The Planning and Regulations Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on September 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the DeKalb County Administration Building, Conference Room East.  In attendance were Committee Members Roger Steimel, Howard Lyle, Marlene Allen, Eileen Dubin, Vince Faivre, James MacMurdo, Steve Slack, Sally DeFauw, and staff members Paul Miller, Marcellus Anderson and Barbara Kardaras.  Committee member Patricia Vary  was absent. Audience members included: Joseph J. Diedrich, Greg Milburg, Brett Brown, Steve Kuhn, Richard Schmack, and County staff Ray Bockman, Gary Hanson, Joan Berkes Hanson and Karen Grush.

 

Mr. Steimel, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order.  Mr. Steimel welcomed newest committee member Sally DeFauw, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Cliff Simonson.  He also noted that all Committee members were present except for Patricia Vary.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Mr. Faivre moved to approve the minutes for the August 25, 2004 meeting of the Planning and Regulations Committee, seconded by Mr. MacMurdo, and the motion carried unanimously. 

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA  

 

Mr. Lyle moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Dubin, and the motion carried unanimously.

 

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – Request of Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership for approval of a re-zoning from A-1, Agricultural District to M-1, Manufacturing, for a proposed 84 Lumber Yard, to be located on 28 acres located on the north side of Jericho Road, 400 feet west of East County Line Road, Squaw Grove Township, Petition SQ-04-17.

 

                Mr. Steimel called upon Brett Brown, attorney representing Pierce Hardy. 

Mr. Brown first extended his thanks to the Committee for their cooperation and help on the project. He explained that his clients were finalizing a deal to acquire a site adjacent to the Village of Hinckley in lieu of the site at the east end of Jericho Road.  The new site would be annexed by the Village rather than developed through the County.  He noted that his client is not completely out of the due diligence phase of the new site in town, but all indications are that the site will work.  Mr. Brown mentioned that if things were to fall through, he and his clients could potentially be back to the County with a request.  He also said that the new site was superior to the previous one, and it would not been available to them without the situation the Committee helped to create, along with the cooperation of the Village of Hinckley, in particular Mr. Diedrich.  Mr. Brown stated he would furnish staff with an official letter withdrawing the application for a Zoning Map Amendment.

                Mr. Slack questioned Mr. Brown and the issue with IDOT.

 

Mr. Brown responded that the question is as to the number of curb cuts the company could obtain; at this point, there are only two entrances to the property. The engineers are discussing whether or not two are still allowable and how they will be located in reference to each property.  He also mentioned that his only concern at present with the project on the new site is IDOT.

               

Mr. Steimel stated that he supports the project and hopes it reaches fruition. He also acknowledged the Village President of Hinckley, Mr. Diedrich, and his support and work he has done.

 

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - Request of Alvin and Diana Watne for re-zoning of 18 acres of  40 acre parcel from A-1, Agricultural District to R-1, Residential District. Located on the West side of  Leland Road; Clinton Township, Petition CL-04-24.

               

 

Mr. Miller stated that the Watne’s have a buyer interested in purchasing 18 acres of their 40 acre  farm and having a horse farm located on the property.  However, the minimum lot requirements to build a home in the A-1 district is 40 acres. The fact that the buyers would like to put a home on only 18 acres requires re-zoning the property to the R-1, Residential District.  The Public Hearing was held on September 2, 2004, by hearing officer David Dockus. The applicant included their reasoning for why they feel it appropriate for re-zoning however, Staff countered with number of reasons it inappropriate. The Hearing Officer has recommended denial of their request.

 

Mr. Faivre questioned if the 18 acres had already been sold to the buyers, and if the buyers were to purchase the 40 acre parcel as a whole, would they be allowed to build a home.

 

Mr. Miller responded the property was not sold yet, however, per the testimony of the owners, a contract was in place. Mr. Miller also clarified that the property is buildable as it exists now, and would only require a building permit for verification of setbacks. They would be exempt of inspections and fees.

 

                Mr. Slack questioned the Watne’s attorney, Mr. Schmack, on the issue of “spot zoning.”

 

Mr. Schmack clarified that the County has designed a system where his client’s only option was to request this action. The buyer is not interested in purchasing the total 40 acres. Spot zoning, in his opinion, is more applicable to municipalities and had little application in the case of his client.

 

 Mr. MacMurdo wanted it recorded that he was not participating in this discussion and that his vote be recorded as present. He felt he could not supply an unbiased opinion, due to his relationship with Mr. Watne.

Mrs. Dubin asked how long has the property was for sale, wondering if it was on the market for a long time and the seller could not find a buyer for all 40 acres.

               

                Mr. Steimel pointed out that this information was not covered in the hearing.

 

Mr. Lyle asked if any of the 40 acres were tillable. Mr. Miller noted that from the aerial photo it was clear that there was some tillable acreage on the property.

 

Mr. Lyle moved for denial, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried with seven “yes” and Mr. MacMurdo abstaining.

 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT- Request of the cities of Genoa and Sycamore for participation by the County in a boundary line agreement.

 

Mr. Miller mentioned the efforts of the County and the Cities of Sycamore and Genoa in creating a Unified Comprehensive Plan, which included updates to each of those cities individual Comprehensive Plans. The City of Sycamore chose Whipple Road as their northern growth boundary line, while the City of Genoa showed that it would not grow south beyond a point just south of Base Line Road. Both the cities subsequently agreed that, at some point in the future, due to annexations both of their planning jurisdictions would bump into each other or perhaps even overlap.  In this case, the two communities are creating a boundary line agreement to clarify who has jurisdiction.  After choosing their boundaries, the two cities were left with a clear area in which neither community wanted to see growth or annexation.  The intervening property would remain under the jurisdiction of the County.  In order to finalize this approach, Genoa and Sycamore have drafted a three-way Intergovernmental Agreement that establishes the growth boundaries of the two cities and requires the permission of all three governments for any development or annexation not in  accord with the agreement.

 

Mr. Miller pointed out that this is a unique agreement where both cities are exercising their right to preserve undeveloped farm land and limit growth. He asked the Committee to discuss this plan and authorize the execution of this agreement.

 

Mr. Steimel questioned the length of this agreement. Mr. Miller stated that this was a 20-year agreement that may in fact be extended for an additional 20 years. 

Mr. Faivre inquired about  the rights of the property owners between the two growth boundaries.  Would their property values be harmed since the two cities will be locking themselves into this 20-year agreement to not allow annexation and growth?

Mr. Miller in explained that this agreement would not constitute a “taking” where government deprives a property owner of rights without compensation.  He noted that the agreement does not change the effect of the current zoning on the property. This was simply a planning document related to zoning, and zoning does in fact play a role in property values. This agreement is the legal right of those cities to define how much they want to grow and develop, and there is no inherent “right” of the property owners to develop that was being taken. 

 

Mr. MacMurdo wanted to know the history of this type of agreement, and if there were any known cities were such an agreement may be already implemented. He also expressed concern about future changes in County Board members and city officials that may affect this agreement.  Mr. Miller stated that as long as the three bodies together, Sycamore, Genoa and the County, are in agreement, this plan can be changed. 

 

Mrs. Dubin asked if any of the property owners in the area had been informed or had an opportunity to express their feelings on this agreement.  Mr. Miller pointed out that the topic was addressed at Sycamore City meeting however, he was unaware of any correspondence directly informing those property owners of this agreement.  Mr. Steimel noted that  Bill Nicklas made comment of the Intergovernmental Agreement in the last RPC meeting held on May 27, 2004.

 

Mr. Schmack wanted to know how the County was bound to the agreement and what was the County really agreeing to do.  Mr. Miller clarified the County’s responsibility was to uphold the planning and zoning regulations and remain consistent.  Mr. Steimel read Item 4 which stated: This land shall remain under the jurisdiction of DeKalb County and is subject to the planning and zoning regulations established by DeKalb County Board.

 

Mr. Slack questioned if the agreement would create an island of agriculture surrounded by dense urban population, making it impossible to conduct agriculture.  Mr. Vaivre & Mr. Miller agreed that the size of the area was large enough where this would not be an issue.

 

Mr. Vaivre inquired if there were any legalities that may be of concern with this kind of agreement.  Mr. Miller and Mr. Schmack  were unaware of any legal issues that may pose a problem with this agreement. 

 

Mr. MacMurdo made a motion to authorize the County Board Chairman to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION ITEM - Draft FY 05 Planning, Zoning, and Building Department Budget.

 

Mr. Miller stated that each year the Committee gets an opportunity to review the draft budget for the Planning, Zoning and Building Departments, and for the Health Department.  He stated that the draft budget for the Planning, Zoning and Building Department for FY 05 had initially been recommended for approval by the County Administrator.  However, at the last meeting of the County Board there were two proposed fee increases that did not pass.  A balanced budget depended on the projected $285,000 revenue from these fee increases.  As a result of the short-fall, the County Administrator is now recommending certain cuts in the draft budget.  One of the cuts is the proposed reorganization of the Planning staff, where a part-time Secretary would be replaced by a full-time Assistant Planner.  The Committee had unanimously recommended approval of this reorganization. Mr. Miller stated that he is appealing the recommendation that the reorganization not be funded, and suggested that the additional funding come from the adoption of the fees that failed to be passed at the last County Board meeting.  Mr. Miller asked the Committee to endorse his appeal, but noted that the Committee had three options: It could choose not to endorse his appeal, which would mean the Committee no longer supports  the reorganization; it could support the appeal and the recommendation that the fee increases be put back on the agenda for the following County Board meeting and passed; or it could support the appeal for the reorganization but find an alternative means for funding.

 

Mrs. Dubin asked if this kind of procedure must be done in every area where funds from the proposed GIS recording fee was counted on as part of the draft FY 05 budget. Mr. Bockman mentioned that it created a deficit in the budget, however, their plan would in fact re-balance the budget.

 

Mrs. Grush began also submitted an appeal regarding the revised recommendation that a $25,000 subsidy to the Health Department not be approved. She noted that the subsidy is for IMRF/SS for Public Health employees only.  The $25,000 cut now being recommended following the failure to approve the fee increases would have to come off of the IMRF/SS subsidy that the County provided. The alternative would be to dip into the fund balance, however, this would not allow them to save funds to build a new building for home care.  Mrs. Grush asked the Committee to reconsider the fees for GIS and the Law Library so that the Public Health Department could receive the funds intended for them.

 

Mr. Steimel reminded the Committee that the County Board votes on the fee increases had been even at 10-10, with some members changing their votes on one and the other. Mr. Vaivre, Mrs. Dubin, and Mr. Steimel stated that they agree with the reconsideration of fees.

 

                Mr. Slack made a motion to endorse the appeal, as submitted by the Planning Director, of the recommendation to not fund the Planning staff reorganization set forth in the draft FY 05 Planning, Zoning and Building Department Budget, seconded by Mrs. Dubin.  The motion carried unanimously.

                 

Mrs. Allen made a motion to endorse the appeal, as submitted by the Health Department Director, of the recommendation to not fund the $25,000 contribution to the draft FY 05 Health Department Budget, seconded by Ms. DeFauw.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

DISCUSSION ITEM -- Possible revisions to the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance.

               

Mr. Miller provided to the Committee an underlined/strike out version of the draft zoning ordinance, as well as an itemized list of the changes.  He stated that Article 2 was not included because of the large number of new definitions and illustrations, and Article 9 was left out because there were no changes to the regulations for Special Uses.  Mr. Miller then reviewed the draft changes, article by article, with the Committee. Changes that were highlighted included: Revisions to the A-1 Agricultural District regarding adding “planned unit developments” to the list of Special Uses and making “agricultural labor housing” an Interim Special Use; and eliminating zoning districts such as R-1, R-2, M-1, B-1, and PDR, but including those regulations in the Article 8 regulations regarding “grandfathered” uses.  Changes to Article 7, 8, 10 & 11 mostly were minor in nature. Mr. Miller asked the Committee to direct staff to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment for the adoption and implementation of the revisions to the County Zoning Ordinance.  He stated he hoped the new Ordinance could be effective January 1, 2005.

 

The Committee discussed a number of the proposed changes.  One item, the inclusion of “agritainment” in the list of Special Uses in the A-1 District, lead to the conclusion that certain activities, such as “u-pick orchards and gardens,” could be permitted under the “roadside stand” provisions of the list of permitted uses.  The Committee also directed that the revised language for “agribusiness” should exclude the term, “in order to be viable” from the criteria for approval.  Mr. Steimel noted that the provisions that allow legal, nonconforming residential and church uses to expand should also apply to legal, nonconforming businesses and industries, given that these uses would no longer have “by-right” zoning districts.

 

The Committee indicated it would give itself one more month to review revisions, and take up the final list of potential change at its next meeting.

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- Mr. Lyle made a motion to go into Executive Session for discussion of personnel, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion passed unanimously.