Mr. Steimel, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order. He noted that all Committee members were present with the exception of Ms. Vary and formally introduced new Committee member Vince Faivre.

Mr. Miller began by reporting that on February 19, 2003, the County Board passed Ordinance 2003-4, which granted a Special Use Permit to the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel on property located on the south side of Cherry Road and east of Southwood Subdivision in Genoa Township. Section 9.01.B.8. of the County Zoning Ordinance requires that substantial construction shall commence within one year of the effective date of the permit, after which time the Permit shall terminate. However, the regulation allows that the time period may be extended through appeal to and approval by the Planning and Regulations Committee.

Pastor James P. Freund of the Foursquare Gospel Church has submitted a letter, dated December 17, 2003, requesting an extension of the deadline to begin substantial construction on the church site. Mr. Miller noted that the matter is now before the Planning and Regulations Committee to consider the request of the Church for an extension. He noted that while there have not been many requests for extension, he did not see a problem of precedent.

Mr. Miller reported that following complaints to the Planning and Zoning Office from adjoining land owners, Avalon Farms Inc. Nursery, represented by Darryl and Jeannine Fair, the property owners, has filed an application for a Special Use Permit for a landscaping business. The request has been 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 landscaping business at 11550 North Leland Road in Clinton Township. The 10-acre property is located on the east side of North Leland Road, approximately 1,400 feet south of Miller Road, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

The required public hearing was conducted on January 8, 2004 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. Mr. Fair provided testimony and exhibits in support of the requested Special Use, including that the business has been in operation on the property for the past year. He indicated that all materials and equipment for the business would be stored within the existing structures on the property, and that adequate parking spaces for all vehicles, including those of employees, would likewise be inside the barns. His request included proposed hours of operation. Three members of the public spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns over traffic, headlights shining into a home, hours of operation, inadequacy of rest room facilities, inadequacy of supervision of the employees and concerns over the possible expansion of the business.

The Hearing Officer has submitted his Findings, and recommends denial of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Steimel noted that Mr. Fair’s testimony regarding his disregard for obtaining a permit prior to beginning his business seemed especially problematic for the Hearing Officer.

Mrs. Dubin asked if the business would have to cease operation if the permit were denied. Mr. Miller responded that the business would have to cease or be considered in violation and open to fines and code hearings.

Mr. Lyle asked if there had been complaints aside from the immediately adjoining land owners. Mr. Miller responded that the complaints came primarily from the neighbors directly across the road from the operation. However, the neighbors down the road have also brought complaints.

Mr. Simonson noted that in the Hearing Officer’s decision, he listed six separate and equally relevant criteria supporting denial of the request. He commented that since failing any one of the criteria should lead to denial, having six should be more than adequate to support a recommendation denying the petition.

Mr. Faivre commented that he was quite concerned with denying this activity. He noted that landscaping is clearly an agricultural activity and as such should be supported in an agricultural district. He saw no distinction between the headlights mentioned in the complaints and any vehicle lights that could travel down that roadway. Additionally, he commented that the lack of an adequate permit should carry some sort of penalty short of completely shutting down the petitioner’s business.

Mrs. Allen noted that there have been several instances of businesses operating without proper permits or authorization, and they had received approval by the County. She noted that at least the applicant was honest in admitting that he knew he needed a permit and had simply not obtained one, rather than claiming he was not aware of the requirement.

Mr. Steimel commented that he went to the site recently and made a few observations. He noted that it was a well kept ten-acre site with a house and three outbuildings (not two as Mr. Fair’s application stated). It appears to have trees planted on approximately three acres. It is his understanding that the men coming and going from the property are hired to do landscaping jobs at off-site locations. He commented that he was very concerned about the petitioner’s action in terms of starting the business without the permits he admitted he knew he needed. He closed by observing that he had spoken with Mr. Miller and if the petition is ultimately denied by the County Board, Mr. Fair could return in six months and re-apply.

Mr. Slack asked what would change within that six month to a year period that would make the outcome any different. Mr. Steimel replied that in that time he could, perhaps, work on his issues with the neighbors as well as getting his operation more organized. He would also have been penalized by the time he could not have be in operation. Mr. Slack asked for clarity on the ability of the Committee to penalize an individual for not making proper permit application. Mr. Miller responded that the Committee could not deny simply for the lack of the permit. However, the Ordinance specifies certain criteria that must be considered when considering a Special Use Permit. The Hearing Officer did review these criteria as he made his interpretations, and was additionally bothered by the applicant’s willful lack of compliance. The Committee’s determinations, he noted, should also be made based on the criteria, although it could differ with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of those criteria. He ended by noting to the Committee that if they elect to not support the Hearing Officer’s report, then staff would craft a new interpretation of the criteria supporting the Committee’s determination. Mr. Slack noted that the criteria provided could apply to every farmer in the County.

Mr. Simonson countered that this particular use would dominate the surrounding neighborhood (one of the criteria for approval). He again noted that there were six conditions that the Hearing Officer felt were not satisfied. Mr. Slack commented that this interpretation seemed to imply that a landscaping business was inherently more intense and problematic to the area than , say, a grain or hog operation.

Mrs. Allen asked if the Board could simply require that the conditions be met, yet still grant the Special Use. Mr. Miller replied that it was inherently true that certain conditions would have to be met. He noted that the issue before the Committee at this time were not the conditions, but the interpretation of the criteria used to determine whether this is an appropriate use for this location. Mr. Simonson commented that he saw no way for the petitioner to ever correct the issue of dominating the neighborhood with his operation.

Mr. Lyle asked if he would be fined for not having a permit. Mr. Miller replied that fines are typically assessed only after the County has been unable to resolve violations with the property owners. This individual is trying to resolve, so no fines would currently apply.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that it has been his observation that our County Hearing Officer’s tend to be extremely supportive of allowing Special Uses. That this Officer felt strongly enough to make this recommendation for denial should, he felt, carry some weight in the Committee’s deliberations. He also felt the Hearing Officer was very deliberate in highlighting the number of problems with the petition.

Mr. Simonson noted that it the conditions for approval are clearly not met, and the Committee ignores this, they will render the criteria useless.

Mr. Slack returned to Mr. Miller’s earlier comment that the failure to meet the conditions was the result of an interpretation by the Hearing Officer. The Committee could, as he understood it, elect to interpret the criteria differently in arriving at their conclusion. He noted that as to the issue of an operation dominating the neighborhood, there were several instances in the County of approved uses (such as Christmas tree farms or orchards) that clearly dominate the surroundings, generate traffic, etc.

Mr. Simonson noted that the Committee should be extremely cognizant of the fact that the neighbors have spoken against this and feel strongly that it would be detrimental to their property values and interests. He closed by noting that if the neighbors had supported this, he would certainly view the question differently.

Mr. Lyle commented that there is a nursery operation on Route 72 and it has been his observation that traffic is not generally a problem at these sorts of operations.

Mrs. Dubin noted that she has two issues with the file she would like to address. First, was it correct that the petitioner has buildings that the automobiles of the workers can be kept in? Mr. Miller replied that it was true that there were buildings for such use. She then asked if Mr. Fair could expand the business substantially without additional approvals. Mr. Miller noted that a Special Use is only allowed a ten percent expansion without additional County Board approval.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to please review the conditions discussed to this point. Mr. Miller noted the following:

Mr. Miller began by noting that DeKalb County has established fees for zoning and building permit applications through County ordinances (in the case of zoning) and the County Code (in the case of building permits). Occasionally, requests for zoning actions and building permits have been received from other taxing bodies, such as townships or cemetery associations with taxing authority. For these applications, the County adopted an unwritten policy that the zoning or building permit fees could be waived by a simple majority vote of the Planning and Regulations Committee.

Recently, the Planning, Zoning and Building Department received a request to waive a building permit fee from a cemetery association that is not a taxing body. Staff explained that the policy applies to taxing bodies only, and the representative of the cemetery association requested that permission to appeal to the Committee or the full County Board. Staff reviewed the request with the State’s Attorney’s Office to see what leeway the Committee or Board might have with respect to waiving fees. The State’s Attorney’s Office advised that, because the fees are set forth in County ordinances, waiver authority must also be set forth in an ordinance. In other words, even the current policy of waiving fees for other taxing bodies should be specified by ordinance, rather than exercised as it has been in the past.

Based on the advice of the State’s Attorney, staff is recommending that the County Code and zoning fee schedules be amended to include a provision by which the Planning and Regulations Committee or the full County Board can waive fees following a specific request and subject to specific considerations. Mr. Miller noted that a policy of waiving the fee for other taxing bodies is fairly simple to justify and codify, but setting up the possibility of waiving the fee for other interests would be more complicated. He then asked the Committee to review and discuss this issue and provide staff with direction as to how to proceed.

Mr. Steimel commented that the identification of a taxing body would be a fairly straightforward and clear-cut proposition. He asked the Committee if they were comfortable with formalizing the practice of waiving the fees for other taxing bodies.

Mr. MacMurdo asked what the Committees sentiments were with regard to including not-for-profit entities into such a waiver policy. Mr. Miller noted that there are often great and difficult hurdles to overcome in determining when a not-for-profit claim is legitimate. He recalled for the Committee a question that had been before the Board several years before regarding a church with questionable credentials and the difficulties that situation posed for the Board members. He noted that the simpler the criteria used to determine the waiver, the better chance the Committee would have to avoid the appearance of capricious or arbitrary decisions.

Mr. Steimel noted that it appears trying to determine the legitimacy of a not-for-profit organization would just be far too nebulous and open the Committee to all manner of future difficulties.

Mr. Slack asked if there are any taxing bodies that have a relationship with the County that would require the County to pay fees to them? Mr. Miller noted that he was not aware of any such entities at this time.

Mr. Miller noted that the language would be brought back to the Committee for approval at a future meeting prior to forwarding to the County Board for final approval.

Mr. Steimel commented that a new program recently begun by County Administrator Ray Bockman requires that County Department Heads provide an annual work plan for review and as a tool for their annual evaluation.

Mr. Miller noted that he has prepared such a plan and it is included in the Committee packet. He commented that Mr. Bockman’s program carries two requirements. The first is a Standard Work Plan for review by the Committee to measure successful performance of the noted duties over the review period. The second element is a Personal Development agreement between the Department Head and the County Administrator.

He commented that the plan is a somewhat broad overview of the daily duties for Committee consideration. He noted that the exercise of itemizing the duties was very challenging and he hoped the Committee found it a useful tool for future evaluation processes.

Mr. MacMurdo asked if the Work Plan would have to be completely re-written each year, or did the program allow for an annual revision, recognizing on-going projects and duties. Mr. Miller responded that it did allow for simple revisions. Mr. Miller closed his report by asking the Committee to review the document and to let him know if there were any missing tasks or important measures of successful completion.

Mr. Miller noted an item not on the agenda specifically was a Zoning Actions sheet included with the evening’s materials. He commented that this was prepared in response to a request made by Committee member Pat Vary at a previous meeting. At that time the Committee had asked Mr. Miller to prepare a brief outline of the various types of requests and how those requests travel through the processes by the Hearing Officers, the Committee and, in some cases, the County Board. He then took a few moments to review each item with the Committee.

On an unrelated matter, Mr. Steimel asked if a date had been established for Mr. Miller’s upcoming "Zoning 101" workshop. Mr. Miller replied that a date and time had been established and a letter detailing the program would be going out to all County Board members and others within the next two days.