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

Mr. Miller reported that Larson Valley Farms, Inc. has filed a petition for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow the continuation of an agribusiness on five acres of a 240-acre farm located on the south side of Bastian Road and west side of Gov. Beveridge Hwy. in Squaw Grove Township. The subject property is owned by Howard and Harriet Larson and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

The public hearing was conducted on July 22, 2004 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. The petitioners provided testimony and exhibits in support of the requested Special Use, including that the business is operated by Roger and Beverly Larson from a farm owned by Mr. Larson’s father. The business, which involves the sale of pre-packaged agricultural supplies, takes place in only one building on the property, and the bulk of the business activity occurs between December and April. The petitioner indicated that it is rare that more than one customer visits the site at any given time. Future products that might be sold by the business include seed corn, farm machinery, and pre-packaged petroleum products. Four members of the public spoke in favor of the petition and none in opposition. The Hearing Officer has submitted his findings, and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions.

Ms. Vary inquired as to the size of the farm machinery that might be sold by the business. Mr. Steimel commented that most of the machinery would be small attachments for larger farm vehicles. Mr. Miller commented that the size of the machinery to be sold would be controlled by the fact that the business is being restricted to a single, existing pole barn, which he noted was not very large. He further added that the petitioners did not make any testimony to the fact that they would be selling any large agricultural vehicles. Also, he noted that the Committee could specifically add this as a condition of the ordinance, if they chose, and that it was explained to the petitioners that any future expansion of the business, may require a re-evaluation of the Special Use Permit.

Mrs. Vary then asked about where the limitation of accessory buildings to a height of no greater than 17 feet came from. Mr. Miller responded that the 17-foot height restriction is for non-farm accessory structures only, and as such would not be applicable in this case.

Mr. MacMurdo inquired as to where the sign proposed in the application would be placed, since he found the property difficult to locate when he drove by recently. Mr. Miller commented that the sign would be placed up near the road, where it would identify the entrance to the business.

Mrs. Vary noted that the application asked for an eight foot by four foot sign (or 32 square feet), but that comments were made in the findings to a 16 square foot sign. Mr. Miller commented that sign was proposed to be eight foot by four foot, however, the Hearing Officer’s recommendation was to limit the sign to no more than 16 square feet. Dave Witheft, the attorney for the petitioners, commented that the petitioners would have no problem limiting the proposed sign to only 16 square feet.

Mr. Faivre commented that although he has not used the petitioner’s services, he has spoken to others who have, and has not heard any complaints or objections to operation of this business.

Mr. Steimel commented that he had also heard good things about the business.

Mr. Slack noted that concern had been expressed in the staff report that the illumination of the proposed sign may cause visibility problems along the roadway, but that the Hearing Officer’s findings did not mention that issue at all. He then asked whether a condition should be added to the ordinance to address this issue. Mr. Miller responded that staff’s concern was that any illumination of the sign be designed so as not to create a point-source of glare along the road. He added that the petitioner testified that much of their business is done from December to April, which is a dark time of year and he would be concerned if no illumination was allowed for the sign. He felt that staff could provide sufficient oversight and review of the sign application to assure that the illumination would be become a point source of glare, and that a condition to the ordinance would not be necessary.

Mr. Steimel noted that the petition will now go to the full County Board at its September 15, 2004 meeting.

Mrs. Dubin noted that a number of cases have come before the Committee lately where the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the need for a Special Use Permit for whatever they are doing, and asked how does staff become aware of these people. Mr. Miller answered that staff typically becomes aware of these situations when somebody complains to staff.

Mr. Miller reported that, on behalf of the County Board, staff has filed a petition for a Zoning Text Amendment. The request is to approve an amendment to Section 2.02 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance in order to revise the definitions of "lot" and "zoning lot" in order to remove any discrepancy between the two. The proposed definitions are as follows:

The required public hearing for this Zoning Text Amendment was conducted by Hearing Officer Ron Klein on August 12, 2004. Staff presented the petition and testified as to the rationale for adopting the revised definitions. The proposed revision would correct any ambiguity as to which definition, "lot" or "zoning lot" applies for the enforcement of zoning district regulations. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer has filed his report and recommends approval of the Text Amendment.

Mr. Steimel noted that in the existing definition, the line, "All zoning lots must front on a public street or private drive approved as part of a subdivision." was not included in the new definition, and asked for the reason for this change. Mr. Miller commented that the it was changed under the recommendation of the State’s Attorney Office. It was noted that originally private drives were included because it was thought that new Planned Developments would have private drives, however since it was pointed out that if a planned development approves it, then the planned development will say it, therefore it is not necessary to have it in the definition.

Mr. MacMurdo asked Mr. Miller to describe the difference between a "zoning lot" and a "lot of record." Mr. Miller noted that a "lot of record" is a legally created parcel of land that has been recorded in the County Recorder’s Office by deed or some other document. A zoning lot describes something that is subject to the regulations of the zoning code and must meet these regulations in order to be utilized in accordance with the County’s zoning regulations. He stated that not every parcel is a "zoning lot," because it may not meet the County’s zoning requirements, and that a "zoning lot" may be composed of several "lots of record" or part of a "lot of record."

Mr. Faivre asked Mr. Miller clarify whether approval of this Text Amendment would take away any of the development rights anyone currently has. Mr. Miller stated that it would not take away any rights from anyone.

(This discussion was a continuation of a series of discussions held by the Committee on a number of possible changes being proposed for the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance.)

Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that at their last meeting, the Committee had directed staff to review the definition of "agribusiness" for ways to possibly improve the language of the definition. Mr. Miller directed the Committee’s attention to the Staff Report dated August 11, 2004, in which he proposed not changing the language of the definition of agribusiness, but to change to the language of the A-1, Agricultural District regulations on agribusinesses. He noted that the proposed change includes striking some of the language and adding the line "… and that the proposed agribusiness must be located in the rural, agricultural portions of the County in order to be viable." He pointed out that staff feels this line addresses the concerns raised by Mr. Slack previously that the agribusiness should be businesses that require a location out in the rural portions of the County in order to thrive. He noted that this discussion of agribusinesses was the result of disagreements over the John Deere Special Use Permit. He did point however that this change in the language would not necessarily have prevented the John Deere application from being approved, but that it would put a greater burden on such uses to prove that they would not be viable in town.

Mr. Faivre asked Mr. Miller what was meant by "viable;" would it be interchangeable with the word "possible"? Mr. Miller responded that viable is not interchangeable with possible. He commented that "viable" implied what a business needs to survive and make a profit; what is needed to be a business that can succeed, not merely occur. Mr. Miller commented that a petitioner would have to show that they are only viable out of town, and ultimately, it would be up to the County Board to decide if they are right or not.

Ms. Vary noted that the current definition has "… that adjoining or neighboring properties will not be adversely affected by the pollution of air or water." and that this was not included in the new definition. Mr. Miller pointed out that the definition of agribusiness is staying the same, and that the proposed language change is to the criteria of the A-1 District regulations. Mrs. Vary then noted that she was unsatisfied with the line referenced above, because it only referred to air or water pollution, and there could be many other types of pollution. She suggested that the language of the definition be changed. Mr. Miller suggested changing the line to say, "… that adjoining or neighboring properties will not be adversely affected by the proposed business."

Mr. MacMurdo commented that he was uncomfortable with the use of the word "viable," because a business could be viable but not thrive in a municipality, thereby severely straining its chances of success.

Mr. Slack commented that the substituting the word "thrive" for viable is not reasonable, since everyone’s idea of what a "thriving business" is could vary greatly. He added that viable refers to the idea that the business could be conducted profitably.

Mr. MacMurdo pointed out that under this criteria, the Larson Valley Farm application would have been denied, because in theory, it could be viable in the City of Somonauk. Mr. Miller responded that whether or not a business, such as the Larson Valley Farms, is exactly the sort of thing that the County Board would be discussing in their review of such an application. He added that the point of this criteria is that the owner is not simply seeking cheaper land for their business, but that the nature of their business requires that they locate it in a rural area. It would be no worse than any other criteria of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Slack and Ms. Vary agreed with this assessment.

Mr. Lyle commented on that the part of the proposed language change, "...in the rural, agricultural portions of the County ...". He noted that many years ago, many agricultural businesses were located in the small towns, but nowadays that is not practical. Mr. Miller suggested changing that part of the line to say "... in unincorporated DeKalb County ...".

Mr. MacMurdo asked if it might not be appropriate to seek further input from the community, particularly the Farm Bureau. Mr. Miller commented that the plan was to gather all of the changes into one document and then present it to the public. Mr. MacMurdo re-emphasized his discomfort with the word "viable" and stated that he would like to see if any other had the same problems with it that he did; he commented that he only suggested the Farm Bureau because they are the largest agribusiness-related group in the County.

Ms. Vary commented that it would be better have the full document to present to others firsts. Mr. Steimel agreed with her. Greg Milberg, of the DeKalb County Farm Bureau, commented that they would be happy to weigh in on the issue.

Mr. Miller then addressed the second discussion item, the Committee’s request that staff discuss with other planning and zoning experts the idea of rezoning all non-agricultural uses in unincorporated DeKalb County to the A-1 District with a designation of Special Use - Planned Development. Mr. Miller commented that he had spoken with his counterparts in Ogle and Kane Counties, both of whom thought this proposed change had merit. Mr. Miller also spoke with Ron Cope, the well known and respected land use attorney, who raised a concern that the proposed change might hinder the County Board’s ability to control development in unincorporated DeKalb County. Mr. Miller commented that Mr. Cope did find the staff’s alternative proposal to be more viable; that the non-agricultural uses would be rezoned A-1 District and designated as legal, non-conforming uses. Mr. Miller added that this option would entail revising and amending the regulations on non-conforming uses to make sure that none of the property owners affected by this change lose any of the property rights they currently enjoy and to insure that no new administrative hurdles or constraints are placed on them. Mr. Miller then passed out a set of draft revisions to the regulations on non-conformities for the Committee to review. He pointed out that Section 8.13 of the revised article contained the majority of the proposed changes.

Mr. Miller noted that the proposed changes do raise other issues, such as whether property owners can have horses since they are now zoned A-1 District. Mr. Miller commented that the County currently does not allow for horses (or other livestock) in most non-agricultural areas, and staff does not think it would be advisable to change that policy. Therefore, he also added a recommendation that under use of lots, language be added to say that farm animals shall not be permitted on non-farm lots of less than two acres, which reflects the current County standard for minimum lot size following the division of a farm house from a farm. Mr. Steimel asked if there have been any complaints about having at least two acres for livestock. Mr. Miller noted that there have been none.

Ms. Vary commented that the language in the handout should be revised to note that the parcels will be "legal, non-conforming," not just "non-conforming," so as to make the text clearer. Mr. Miller stated he would make that revision.

Mr. Miller then commented that staff’s proposal to rezone all non-agricultural uses in unincorporated DeKalb County to the A-1 District with a designation of legal, non-conforming uses is to based on staff’s efforts to better utilize the County’s Unified Comprehensive Plan; a major goal of which is to encourage non-agricultural uses be developed as part of the local municipalities. He stated that he believed this change would help accomplish that.

Ms. Vary asked is there some way to get this proposal reviewed by an outside source. Mr. Miller stated that once a draft revised zoning ordinance is prepared, he would work with the Deputy State’s Attorney Office to review it for any potential legal issues. Mr. Faivre asked if the County whether asking Ron Cope to review the draft instead of the Deputy State’s Attorney Office might not be possible. Mr. Miller commented that the opinions that Mr. Cope had already provided had been done for free as a personal favor to himself, and that he would be hesitant to ask too much of Mr. Cope, since he normally charges for such services. Mr. Miller added he would talk with the Deputy State’s Attorney about possibly having Mr. Cope provide a professional review, but he suggests that it may be appropriate to offer Mr. Cope some sort of compensation if they do so.

Mr. Steimel then asked about the list of possible revisions to the Zoning Ordinance given to the Committee last month to review. Mr. Miller commented that he had given the Committee the proposed list, which contained mostly technical changes to the Zoning Ordinance, so that they might have a chance to review it and give him any comments they may have.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to elaborate on the addition of "Agri-tainment" to the list of Special Uses in the A-1 District. Mr. Miller commented that Agri-tainment is amusement-type activities offered on farms to non-farmers, such as u-pick orchards, pumpkin patches, and corn mazes. He added that such uses: allow the farmers to bring in extra money, which helps to preserve the farm; increases tourism in the area; and helps to maintain the rural character of the area. Mr. Steimel asked what regulations the County currently has on such uses. Mr. Miller informed him that such uses are not currently listed in the Zoning Ordinance; the closest thing the County has to allow such uses is the Temporary Use Permit, which only allows for two events, of limited duration, per calendar year.

Mr. Lyle commented that the average farm would not make use of this provision, and that it would be limited to places like orchards and pumpkin patches. Ms. Vary agreed with him. Mr. Miller noted that this would just create an option for those farms who would like to do such activities. He further added that the key issue, would be that the use be compatible with an agricultural area. Mr. Lyle noted that this seems like an agribusiness. Mr. Miller responded that an agribusiness is a business that caters primarily to the local farmers, but agritainment is primarily geared towards non-farmers.

Mr. Steimel asked if this would create any additional hurdles for people doing these activities. Mr. Miller responded that this change is creating the possibility that these sort of uses can occur, because they are not allowed under the current regulations. He noted that those places currently operating such uses may be "grandfathered" uses. Mr. Steimel asked if this would require a public hearing, and Mr. Miller responded that it would.

Mrs. Allen inquired as to the costs associated with seeking a Special Permit for such uses. Mr. Miller responded that the average Special Use Permit costs about $500.00 - $800.00.

Mr. Slack commented that he believes such uses would be beneficial, to both the farmer and to the County.

Mr. Faivre asked if it would be possible to design the regulation so that agri-tainment businesses that make below a certain amount of profit could operate as a permitted use, and would not be required to go through the process of seeking a Special Use Permit, but would still require that agritainment businesses making over that profit level seek a Special Use Permit. Mr. Miller responded that trying to police such a regulation would be difficult because staff would have no way of tracking when or if a particular agri-tainment business crossed that profit level or even if one was operating.

Mr. Steimel commented that the average cost of a Special Use Permit may be prohibitive. Mrs. Allen agreed. Ms. Vary commented that the costs are not so prohibitive, given this is a permanent use.

Mr. Miller noted that having it as a Special Use allows to the County to regulate other aspects of the use, such as signage, parking, and issues of public safety. Mr. Miller further stated that it does create a regulatory burden, but re-iterated that currently such uses are not allowed. He commented that if he were to receive a complaint about someone operating a agri-tainment-type business, he would have to inform them that such a use is not permitted.

Mr. Slack commented that he believed that the Department of Agriculture has a whole depart devoted to these kinds of businesses, and that they might serve as a good source of information.

Mr. Steimel expressed his opinion that this issue requires more review. Mr. Miller stated that he would take Mr. Slack’s suggestion and contact the Department of Agriculture and see if they do have more information on these kinds of businesses. He will also check to see if any of the surrounding counties have any regulations on these kinds of businesses.

Ms. Vary commented that she had been asked if anything was being done about all of the subdivision signs around along the roadways. Mr. Miller commented that staff was currently working with the Sheriff’s Department to cite the sign companies responsible for these signs for violations of the Zoning Ordinance. This can result in the violators going before the Code Hearing Officer, and possibly being fined for these violations.

Mr. Miller stated that he would prepare a completed draft of the proposed revised Zoning Ordinance for the next Committee meeting, and that he would also forward copies to the Farm Bureau and the Deputy State’s Attorney Office for their review. He will also contact the Deputy State’s Attorney for his opinion on whether or not to have Ron Cope review the draft.