Minutes of the DeKalb County
Regional Planning Commission

The DeKalb County Regional Planning Commission met on January 23, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East, in Sycamore, IL. In attendance were Commission Members Robert Pritchard, Frank Altmaier, Becky Morphey, Don Pardridge, Ruben Allen, Paul Rasmussen, Lee Luker, Jerry Thompson, Les Bellah, Rich Gentile, Bill Nicklas, Mark Todd, Dennis Ragan, and Cheryl "Cookie" Aldis representing the Town of Cortland, staff members Paul Miller and Marcellus Anderson, and planning consultant Walt Magdziarz. Audience included County Engineer Bill Lorence and County Board member Julia Fauci.

1. Roll Call -- Mr. Pritchard noted all members were present or represented by their alternates.

2. Approval of Agenda -- Mr. Nicklas moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen. The agenda passed unanimously.

3. Approval of Minutes -- Mr. Allen noted a discrepancy in the minutes of the December 5, 2002 RPC meeting on page11. Mr. Nicklas moved to approve the amended minutes, seconded by Mr.Pardridge. The motion to approve the amended minutes passed unanimously.

Mr. Miller reported that the project continues and communities are moving along the schedule of meetings. Malta just completed an Image Preference Survey last night. Sycamore has received very good press coverage for their meetings. Waterman and Sandwich have already had consensus plans (the step before finalizing their comprehensive plans) presented. Existing land use maps have been completed for all communities as of December. He then asked if any of the participants had comments or wished to share experiences.

Mr. Nicklas noted that the Image Preference Survey and charette were very interesting. The results seemed to support opinions that were very much in the mainstream. However, he noted that the attendees at the charette leaned heavily to one specific agenda and therefore dominated this smaller meeting. Mr. Pritchard asked if any other communities had experiences with specific groups attempting to push a specific agenda. Mr. Miller interjected that the tools that Landvision uses to structure these meetings can be effected by not having a truly representative cross-section of the communities. If highly motivated individuals do turn up in organized groups, it can effect the outcomes. Communities are well served to balance this input carefully and not base decisions solely on these tools.

Mr. Magdziardz noted that when the charettes occur and the staff notes there seems to be a concentration of a particular interest group, they will try to break them up. However, he reinforced Mr. Miller’s comment that when the room is almost completely composed of the interest group, it can skew the results. Mr. Pritchard asked what is done with the results then, if they have obviously been skewed. Mr. Magdziarz responded that you can still use the data, but it must be weighed against the knowledge that there were agendas at play. He noted that sometimes there are good ideas embedded in the responses. One of the surprises that came out of the Sycamore group was a table advocating looking at in-fill development opportunities very aggressively. Bill Lorence, County Engineer and member of the Sycamore Plan Commission, noted that there was even some discussion of higher density development in specific areas. Mr. Pritchard noted that Hinckley had similar responses with respect to smaller lots and more focus on placement of developments. Mr. Nicklas felt the responses urban landscapes were more reflective of the mainstream, but again, the City will use all of this as only a part of their future considerations. Mr.Altmaier noted that this issue is quite concerning because if it could happen in DeKalb or Sycamore, it would be far easier to sway the outcome in the smaller towns. Mr. Nickals noted that some of the individuals he has seen at the meetings do tend to go from town to town in an organized way.

Mr. Magdziarz noted that Chapter 4 would be reviewed this evening. Mr. Pritchard noted for the benefit of some of the new attendees how this process is being handled. Chapter 4 sets forth the review processes and requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance, specifically rezoning, special use permits, subdivision applications, zoning variations and amendments. The section contains an exhaustive listing of all the information a town may wish to require with each of the applications. One subtle provision in the first paragraph provides the basis for allowing the subdivision requirements to apply to land within a mile and a half of municipal boundaries.

The next sections relate to fees and reimbursements for municipality costs in reviewing applications. He noted that it was becoming common for municipalities to have the applicant reimburse the municipality for their costs. This goes beyond a simple application fee and can entail reimbursement for expert assistance (attorney costs etc). However, in order to recover those costs, the provision for doing so must be included in an ordinance. This can be handled by a monthly statement to the applicant, but there should be care taken that all costs are understood and reimbursed prior to a Village Board issuing a decision. Many developers may be reticent to provide the reimbursement in the event of a negative decision. Mr. Magdziarz recommended that municipalities consider instead a deposit approach wherein an applicant would place a deposit up front. He noted that this could be anywhere from $500 to $2500 dollars depending on the complexity of the application, and could be higher depending on the potential for outside services to be needed. If this approach is taken, he further recommended that someone from the municipality be given specific responsibility for tracking the costs so additional deposit could be requested as needed. And again, he noted that all reimbursements should be handled prior to a final decision be rendered.

Mr. Nicklas asked to clarify that as we go through the document seeking consensus, each municipality would be free to apply provisions as they so chose, but would not be compelled to do so. Mr. Madgziarz replied that was the case. Mr. Nicklas went on to say that was important when considering issues such as this fee structure question. He noted that many communities simply do not have the staff available to handle the tracking of such deposit accounts and therefore may not want to elect a provision that would force such work on their existing staffs.

Mr. Miller noted that Commission members actually wear two caps as they review the documents, one which would look at provisions and options as they specifically relate to their individual communities and one as a Regional Plan Commission member with the goal of looking at a document that would work "in general" as a model. He noted that with respect to this issue, perhaps a better approach is an escrow plan wherein all the administration required would be to charge costs against the escrow fund. Mr. Nicklas responded that there would still be a staff impact. Mr. Pritchard asked how Sycamore handles the administration of the fees currently when a developer approaches them. Mr. Nicklas noted that there is a deposit for individuals coming for public hearings and then as the preliminary plans are approved, a fee of 2% of the projected cost of the infrastructure improvements is assessed. This will likely be raised in the near future. Then building fees are assessed further down the road. His concern is that if they took on a deposit approach, the auditors and accountants would insist on a rigorously monitored system and that, again, would require staff time and attention that may not be available.

Mr. Gentile noted that he uses the deposit approach and that as a developer approaches the town, he meets with them and tells them that a deposit must be established with the City Clerk. Once that is in place with the City Clerk, the expenses are sent to the Clerk for reimbursement. The Clerk also monitors when the account is near empty. Ms. Morphey asked if he had any problems with that. He responded that he had not heard any problems from the budget officer administering the reimbursements.

Mr. Rasmussen made the comment that DeKalb has a flat fee structure that was adopted by ordinance with no escalator provision allowed. This has caused them difficulties, especially when an escaltor was finally provided for. His recommendation is that the fee structure be adopted by resolution, separate from ordinance and with an escalator built in. A further recommendation is that the fee structure should contain a provision to be waived with discretion depending on the nature of the project and its desirability. A final recommendation would be to not just look at the fee as an expenditure, but rather as an investment without worrying excessively too much about recouping every cost.

Mr. Madziarz then continued on with the zoning certificate. He noted that this terminology is just used as a useful reference for the zoning reviewer, someone signing off for the zoning approval on the application. This continues on to outline the minimum information required for review of a building permit. Mr. Miller noted that this was intended to be a logical framework for operation of the regulations and not intended to impose more on a community than it is comfortable adopting. As presented, this may be more than many communities currently use.

Mr. Madgziarz drew the Commission’s attention to the fact that throughout the document there are references to time limits for when decisions should be made. He noted this is an important provision and each community should frame whatever they adopt to reflect achievable dates that the community can live with. Mr. Nicklas asked about the issue of a two class site plan review in that section. Mr. Madgziarz responded that the two class system was adopted to try to simply the approaches rather than trying to mirror them within one approach. His intention was for one class of review that would be for smaller items, such as decks, porches and small home additions and one would be intended for subdivision, planned development or special use reviews. Mr. Nicklas noted that this explanation seemed clearer than the document seemed to be. Mr. Madziarz noted that perhaps additional descriptions could be incorporated into the document to make it clearer. Mr. Thompson noted that he felt it was critical that the provisions for single lot permits be as clear and easily understandable for the home owner as possible.

Mr. Pardridge asked for clarification about whether the Unified Development Ordinance was ever intended to address small issues such as porches, but rather was specifically addressing major developments and expansion of communities. Mr. Madziarz responded that the document really has to address all of the issues. Mr. Thompson noted that his community was eager to have the full spectrum of issues dealt with. Mr. Madgziarz noted that this was a difficult issue to deal with as many communities prefer to simply allow the discretion to give the local applicant more latitude than the out of town applicant. He noted that he would try to make this section clearer and more easily digestible. Mr. Miller noted that it might be helpful to think of the two items as Class 2 being more administrative and concerned with issues requiring a building permit as opposed to the Class 1 that would be more of a zoning action (special use, subdivision, change to commercial or industrial site). Class 1 designation would include projects that will ultimately come before the village boards or commissions. But, he noted, it’s important to note that Class 2 has zoning code issues even if the subject matter is not as complex as the Class 1. For example, setbacks and height restrictions should be considered prior to issuing a permit. Mr. Madgziarz noted that he would work on making the language and distinctions clearer. Mr. Luker noted that the general provisions strongly imply this related solely to subdivisions. Mr. Pardridge noted that if this stands as written, it will be extremely difficult to resolve with existing community ordinances. Mr. Nicklas noted that it is clear that this Unified Development Ordinance would be used to subsume existing ordinances and that it will therefore need to deal with very specific details as well as broader concepts.

Mr. Miller again noted that this returns to the issue of the Commission members wearing two hats; one as a representative of their specific community and considering the provisions as they relate to their specific communities and the second as the creators of a broader model document. Mr. Pardridge reiterated his concern that a great deal of communication needs to be occurring not just in the Commission but in the communities to make this work. Mr. Luker noted that likely the Commission members may become the sole experts.

Mr. Rasmussen spoke to the issue of varying levels of permits and noted that DeKalb had reduced their permit structure from twelve to two. They essentially created a minor homeowner permit and a major developer permit with the requirements and necessities of each configured to match the complexities of the project. The greatest problem they have had with the minor permits, specifically related to fences, is that homeowners so rarely have an accurate plat of survey. He asked the group if anyone had any suggestions to resolve this problem. He noted that DeKalb had tried to get the local real estate people to require a new plat of survey at the time of any sale that is given to the homeowner. However, this does not address the older properties. Mr. Luker asked if that wasn’t already a requirement and Mr. Madgziarz responded that while banks may require it, all that is usually needed is a legal description.

Mr. Madgziarz returned to the conversation regarding how best to designate the two types of permit types. He noted that later in the document, the subdivision section used the language "major and minor" and that seemed clearer to everyone. He will try to use that concept in revising the overall language.

Mr. Pritchard asked if the group was ready to go on. Mr. Madgziarz indicated that the next to be considered would be the Site Plan section. He noted that each community will want to look at the dates and time frames suggested as well as the information required. Mr. Luker asked if the noted requirements would ask a site plan applicant to provide a description of all the building that will be included. Mr. Miller replied that was not specifically called for in the site plan. Mr. Nicklas noted that for major subdivisions, most developers will want to provide an overview of the types of structures they are considering. Mr. Rasmussen added that this is especially true for larger one-builder subdivisions to avoid monotony of the building types.

Mr. Miller noted that this might be a good time for the communities to consider the issue of allowing discretion in the applications to allow officials to waive provisions or categories of provisions. This allows for flexibility when dealing with older parts of the communities versus the newer developments. Mr. Nicklas cautioned that he favored narrowing that discretion to prevent the process from becoming too politicized. Keeping the rules uniform keeps the process professional. Mr. Luker added that often the individuals handling this are contracted by communities and the administrators may not be the best to determine when to apply the discretion and when not to. Mr. Madgziarz pointed out the description of a Class 1 site review identifies that architectural elevations are a requirement of a planned development.

Mr. Thompson asked if the notes that are included in the documents currently would be in the final document. Mr. Altmaier agreed with that statement adding that they are very instructive notes. He commented that his town would want that. Mr. Nicklas recommended that perhaps two documents be produced, one without the additional notes and one without. Mr. Madgziarz responded that two documents would be no problem he would look the document over with an eye to expanding the notes where it might be helpful in light of tonight’s discussion. Mr. Rasmussen asked if there were anything in the document about consequences for missing set response deadlines. Mr. Madgziarz responded that there was not anything specific at this point, but that something can be added in. Mr. Thompson noted this is especially essential for small towns with part-time staffs where deadlines can be missed quite easily.

Mr. Madziarz then moved to the special use section. He noted that the language here derives from the model used throughout Illinois. It defines special uses as the public or private use of a land or building where the unique operational characteristics or the nature of the use may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or the community in general. This section provides for the ability to review that special use on a case by case basis. He noted a recent Illinois court decision will likely require communities to take greater care in using the special use provisions. Basically, it held that the special use permit is an administrative, not a legislative process. This focuses a great deal more attention on the path to a final decision rather than focusing on the decision itself. Mr. Miller added that as an administrative process, these will be handled through an administrative law review. Critical points will be whether the community followed the correct procedures, considered the criteria they were supposed to consider, held a fair public hearing where there was sufficient time for sworn testimony and evidence and finally, does the decision follow logically from the process. This will now greatly limit discretionary decision making on the part of the elected officials. Mr. Rasmussen noted that there have been vivid examples of why care needs to be taken to consider ancillary consequences not specifically spelled out in the law. One in particular he recalled was a church on RT. 59 that had 13,000 parishioners and an intention to be on holding tank-based septic. Not only would that have the potential to poison the surrounding land, but the traffic considerations were additionally troubling. Mr. Madgziarz recalled an example of a Chicago Heights church that wanted to occupy a building in the downtown area. However the town didn’t want a tax exempt use in a building that could have been a tax producing location. The church satisfied all the criteria for special use, but the city council opted to refuse. When it went to the courts, they essentially said, "not so fast". His point is that communities need to be careful and deliberate in using this technique of special use because these new rulings will likely reign in the scope of the use in the future.

Mr. Madgziarz then directed the Commission members to the example used in the document being reviewed related to Adult Business Uses. Mr. Nicklas and Mr. Miller both noted that if the regulations in a community do not allow for adult uses somewhere in the document, you cannot arbitrarily prohibit them. It is also impermissible to have the code restrict the uses completely.

Mr. Thompson asked for discussion on a reference on page 4.10.4.3.3b related to "substantial adverse effect". Who is the responsible for determining if the effect is substantially adverse? Mr. Madziarz responded that the special use application would first go to a Plan Commission or Village Board. The Plan Commission or Board will have the responsibility to determine the adverse effect based on the testimony gathered during the public hearing. Evidence and testimony will be the criteria used to make the determination and evidence will trump testimony. The presumption is that evidence should be factual and testimony is often subjective. If each are even, then the decision maker must make a discretionary decision. Mr. Madziarz then closed with section 4.14 and discussed the issue of the speculative application or rezoning. This establishes a time limit for the use granted.

Mr. Madziarz moved to the section on planned developments. He noted this is fairly typical language that would likely be found in all the local zoning ordinances. It allows for flexibility and creativity in the design of developments both with land plans and architecture. Unfortunately the track record for many communities poorly administrate the planned development and developers use it to increase density. Mr. Miller noted that the way to offset this was for communities to see the flexibility of the use as a quid pro quo, recognizing to developers that if there are standards being relaxed, what was the developer doing in return that justified that relaxation. Mr. Magdziarz noted that the detail is getting greater in the document, especially with respect to the process and approval of the applications. He noted that the planned development process mirrors the subdivision process closely and often causes confusion at first glance. In this document, each application is unique. The basic difference lies in the fact that subdivision is not tied to zoning, but the planned development is. Planned development plans in some ways render the underlying zoning immaterial or inconsequential. He further recommended that communities not generally treat the planned development as a zoning district to avoid confusion. Mr. Miller noted that DeKalb County does treat the planned development as a zoning district and avoids confusion because of the advantage that often comes from using the planned development as a zoning and subdivision action in one package as well as allowing some creativity in the process. He noted that some communities do all their subdivisions as planned developments. Mr. Rasmussen noted that one advantage he found in his experiences was to require that the attorneys and developers use standard outlines for their applications so reviews could be streamlined. Mr. Madziarz noted that when he works with communities on PDR’s, that he recommends the process follow the elements in the applicable ordinances.

Mr. Nicklas moved to the abrogation procedures. He noted that Sycamore had been trying to move to a more efficient model of concept, review and approval. He wants to return to using the concept plan as a means of getting as good a look at the proposal as possible with as little up front costs as possible. Mr. Madziarz noted that the reason the concept plan is recommended is to open the dialogue with the developer at a time when they can still make changes without unreasonable additional expense. The critical importance is to have the developer know if where they are headed is a direction the community can support. Mr. Miller noted that any of the application procedure steps could be dropped off if it made the process more comfortable for the community. Mr. Thompson noted there was another point here that needed some definition of the city failing to meet their deadlines as stated in the document. Mr. Rasmussen also asked if there was anything in the document that indicated for how long a preliminary plan was good. Mr. Madgziarz replied that he thought the document put the life of a preliminary plan at a year, but that if not, he would make sure that was put in.

In the section on subdivision plats and procedures, Mr. Madgziarz called the Commission’s attention to the notes on having an option of major and minor subdivisions. He indicated that he felt some smaller subdivisions just may not justify the administrative costs of a full-blown review process. Mr. Pardridge asked for clarification of the documents’ reference to allowing more than three lots on a five acre parcel. He felt that was highly uncommon. Mr. Miller clarified that the County does have allowance for that in the R-1 zoning district, though there could be access issues. Mr. Luker noted that sometimes they have more difficulties with minor subdivisions than with major ones. Mr. Miller noted that sometimes the definition of what a subdivision is can assist in cleaning up some of the issues. Mr. Nicklas asked if this could be the place in the document where a Plat Officer (as provided for in State law) could be provided for. Discussion followed that the Plat Act allowed for much of the same things. Mr. Luker asked if there were anything in the document that dealt with annexation issues related to subdivisions. He went on to note that they often have issues related to the expansion of water and sewer facilities in the smaller subdivisions. Mr. Miller pointed out that if there were extension of services involved, this would (by the document’s requirements) be considered a minor subdivision.

Mr. Madgziarz noted again that several points in the document look very much like the planned development process. Mr. Miller noted that it is critical that this particular section be looked at carefully. Mr. Madgziarz added that it might be advisable to have village and city engineers look over this section for any concerns or requirements they might see.

Mr. Rasmussen asked for clarification of whether they municipality should adopt the covenants, restrictions and conditions or operate on a basis of trust that they will be enforced. Ms. Aldis noted that even though they have adopted the covenants, they could not legally enforce them. Mr. Miller noted that the typical approach has been that if it’s an issue the community is interested in enforcing, then it should be part of the actual ordinance. If it is an issue the community does not have an interest in enforcing, then those would fall in to the covenants, conditions and restrictions. Mr. Rasmussen noted that his point in asking the question was to explore how to handle the issue of services not being attended to in common areas (not mowing, etc). Mr. Rasmussen then went on to ask if there is a way to prevent a developer from bringing in small bits of the development layout without a full representation of how it all fits together. Ms. Aldis noted that they address this through the preliminary phase lines on the Plat.

Mr. Madgziarz noted that common areas in subdivisions are frequently a problem. Some adopt an approach that when the planned development is approved, the County and the developer establish a dormant special service area. If the time comes that the developer or the homeowners do not take care of their responsibilities for keeping the area cared for, then the County is allowed to contract for the services needed and then to pass the charges to the homeowners via their tax bills. However, for such a process to work it needs to be set up at the beginning of the development when there is a single owner. It can also be dealt with through the annexation process.

Mr. Thompson asked if this concept was in the document currently or whether it can be added at in a future note. Mr. Luker noted that the majority of the developers would likely be very eager to do this. Mr. Magziarz added that it also relieves towns and villages of the burden of trying to figure out how to handle this once the infrastructure has deteriorated and homeowners are pressing for assistance.

Mr. Aldis asked about an item regarding requesting all preliminary plans in a digital format. She inquired as to how many towns actually do make the request that way and how many have the technology to accept it. DeKalb and Sycamore indicated that they do. Mr. Luker indicated mostly this exchange happens between the developer and the city engineers.

Mr. Madgziarz then moved to questions on variations and appeals. He noted that the position of Hearing Officer can be an option with a town or village electing to go with a Hearing Officer or a Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Miller spoke to the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and offered advice to anyone considering the Hearing Officer route. Mr. Madgziarz closed by noting that whatever option is selected, it is important that the duties and responsibilities are clearly defined.

Another point of discussion came up on the issue of the breadth of notice in the event of a zoning action. The standard is to notify only those with adjacent property to the effected parcel. This is then supplemented with public notices in local publications as well as signage on the effected property. However, the election to broaden notification (those 250 or 300 feet from the property, etc) is discretionary to each community. Mr. Miller noted that the County finds that the use of the property signs seems to handle the issue of notifying the nearby, but not immediately adjacent property owners. Mr. Madgziarz agreed with that and also noted that some communities place the burden of notification on the applicant. It was noted that many local title companies can provide listings of adjacent property owners for a small fee. Mr. Pritchard noted that the County G.I.S. can also be utilized for this purpose and is a good and reliable tool for this purpose.

This concluded the discussion on the Unified Development Ordinance for the evening. Mr. Madgziarz noted to the Commission that each of the subsequent chapters will become more and more detailed. Chapter 5 will be reviewed at the next meeting.

Mr. Thompson reported two items of interest from Malta. First was that Malta held its Image Preference Survey last night. Thirty people attended and the community hopes for an even larger turnout. The second item is that Malta has asked Mr. Miller to assist them in working out issues they are having between the community and a developer proposing a subdivision on the west side of town.

Mr. Rasmussen passed out a draft code of ethics related to a prior discussion on Planning Commission ethics. A few issues he felt were noteworthy during his investigation into this issue included the fact that it is apparently unusual for a volunteer board to have one. However, DeKalb will still try to move forward and adopt this document to assist the Commission in understanding their responsibilities and the quasi-judicial nature of their work. This is supported by several group of experts the City has discussed this with (NIU School of Public Administration, ). He also reported that the Growth Summit will meet again next Tuesday. He has been keeping trend data for presentation and reminded the Commission of data he has gleaned that show growth in DeKalb at about 11%, the third lowest growth rate of any city within 15 miles of DeKalb. Another note is that the City time frame from annexation to development has averaged 20 years with five to 10 years on project development alone, countering the prevalent belief in rapid and unchecked development occurring. He closed with a comment on the overall total land occupied by existing cities, towns and villages as well as accounting for future land use in the Comprehensive Plan will only account for 9.9% of the County. The tax base for the City of DeKalb is 60% residential, 40% commercial/industrial. Of that commercial, 15% are apartment dwellers and do not seem to drain ancillary services as much (schools, etc). However, the City recognizes that they are anemic in the industrial base need to move to more of a 50/50 balance in order to bring revenues in line.

Mr. Ragan reported that Senator Brad Burzynski and Representative Ron Wait were recently instrumental in obtaining Illinois First funding for a streetlight project that would have failed without their intervention.

Ms. Aldis reported that Cortland is widening roads and putting in curbs, gutters and turn lanes and that is causing some disruption.

Mr. Altmaier noted that the Coffee Grind convenience store has finally opened in Kingston.

Mr. Pritchard reported that one issue in the County currently is the proposed wind farm. The project passed the Planning and Regulations Committee last night on a vote of six to three and will now proceed to the County Board for a vote in February. He also reported that the Prairie Parkway project has started a new phase with the consultant holding hearings on need and location. These hearings are expected to take a full year. Mr. Miller noted that by taking this back to square one on location, it could drift from it’s current Kendall/Kane location and move it closer to DeKalb County.

Mr. Luker noted that the new Village Hall in Hinckley will be closed next week while everyone moves in and then an open house will be held when the weather gets a bit nicer.

Mr. Gentile reported that Genoa conducted their Image Preference Survey and about 50 citizens turned out with 25 new faces. They are also discussing getting a 25,000 to 30,000 square foot Brown’s grocery store and are hoping for a pharmacy. This would be located in the Prairie Ridge Industrial Park. Mr. Madgziarz noted that they also did an Image Preference Survey in Genoa with four classes from the high school to do a comparison of the concerns of younger and older residents.

Ms. Morphey noted that Somonauk has finally finished their storm sewer project.

Mr Miller asked if Lee had been informed about the increase of the setbacks on the wind farm project. Mr. Ragan said that they were and thanked Mr. Miller for his efforts to keep them in the loop with DeKalb County on the project’s progress.

Mr. Pritchard recognized Commission guest Bill Lorence, County Engineer, for a few comments. Mr. Lorence reminded the Commission members that when an annexation occurs there is a requirement to provide certified notification of the annexation. He noted that this is especially important in that the roads within the annexation boundaries become municipal and the County must be made aware of those changes.

Adjournment -- The next meeting of the Regional Planning Commission will be February 27, 2003. Mr. Rasmussen moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Pardridge, and the motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

KJR:kjr