result of work done to establish consistence between the digital zoning maps and the official Mylar maps of the County. The staff reviewed all of the new digital zoning maps against the official maps, previous zoning maps, and the zoning records in the Department, and concluded that there were 20 instances where the property owner may believe their zoning is something different from what the digital maps will show. These individuals will be notified by certified mail. Beyond that, notifications of the public hearing will be placed in every newspaper with circulation within the County. The notice published will also contain a reference to the County website where the maps can be viewed by the public. Mr. Miller stated that the low number of changes is positive, as it shows that there is relatively little conflict between the digital zoning maps and the official zoning maps. He closed by asking the Committee to review the notice enclosed in their packets and allow the staff to move forward with releasing it for publication.

Committee members stated that they felt the review was appropriate, and were pleased to hear that only a few property owners might be impacted by the proposed adoption of the digital zoning maps. The Committee concurred that the project and public hearing should go forward.