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

Mr. Steimel stated that, based upon feedback from the petitioner received tonight, he would entertain a motion to table action on this application.

Mr. Miller suggested that the site of the meeting should be stated, and recommended the Freedom or Liberty Rooms in the Legislative Center. It was agreed that the special meeting of the P&R Committee would occur in one of those two rooms.

Mr. Steimel added that staff should contact Committee members if changes result in the petition being withdrawn.

Mr. Miller explained that Albert and Elwanda Ebel have filed an application for a Special Use Permit to allow the continued operation of a self-storage and RV storage business on property located at 34621 New Lebanon Road in Genoa Township. The 6.48-acre subject property is located at the end of "Ebel Road," on the west side of New Lebanon Road, approximately 2,150 feet south of Melms Road, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural. A Special Use Permit was previously granted for the business in 2001, expired on May 16, 2004.

The required public hearing was conducted on July 1, 2004 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. Mr. Miller explained that the original Special Use for the business was an Interim Special Use that was granted for a period of three years. Since the time, the County has amended the A-1 District regulations to create a category of Special Use that allows the possibility of retail and service uses within existing agricultural buildings that are no longer used for agriculture. The intent is to provide a use for these structures, rather than let them deteriorate and become eye-sores. The Ebel’s are requesting this new type of Special Use Permit to allow the storage use permanently on the subject property, rather than for a limited number of years as was previously granted. The attorney for the petitioner noted that no objections had been raised by surrounding property owners in the three years the use has been in place, and that the petitioners agree to abide by the same conditions of approval that originally were adopted by the County. The one exception is that the Ebel’s are now requesting permission for a sign.

Ms. Vary inquired whether or not there will be any outside storage. Mr. Miller responded that only RVs and boats would be stored outside, as was previously approved by the County Board. He added that the recommendation of the Hearing Officer and P&R Committee on the original application three years ago was that outside storage not be allowed, but that at the County Board, the outside storage of RVs and boats had been allowed. No complaints regarding the business have been received.

Mr. MacMurdo stated that he was at the public hearing and that he has driven past the subject property. He said that if you did not know to look for it, you would not see it. The business appears to be a nice operation that has no negative impact on surrounding properties. Mr. Lyle agreed.

Mr. Miller explained that this Variation was another in a series that have recently been received requesting waiver of one or more of the provisions that apply to nonconformities. In this case, John Cassimatis, the property owner, has filed an application for a Variation to waive the restriction of Section 8.04.B.2.a. of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance that allows a nonconforming residential building which is damaged to any extent to be replaced provided an application for a Building Permit is made within 180 days of the date of damage. The 5.17-acre subject property is located on the north side of Baseline Road, approximately 2,300 feet east of Anne Glidden Road, in Kingston Township, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

Mr. Miller stated that the reasons for the Variation request are set forth in the petitioner’s application. The petitioners are proposing to construct a new house on the subject property. The property previously contained a residence, with the address of 8967 Baseline Road. That house was destroyed by fire on December 5, 2002. Because the property is only 5.17 acres in size, it=s use as a residential property is nonconforming with respect to the regulations of the A-1, Agricultural District, which requires 40 acres for a farm residence. Article 8 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance contains regulations related to nonconforming buildings and properties. Section 8.04.B.2.a. allows that a nonconforming residential use, where the nonconformity was created by government action, which is damaged to any extent may be replaced provided an application for a Building Permit is made within 180 days of the date of damage. That six-month period expired on June 5, 2003. Section 8.11 of the Zoning Ordinance allows that Variations from the provisions of Article 8 may be granted by the County Board following a public hearing before the Hearing Officer.

Mr. Miller concluded by noting that DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein conducted a public hearing on July 1, 2004 regarding the petition, and has recommended approval of the Variation.

Ms. Vary stated that this application appears to meet the criteria for granting a Variation, and that she could support the request.

Mr. Steimel began by noting that the Committee has been looking at possible changes to the Zoning Ordinance for the past three months. He asked Mr. Miller to review the progress to date.

Mr. Miller stated that the Committee has already provided staff with direction regarding some of the bigger potential changes. These include:

Mr. Miller also stated that the Committee had, at its last meeting, deferred until later making a decision as to whether or not Use Variation should be eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance, and had directed staff to draft regulations that would eliminate most "by-right" zoning in favor of planned development regulations. Staff has drafted those regulations.

Mr. Slack asked when it would be appropriate to bring up other possible changes. Mr. Miller stated any Committee member may raise any potential change to the Zoning Ordinance at any time. Mr. Slack requested that consideration be given to tightening the definition of "agribusiness." He cited the recent request of DeKalb Implement as an illustration of the difficulty of determining what constitutes a business that supports agriculture and must be located in the agricultural portions of the County, as opposed to a business that can have some agricultural support elements, but can be located in town. He added that some uses are clearly an agribusiness, such as a commercial grain elevator, but that some might not need to be in the agricultural district.

Mr. Miller responded that the existing definition of "agribusiness" was intended to be somewhat vague because there is a variety of businesses that might qualify. The definition gives some examples, but deliberately does not limit the category to those examples. He added that the burden for a petitioner seeking approval of an agribusiness is to demonstrate that the use primarily serves people actively engaged in agriculture. Because there are a wide variety of services and vendors that support agriculture, each applicant must convince at least the majority of County Board members that their business is an agribusiness.

Mr. Steimel stated that there are two issues: one, what constitutes an agribusiness, and; two, should the use be allowed in the agricultural area or not. He expressed his opinion that a John Deere dealership with 90% of its business coming from farmers belongs in the agricultural district, whereas a truck dealership would not even though it sells trucks to farmers.

Mr. Slack suggested that the definition of "agribusiness" should make it clear that it is intended for uses that are so clearly agricultural-related that they must go in the A-1 District, but not businesses that can survive in town.

Ms. Vary stated that her concern with the DeKalb Implement request was the impact of the use on the surrounding agricultural area, and the fact that the site was two or three miles from the city limits of Sycamore. She stated that the two main issues were preserving prime farmland and assessing the impact of an agribusiness in terms of it making it more likely that other non-agricultural uses would be drawn to the same area.

Mr. Steimel stated that when DeKalb Implement was first established at its location on Rte. 38 in the 1960s, it was half-a-mile from the city limits, and DeKalb subsequently grew around it. Further, he felt that Northern Illinois University wanted to property where the dealership is now located, even though it does not immediately intend to use it. DeKalb Implement had no choice but to find another location.

Mr. Faivre stated that he does not believe that the presence of DeKalb Implement on State Rte. 64 will have the effect of encouraging other non-agricultural businesses to locate there as well. Any further businesses will have to go through the same zoning process, and businesses that are not agribusinesses will not meet the criteria for approval.

Ms. Vary responded that the County had established a precedent for that immediate area by approving DeKalb Implement, and that precedent could influence the decision on other uses.

Mr. Miller offered that staff would review the definition of agribusiness and see if it should be amended. Ms. Vary suggested that the term "not detrimental to the surrounding area" might be inserted.

Mr. Steimel then requested the Committee address the issue of whether or not to keep the Use Variation regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Vary stated that she believes some form of the Use Variation should remain, but what about a compromise? She expressed concerns that the current Use Variation regulations allowed too many applicants with spurious excuses to seek approval as a way to get around the 40-acre rule. She asked if the regulations could be tightened.

Mr. Miller responded that the regulations had been tightened quite a bit in 2000, when the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted. He expressed the opinion that as long as the Use Variation remained, there will always be some applicants who do not meet the criteria or the intent of the regulations who seek to take advantage of them, regardless of how the regulations are written or revised. He added that if there were a way to craft the regulations so that it was black and white as to whether or not a petitioner qualified for a Use Variation, there would be no need for a public hearing and decision by the County Board. That being said, staff can, if requested, see whether the criteria for granting a Use Variation can be further tightened.

Mr. Faivre stated that he cannot think of any Use Variation he has voted to approve that he regrets having approved. He can think of some that he wishes could have been approved but were not because they did not meet the criteria. He stated that he feels the current regulations work well, and that they should remain.

Mr. MacMurdo stated that he agrees with Mr. Faivre, and that he sees the Use Variation regulations as a safety valve for those property owners who are in that unique circumstance. The Use Variation regulations allow those with a legitimate beef a chance for relief without having to go to court.

Mr. Steimel stated that he feels the County should keep the Use Variation regulations. He sees it as a mechanism for relief rather than a loophole in the 40-acre rule. He added that he cannot think of any he has voted to approve that he feels did not deserve approval.

Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that the Use Variation procedure was created by the County after 1991, when the County began enforcing its 40-acre rule more strictly. The Use Variation was intended only for those property owners who had bought a parcel of less than 40 acre at a time it was still buildable, and paid a higher price because it was buildable, and then were faced with the 40-acre requirement. He stated that the question before the Committee is whether or not it feels that the number of property owners who fit this scenario is still significant. If so, the Use Variation regulations should remain. If not, they should be removed. He also pointed out that this question was addressed when the County amended the Zoning Ordinance in 1999, and that the criteria were tightened but Use Variation stayed in the Ordinance.

Ms. Vary stated that there were two applications for Use Variations that she felt were not justified. In one case, the owner paid $1,500 an acre when farm land was going for $1,200, and Ms. Vary did not feel this was a premium price. In the second case, the owner had not yet built on the property because for over 20 years she simply "wasn’t ready." Ms. Vary felt that Use Variations should not have been granted in these cases.

Mr. Rosemier asked if there is only one more property owner in the County that meets the Use Variation criteria, would that be enough to have the regulations remain. Mr. Miller responded that is what the Committee and County Board must decide; what is the minimum number of property owners who deserve the opportunity for relief. Mr. Rosemier asked what would be the recourse of such property owners if the County eliminates Use Variations. Mr. Miller responded that they could only go to court and sue.

Mr. Steimel asked attorney Richard Schmack for his opinion. Mr. Schmack responded that he is currently working with two clients who will seek Use Variations. He also stated that he is not aware of anyone who has been denied a Use Variation who has sued, but if the County eliminates the Use Variation provisions, not only might the County get sued by property owners that do not meet the criteria, but would be sued by property owners that do meet the criteria.

Mr. Miller stated that he agrees with Mr. Schmack, but also added that the County cannot craft its regulations on the basis of whether or not it is going to get sued. The County will be sued by anyone aggrieved of the County’s decisions, regardless.

Ms. Vary asked whether or not the question of Use Variations would affect the 180-day rule for replacement of a nonconforming residence. Mr. Miller responded that they are two separate issues.

Mr. Steimel then turned to the issue of replacing the standard residential, commercial and manufacturing districts with planned development regulations.

Mr. Miller explained the draft regulations that have been prepared by staff. Under the proposal, all property in unincorporated DeKalb County that is not already zoned A-1, Agricultural District or FP/C, Floodplain/Conservation District would be rezoned to the A-1 District, and all existing non-agricultural uses (house, businesses) would be granted a Special Use Planned Development designation. All new development of residential subdivisions or new commercial and manufacturing uses would be processed as Special Uses for Planned Unit Development. Mr. Miller explained that the draft regulations have been crafted to try to assure the property owners of all developed property that there is no change to their ability to use and improve their properties; no new legislative hurdles or hoops must be jumped through for additions to homes or new sheds or fences. However, new commercial and manufacturing buildings would be required to go through a public hearing and approval process. Mr. Miller stated that this change would require rezoning all property in unincorporated DeKalb County that is not already zoned A-1, but stated that he felt this could be accomplished by staff. Finally, he reminded the Committee that the whole point of this proposal is to better implement the 2003 Unified Comprehensive Plan. The Plan makes it clear that DeKalb County is not in the business of encouraging new development in the unincorporated portions of the County, but rather encourages growth to occur through annexation to the cities. If this is the case, why does the County have zoning districts that allow development by right? The proposed change to the planned development process would give the County Board greater oversight over proposed growth, and would allow the Board to apply conditions of approval, which it cannot do with straight rezoning requests.

Mr. Slack asked if there were not areas of the County that are vacant but zoned something other than A-1. Mr. Miller responded that there are a few areas that are zoned PD-R even though they are vacant. These properties were proposed for development in the 60s and 70s, but never approved except by the granting of rezoning to an Estate District. When the Estate Districts were eliminated in 1991, the County applied the PD-R designation. Up until 2000, these properties could still have been developed pursuant to the old Estate District regulations, but the 2000 Zoning Ordinance now requires them to go through the same process as though they had never been rezoned. Since that is the case, staff’s recommendation is that all vacant properties that are now zoned PD-R should be rezoned to A-1, Agricultural District.

Mr. MacMurdo stated that he believes this is a good idea and the right thing to do.

Ms. Vary said that she agreed, but finds it hard to judge. The issue is complicated, and she is not sure what pitfalls there may be to the idea.

Mr. Miller stated that he can seek the review and comments of other professionals in his field, including his counterparts in Kane and Ogle Counties, as well as attorney Ron Cope.

Mr. Steimel suggested that the meeting should conclude. Mr. Miller requested that the Committee review the other possible changes to the Ordinance that are contained in their packet and be prepared to provide staff with direction at the next meeting.