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

Mr. Miller reported that petitioners Eric and Laura Mathey have requested a waiver of 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 4.5-acre subject property is located on the north side of Whipple Road, approximately 1,150 feet east of Indian Point Road, in Sycamore Township, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

The petitioners are proposing to construct a house on the subject property. The property previously contained a residence, with the address of 12979 Whipple Road. That house was destroyed by fire in August of 2000. Because the property is only 4.5 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 in February of 2001 with no permit requested. 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 a Hearing Officer.

DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick conducted a public hearing on February 20, 2003 regarding the petition. The petitioners and petitioners’ attorney provided testimony to the effect that it was a delay in getting insurance money that prevented the property owner from seeking a Building Permit to replace the damaged house within the required six months. Testimony was also given indicating that the most appropriate use of the property is residential, given its limitations for row crop agriculture and the proximity of existing houses to the west. Two persons, as well as a representative of the trust which holds the property, spoke in favor of the request. The Hearing Officer recommended approval of the requested Variation.

Mr. Steimel noted that it was his understanding that there had also been a death of the prior owner that had caused additional delays beyond the insurance issues. Mr. Miller concurred. Mr. MacMurdo commented that he had gone to view the property and agrees that there does not appear to be any viable agricultural use for the land. Ms. Vary asked about the adjoining properties and whether there is farmland in close proximity. Mr. Miller responded that there is land in farming to the east and wooded properties to the north. Ms. Vary asked to clarify the reasons for the owner’s inability to begin reconstruction within the allotted time. Mr. Miller reiterated that there were initially insurance delays that prevented timely rebuilding, and then there was a death of the existing owner and estate questions that further delayed the process. By the time all of the issues were resolved, the owner had passed the allotted time frame and did not want to rebuild before selling the land. Mr. Simonson commented that the Planning and Regulations Committee had heard a similar request in the past and had approved that request for Variation.

Mr. Miller reported that Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, the property owner, has filed an application for a Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use Permit for property located at the northwest corner of Pratt and West Sandwich Roads in Sandwich Township. The proposal is to down zone the entire 11.36-acre property from PD-R, Planned Development - Residential District to A-1, Agricultural District. The requested Special Use Permit would allow Our Savior’s Lutheran Church to construct and operate the proposed church.

The required public hearing was conducted on March 13, 2003 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. At the hearing, the petitioners presented exhibits that showed how the vacant site would be developed as a church property, including a church, parking lot, stormwater detention area, septic field and landscaping. Three adjoining property owners spoke in opposition to the request, and submitted a petition of opposition signed by a total of seven neighboring property owners. Concerns cited included stormwater management and the concern that increased flooding would result, standing water creating breeding areas for mosquitos, excess traffic associated with the church, and the requirement to abide by restrictive covenants. Staff noted that the County does not enforce private covenants, but advised that the petitioner’s attorney should evaluate those restrictions.

The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report, and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use with conditions. Conditions include that all necessary State or Federal permits for operating a day care as a part of the church be submitted as part of the building permit application, and that the development and construction of the church be in substantial accordance with the submitted plans.

Mr. Steimel asked if there would be a need for two motions to achieve the rezoning and the Special Use Permit. Mr. Miller advised that one motion should be sufficient to accomplish both actions. Mr. Steimel asked if there were any questions. Mr. Simonson commented that he felt that, although the requested zoning change is referred to as a "down-zoning,"in his view, the change to A-1, Agricultural should be considered "up zoning".

Mr. Steimel then asked Mr. Miller to comment on the issue of the restrictive covenants and whether or not they apply to the church property. Mr. Miller responded by noting that as a general rule covenants are a contract between property owners and the County is not responsible for nor does it have the authority to enforce such covenants, and then noted that the petitioner’s attorney had been researching that subject and asked the Chair to recognize Steve Krentz to address the covenant issue. Mr. Krentz reported that he had worked with Chicago Title company to determine whether or not this property had any restrictive covenants recorded against it. The result of that research was that there were no such covenants that applied to this property, despite the fact that owners of adjacent properties contend that covenants do exist. Following a review, the title company determined that since the properties in question were not a subdivision per se, but rather a disparate grouping of five-acre parcels, the covenants were tied only to specific properties and the properties involved with the church were not among those. Mr. Steimel reiterated that the County does not participate in covenants between property owners and noted that he believed the State’s Attorney would agree with that, however it appears there is not an issue of covenants applying to the properties in question. Mr. Simonson noted that it is very important for property owners to legally record critical documents, like covenants and drain tile placement, should issues arise.

Ms. Vary commented that there were concerns about the berms to be placed on the property. She asked if the engineers or petitioner representatives could clarify how the berms might effect water drainage to the neighboring properties. Mr. Steimel asked if the engineer for the petitioner was in the audience. Mr. Wiley Zabel of Zabel Engineering came forward to address the Committee members questions on detention, release rates and where the storm water is likely to flow. Extensive discussion ensued regarding the drainage and the intention of the plan to take all precautions necessary to maintain the current conditions that primarily flow the water to the south, and to utilize a leech field under the proposed church to aid in the control of the flow. Members of the audience who owned adjoining properties asked to make comments refuting Mr. Zabel’s predicted outcomes of the engineering plans. Mr. Steimel noted that this would not be the appropriate venue for that. Mr. Steimel then asked if the property owner to the south that contained the wetland had appeared at the public hearing. Mr. Miller responded that they had not. Mr. Steimel asked the other church representatives in attendance why they had selected this particular property. Mr. Craig Stevenson, president of the church, responded that a combination of the price and size of the available parcel, coupled with the facts that growth is occurring rapidly to the south and east and that the location is quite easily accessible, made this a very attractive option for the long term needs of the church.

Ms. Vary asked if any of the neighbors in attendance could tell her how often they had experienced flooding in the area. Mr. Arthur Benson responded that floods had occurred five times in the past 10 years. Mr. Steimel noted that this area certainly seems to be in need of some future answers to address the water issues that presently exist. It was noted that some of the growth anticipated by the City of Sandwich was a subdivision plan that is proceeding to the south of the property and likely to end across the road from the proposed church. Perhaps at that time there will be some consideration of ways to improve the water issues involved. Further discussion occurred related to standing water and mosquito issues as well as concerns about the sufficiency of the proposed septic system. Mr. Steimel asked if Bill Lorence, County Engineer, had reviewed the proposal. Mr. Miller noted that Mr. Lorence had been informed of the project and had raised no objections, but would typically not devote resources to do an extensive review until the item had been approved by the County Board. Ms. Vary asked if the Committee could delay a final decision until they could ask Mr. Lorence to do a more extensive review and report. Mr. Miller noted that this item could be tabled until such time as a review by Mr. Lorence could be completed and brought to the Committee. Ms. Vary asked how long the lots in question had been on the market. Mr. Stevenson reported that he was not sure, but that the owners had approached the church to offer the property. Members of the audience noted that they had seen "for sale" signs for about a year before the church sale.

Mr. Steimel asked if there were any additional questions or comments. Mr. MacMurdo noted that he had seen the property and felt that, given how extremely flat it is, any large structure and paving seemed very likely to cause additional problems that cannot be addressed fully by the engineering plan proposed. He also added that he felt the Special Use could prove detrimental to the property values of the surrounding property owners as a consequence of the negative impact on stormwater, and that the applicant had not met the burden of proof to show that would not be true. Ms. Vary noted that she believed the plan as proposed might actually improve the situation that exists currently and that it also might be the impetus for the County to address issues related to Pratt Road and its effect on the drainage situation. Mr. Steimel asked for one final comment from the neighbors in the audience. Mr. David Munson, owner of the property directly to the west, noted that he believed this proposal would cause the water difficulties he already faces to increase.

Mr. Simonson commented that he felt there were extensive concerns about the soils in the proposed location and their impact on the effectiveness of the septic system. He also felt that the issues related to standing water and mosquitos would also not be adequately addressed by the proposal. He closed with a statement that the community formed by the homeowners was predicated on certain conditions of quality of life, and that allowing the church would change those conditions greatly. He believed their united opposition should be given great consideration in any final determination by the Committee.

Mr. Steimel commented that all information presented, including that at the public hearing, should be considered before reaching a final determination. He added that he also believed this proposal might head off future problems he feels the upcoming development might cause.

Before the report began, Mr. Steimel noted to the Committee that Mr. Bob Drake was recently recognized by the County for 30 years of exemplary service. He was then given a congratulatory round of applause. Pat Dashney, Solid Waste Coordinator, presented the report on solid waste for the County for last year. She noted that the County reports a 60% recycling rate with construction and demolition debris, and a 44% rate with construction and demolition removed. The overall rate has gone down from 64% last year due to an overall decline in construction waste. She went on to add that 7.83% of out-of-county waste deposited in our landfill and 12% of all DeKalb County waste generated went to landfills out of the County. Construction and demolition make up the largest portion of the recycled waste, paper and cardboard come in next and individual home recycling making up a small portion. The overall goal of the Health Department is to reach a 50% rate without construction and demolition debris.

Last April, the County hosted a Household Hazardous Waste Day with the IEPA and the Farm Bureau. It had a very successful turnout as did the annual Oil Recycling Day. This year, the Oil Recycling Day will be June 28^th at the Waterman Salt Barn. Mr. Slack asked if there was any chance of extending the Hazardous Waste Recycling Day to a two day program. Ms. Dashey responded that the IEPA was the primary fund source for those and the costs (approximately $125, 000 per day) prohibited them from expanding the program. She went on to report that the Tire program had also been reduced due to budget constraints. There will only be one held this year, replacing an Electronics Recycling Day that the County had hoped to be able to afford. Ms. Dashney reported that this Tire program will be limited to DeKalb County residents only and that it was selected over the Electronics day due to the health issues (West Nile and mosquito proliferation) involved. No final date has been selected for the program at this time.

Ms. Dashney reported that the Department has also hosted composting workshops for homeowners this year and funded the Natural Resources Education Consortium to do educational activities on recycling in the local schools. The goal of the Consortium is to reach every kindergartner through 5^th grader in the County. The Department also hosted a recycling camp for area youth at Russell Forest preserve and an Earth flag program as an incentive for schools to do recycling activities.

The Department works to get as much information to the public as possible, using local media sources and hopes to be able to do a new recycling directory. Ms. Allen asked when the last directory was published, how is it distributed and what is its purpose. Ms. Dashney responded that the last directory was produced in 1999 and distributed through local newspapers. The purpose for the directory is to give County residents recycling locations and other useful information. She noted that the information is also located on the County website.

Mr. Drake noted that current funding limitations regarding Hazardous waste Days was a concern of his. He knows this is something that the County residents find very useful and something the Department wants to continue and expand whenever possible. The County has an application for another Hazardous Waste Day, and hopes one can be scheduled, but likely not for a few years. Ms. Dashney noted that the IEPA does have two permanent drop off spots in Naperville and Rockford. She also noted that there is an upcoming collection day scheduled at the Kane County Fair Grounds (date to be determined) and DeKalb residents will be eligible to participate.

Mrs. Dubin asked what a person should do with electronics for recycling. Ms. Dashney responded that United Recycling in West Chicago accepts drop offs on certain days. Mr. Steimel commended Ms. Dashney and Mr. Drake on their work that has kept the County landfill life extended.

Mr. Steimel began by asking if the representative from Waste Management was in the audience. Mr. Miller responded that they were not here, but that notification had been sent. After discussion, it was determined that the business item did not require Waste Management attendance and could be acted on, if the Committee so chose, with the information already provided. Mr. Lyle commented that there were no problems that he was aware of and could certainly recommend approval of continuing the license. Mr. Miller noted that it would be prudent to go forward with a vote as the current license expires April 30, 2003. He also noted that he could contact Waste Management and, if the Committee wished, could ask them to come to a future meeting and do their annual presentation.

Mr. Miller began the report by noting that he had been asked at the last P&R meeting to review the accuracy and adequacy of the cell tower fees adopted in 1999. He reported that he had met with staff and revisited the question of staff time spent on these projects. Following that review, it is the recommendation of staff that the fee stay at the current level of $500. The Committee had no additional questions, and did not elect to take any additional action.

A second item, related to changing the current zoning fee structure in certain cases was then discussed. Mr. Miller noted that the intention is to have the petitioners directly pay the costs for notification and advertising related to their requests, which would have the effect of reducing the base fee by $25. This would apply to all zoning fees with the exception of Planned Developments, which staff recommends stay where they are. There was also a Committee request to review the Planned Developments fees to see if they are adequate. Currently the fees range from $600 to $1000 for the preliminary review (based on the number of tracts/acres involved). A survey of DeKalb and Sycamore showed that the County fees are currently at or above fees charged by the municipalities for planned developments. Mr. Miller noted that while there are occasionally developments of sufficient complexity to require more staff investment than the fee covers, there are also a requisite number which require far less time investment than the fee covers. In balance, the flat fee structure which the County has always utilized, appears adequate and reasonable. Mr. Simonson raised objections to the comparison to DeKalb and Sycamore, noting that he believed they invested far more time on the reviews than their fees covered. Mr. Miller noted that at the next meeting, a conversation will likely begin within the Committee regarding the overall issue of fee assessment and what the County can and should expect a petitioner who "uses" County resources to reimburse the County for versus what they already pay in taxes. One thing that might be done differently with respect to Planned Developments is to make it clear when they are at a final plan stage, the same fee that applies to a final plat of subdivision will apply of $30 per lot and $400 for the County Engineer. Mr. Miller went on to recommend that perhaps the Committee would want to table this issue until the broader discussion of fees can occur and where input from the State’s Attorney’s office can occur.

Mr. Simonson raised concerns regarding the County’s treatment of developers and commented that perhaps a firmer stance should be adopted. Mr. Miller responded that he maintains a very firm stance in discussions with developers. Mr. Simonson agreed.

Mr. Miller began the report by noting that Chief Building Inspector Petrie is away on vacation this week. He was to be represented at tonight’s meeting by Gary Taylor from the office, but unfortunately a medical issue prevented him from attending. He noted that Mr. Petrie and Mr. Taylor had provided a very detailed report in the packet and that he would attempt to answer what questions he could. He went on to summarize that Mr. Petrie and Mr. Taylor had done an extensive review of the issue of retaining the R-13 insulation standard and held to their recommendation that the R13 standard be maintained through a local amendment to the code. A primary consideration in their review was a desire to stay in sync with the codes of the surrounding municipalities, the vast majority of whom were retaining the R13 standard.

Mr. Steimel asked if any analysis had been done on the cost increases to construction if a higher standard was adopted. Mr. Miller noted that he did not see that in the report. However, he noted that in conversations he had with the inspectors, it was clearly understood that the R-21 proposed is a costlier standard then the R-13. Mr. Simonson asked again if there was any cost analysis done. He felt strongly that it was important to get some sort of actual costs from the development industry per unit.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that he had distributed a publication to the Committee called the Home Energy Advisor (from the Manufactured Housing Institute). He noted that many of the requirements listed were taken from the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) guidelines. In 2004, there is a proposal on the books to raise the HUD guidelines to require an R-19 guideline. He noted to the Committee that the Manufactured Home Industry had previously been extremely successful in lobbying the government to keep the lowest guidelines possible. However, the note regarding the fact that HUD is willing to raise the R guideline indicated that the grip of the Manufactured Home Industry appeared to be weakening. That being the case, Mr. MacMurdo stated that he could not in good conscience support a lower standard for DeKalb County. He has heard arguments that higher energy efficiency standards can be blamed for lowering taxes to the County, but he felt strongly that he still supported higher standards for the County.

Mr. Steimel noted that he was reluctant to take the County standard too far from the standards accepted in the municipalities. Mr. Miller added that it might be helpful for the Committee to know that issues like this are generally revisited every two years or so. It is his understanding that the recommendation from the Building Inspectors does not set a long-term standard, but merely indicates that this would be there recommendation at this time. If HUD raised the standards in the future, nothing would prevent the County from addressing that when it occurs. Mr. Miller also noted that in his conversations with Mr. Taylor, he understood that much of the manufactured home community already built to a 2x6 standard due to necessities of being solid enough to transport. In essence they were already building to the standards, but simply did not want to be mandated to it. Mr. MacMurdo responded that while that may be true, the industry has clearly been holding to lower standards for no reason but cost savings to the manufacturer. He went on to say that while he was sympathetic to the idea of wanting to keep the County and municipalities in sync, that the wait for the municipalities to adopt a higher standard may take quite awhile. His feeling is that in situations like this, someone must take the lead, and he would like to see the County take that lead role.

Mr. Steimel noted again that he would like to see the construction cost increase figures. Mr. Simonson spoke in favor of the County taking a more aggressive lead as well. Mr. Miller noted that perhaps the best approach would be to table the conversation until those cost figures could be gathered for the Committee’s review.

Mr. Miller began by noting that all Forest Preserves and State Park are zoned FP/C-Flood Plain, Conservation District. There is a new Forest Preserve and State Park near Kirkland in Franklin Township that has not yet been given this zoning designation. Since the Zoning Ordinance gives the County Board the authority to initiate Map Amendments, the Planning and Regulations Committee could instruct staff to initiate such an Amendment to rezone these new acquisitions, respectively named the Potawatomi Woods Forest Preserve and the Kishwaukee River State Fish and Wildlike Area, to the FP/C District. Mr. Simonson noted that the name of the Forest Preserve was selected by local area school children and represented over 50% of the total responses.

Mr. Miller noted that there was no accompanying memorandum with this report, but that he wanted to update the Committee on two issues that had been discussed at the last P&R meeting. On the issue of illegally placed subdivision signs on County property, he reported that letters have been sent to the identified offenders and have had conversations with the Cortland Township Road Commissioner who has been very diligently following this issue as well. The most recent feedback from Cortland is that the signs seem to be fewer in number. Mr. Slack added that he had personally witnessed Neucort Development signs being placed illegally again and had observed a County Deputy removing some of the signs on Barber Greene Road. Mr. Miller noted that he has had conversations with the Sheriff’s Department and should be receiving reports about the incident. That report will allow the process to move forward to a Code Hearing. He reiterated the importance of having evidence of the incident and the parties responsible for the sign placement. Mr. Slack noted that he would be following up with the Sheriff’s Department to make sure a report is forwarded to Mr. Miller’s office. Mr. Miller also noted that even if this does move to Hearing and fine, there is a great likelihood that the signs will continue to be placed illegally. The fines are simply not high enough to prove a disincentive to the companies placing the signs. Mr. Steimel noted that he felt that the area south of Cortland was very clear of signs this weekend.

Mr. Miller also noted that he had followed up on Ms. Vary’s questions about the AT&T facility on Tower Road. He had sent AT&T a letter, but has not received a response. He noted that the Tower portion has been abandoned, but that the rest of the building is occupied and being used. Mr. Miller reviewed the Special Use granted and noted that it had no removal provisions. The Code says that a Special Use can be revoked by notification and Hearing. However, even if the Special Use is revoked, there is nothing that could be used to compel AT&T to remove the structure. Therefore, because of the way the Special Use is written, the options to do anything about the structure are limited. Ms. Vary noted that she had received a "for sale" notice on the property. There were no further questions from the Committee on the issue.