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

Mr. Miller began by reporting that Douglas and Linda Stahl, representing the property owner, have filed a petition for a Use Variation for a vacant 3.46-acre parcel located on the east side of Howison Road, approximately 670 feet north of Chicago Road, in Somonauk Township. The request is to allow the construction of one single-family residence on a parcel that is less than 40 acres in size. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

A public hearing on the requested Use Variance was held by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick on January 23, 2004. The petitioners indicated that the parcel had a house on it until the mid-1980's. They also testified that the current property owner inherited the property, and there was no evidence that a premium price was ever paid for the parcel because it was buildable. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the request, and one spoke in opposition.

The Hearing Officer has submitted his Findings and Recommendation, in which he recommends denial based on failure to meet the specific requirements for Use Variations, and failure to demonstrate that there are unique circumstances or a particular hardship for the property owner.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to confirm that since the Hearing Officer had recommended denial, it would require a 3/4 vote of the County Board if they were to opt to recommend approval. Mr. Miller responded that it was correct that a super-majority would be needed.

Ms. Vary asked why the property had been taxed as a residential lot for all these years if the lot was unbuildable. Mr. Miller replied that taxation and zoning were two separate and unconnected processes. He noted that while it would probably be logical and beneficial for Tax Assessors to check the actual zoning allowances for the lots, but that they often do not do so.

Mr. Simonson asked if he was correct that the petitioner had failed several of the specific requirements for a Use Variation and asked Mr. Miller to itemize the specific points. Mr. Miller replied that the Hearing Officer had noted that the property meets the requirements to have existed prior to 1976 and to have had Agricultural zoning as of 1991. However, there is no evidence that the current property owner has owned the property since 1993, nor was there evidence of a premium price having been paid for the property because the zoning regulations in force at the time of the sale allowed that the lot was buildable. In addition, the Hearing Officer found that there were no unique circumstances nor hardship evident in the present case, which would be required of Variations in general.

Ms. Vary noted that the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan indicates this particular area is best suited to staying agricultural or conservation, and expressed a fear that allowing a house to be built could serve as a catalyst for more residential interest in the area. She went on to note that at this time, there is no hardship to the individuals seeking to buy the property as they had not yet committed to the purchase. In conclusion, she commented that she felt this land might best be utilized by returning it to agricultural use or a use compatible with agriculture.

Mr. MacMurdo asked about the proximity of the property to the recent annexation by Somonauk. Mr. Miller replied that there was at least 2 miles or more between the subject property and the edge of the recently annexed land.

Mrs. Allen noted that the land had never been, nor would ever be, part of a 40 acre parcel. She went on to note that the current owner, Mr. Smith, appeared to be quite settled in Yorkville and there was small probability that he would ever utilize the land. For this reason, she felt it would be an improvement for the area and for the County in general if a residence were allowed on the property. She closed by asking if there would be a hardship if Mr. Stahl were forced to pay a premium price for the property.

Mr. Miller responded that the issue of the premium price lies with the property owner, not the person now proposing to purchase the lot. Since this was an inherited piece of property, there is no evidence that Mr. Smith or his family members ever paid a premium price at the time this issue would have been relevant. He went on to note to the Committee that the premium price issue arose from a contention at the time of the 1991 zoning changes that there were individuals who had, prior to that date, paid a premium price for land that at the time was buildable. In order to not disadvantage those individuals, the County created a very narrow allowance for a Use Variation to address any perceived inequity caused by the zoning changes. He closed by reiterating that the Hearing Officer finds that this property did not meet the criteria determined by the Board to be relevant.

Mr. Simonson noted that it was his recollection that the Board, at the time the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance update was conducted, also intended that anyone seeking this type of variation must meet all of the required criteria. He commented that he believed it was the Board’s intention to draw this allowance as narrowly as possible, and that there have been petitions that have been denied for failure to meet all of the criteria.

Ms. Vary asked about the history of the house that had existed on the property. The Committee recognized Mr. Burgin from the Cemetery Association who had owned the property for many years. Mr. Burgin commented that the house had been used as a caretakers residence. The Association sold the property in the 1950's and it fell into disrepair, culminating with the house burning in September of 1986.

Mr. Steimel noted that he had spent a good deal of time reviewing the actual Ordinance language regarding this situation. He noted that his research supported the Hearing Officer’s stance that criteria were clearly not met, though he could see there might be value to having a nice home on the property. He closed by noting that the Board must stand behind the Ordinance in such situations in order to avoid a potentially damaging precedent.

Ms. Vary commented that it was her understanding that the land would not have to stand dormant if a house is not approved, but could instead be used for any number of agriculturally compatible uses. Mr. Miller agreed that any of the 20 or so permitted uses in the A-1 District (such as greenhouses, nurseries, etc.) would be allowable on the land.

Mr. Miller began by reporting that Michael F. and Pauletta Lyn Exner, the property owners, have filed an application for a Variation. The request is 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 three-acre subject property is located on the north side of Wheeler Road, approximately 2,100 feet west of Irene Road, in Franklin Township, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

The petitioners are proposing to demolish the remains of a damaged house and construct a new house on the subject property. The existing house was substantially damaged by fire in the Summer of 2002. Because the property is only three 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 the early part of 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.

DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein conducted a public hearing on February 5, 2004 regarding the petition. The petitioners and petitioners’ attorney provided testimony to the effect that the previous property owner went through a divorce and then a foreclosure on the property, both of which made it impossible to get 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, and that the new owners would improve the appearance of a blighted property that would otherwise remain in disrepair. Staff noted that the Exners purchased the property knowing that it was not buildable, and that granting the Variation would not comply with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance that nonconformities not be allowed to continue forever. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer has submitted his report and recommends approval of the requested Variation, finding that there are unique circumstances and a particular hardship to the County as a whole if the area remains in a run-down condition.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to confirm that the Board has approved applications similar to this one. Mr. Miller confirmed that such petitions have been approved in the past, the most recent occurring in the Spring of 2003. Mr. Miller then closed by noting to the Committee the rationale for the 180 day limitation for a house on a nonconforming lot to be repaired or replaced after it has been damaged; most of these houses are occupied and the owners have insurance, and six months is adequate time for the owner to receive insurance money and seek to repair the house.

Ms. Vary commented that she was troubled by the fact that the current property owners purchased the property knowing that it was not buildable. She wondered if their current situation really constituted a hardship if they knew could not build when they made the purchase. Mr. Steimel noted that they were, in essence, gambling against what a County Board determination might be. He went on to note that the house was allowed at one time and re-building would have been allowable had the prior owner not faced legal entanglements that appeared to delay his ability to respond in a timely fashion after the fire.

Mrs. Allen asked the petitioners, the Exners, if they intended to make this their home if they were allowed to rebuild. They replied that they intended the house for a family member.

Mrs. Dubin commented that she felt it would be doing a service to the County if they cleaned up the lot and replaced the existing damaged structure with a new home. Ms. Vary asked if it would not be equally valuable to the County if they cleaned up the property and then elected to use the land for an agriculturally compatible use rather than a residence. She noted that her time as a resident of Counties to the east made her extremely leery of allowing residential usage of agriculturally zoned land despite the circumstances.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that he had visited the subject property the prior weekend and noted that there are still outbuildings on the property along with the remnants of the house. From his past experiences, he commented that it could be prohibitively expensive to fully clear and restore property so developed back to an agriculturally viable state. For this reason, he could support allowing it to return to a residential use.

Mr. Steimel noted that this petition will now be forwarded to the next County Board meeting scheduled for March 17, 2004.

Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that at its January 28, 2004 meeting it had directed staff to draft potential amendments to the DeKalb County Code and zoning application fee schedule in order to codify the policy of waiving zoning and building permit fees for other taxing bodies. After reviewing the issue, he noted that staff recommends that the policy simply be incorporated into the fee schedules as an automatic waiver, without need for approval from the Planning and Regulations Committee for each request. This recommendation is based on the fact that there has not been an instance in the past several years where the Committee did not approve waiving the fees for applications from other taxing bodies, and on the consistent verbal support for the policy expressed by members of the Committee. Rather than requiring applicants to wait on regularly-scheduled meetings of the Committee, an automatic waiver could be adopted to streamline the process. Mr. Miller commented that the draft ordinances would amend the County Code with respect to Building Permit fees, and the zoning application fee schedule. He closed by noting that neither of the changes would require public hearings.

Mr. Miller added, in response to an inquiry from Mr. Slack at the last meeting, that he had found evidence that other taxing bodies reciprocally waive fees for the County as well. One example he noted were the fees waived during the process of building the new Highway Department Building. At that time, the City of DeKalb waived approximately $10,000 in building fees for the County.

Mr. Steimel commented that the change to make it an automatic waiver did seem more efficient and appropriate. He further noted that the language made it very clear and unambiguous as to who is and is not a taxing body eligible for this waiver.

Ms. Vary asked why Mr. Miller had used the phrase "units of government and taxing bodies" if both terms essentially referred to the same entities. Mr. Miller replied this was simply standard language used colloquially throughout the County. He closed by noting that Ms. Vary was correct that both phrases referred to the same entities, but that the language of the actual proposed amendments is, "units of government and school districts," which is lifted from State law.

On an unrelated matter, Mr. Steimel reminded the Committee that the Mr. Miller’s Zoning 101 seminar was scheduled for March 6, 2004 and encouraged the members who had not yet reserved a place to do so. Several members indicated their intention to attend.