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 Shawn and Michelle Frohn, owners of the property at 11622 Haumesser Road in Shabbona Township, have filed a petition for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a commercial dog kennel. The 8.86-acre subject property is located on the east side of Haumesser Road, approximately 3,000 feet north of Lee Road, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein conducted a public hearing on the request on February 26, 2004. The petitioners presented evidence and testimony in support of the requested Special Use, explaining that the scale of the boarding operation would be limited to not more than 20 dogs at any given time. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Miller closed by noting that the Hearing Officer has forwarded his report and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions as noted in the Findings.

Ms. Vary asked for a clarification on notification regarding the public hearing. Mr. Miller confirmed that the usual standards of notifying not only the adjacent property owners, but property owners adjacent to the adjacent owners as well. A sign was also placed on the subject property per the notification requirements.

Mr. Steimel noted that the matter would now be forwarded to the County Board for consideration at its April meeting.

Mr. Miller noted that Jeffrey and Deena Schell, the property owners, have filed a petition for a Use Variation for a ½-acre parcel located on the north side of Cherry Valley Road, approximately 840 feet east of Snake Road, in Kingston 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 Ron Klein on February 26, 2004. The petitioners indicated that the ½-acre parcel has had a mobile home partially on it since 1963. They also testified that the current property owner acquired the property from the long-time owner, the mother of one of the petitioners, and provided testimony from an appraiser to the effect that the property would be more valuable if it were buildable. They stated that allowing a single-family residence on the property would improve the appearance of the site and be a benefit to the County as a whole. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. Mr. Miller closed by noting that 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. Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that in this situation, should the County Board opt to approve the petition, it would require a super majority 3/4 vote to override the Hearing Officer’s recommendation.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to review for the Committee the criteria that were not met by the petition. Mr. Miller replied that the current owner has not owned the property since 1993, there was no evidence presented that a premium price was paid for the property as a buildable lot when it was acquired, no evidence to indicate that it would have been buildable under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance in force at the time it was purchased, and finally there is no evidence that the parcel pre-dates 1976 as a "lot of record." He went on to note that the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for nonconforming lots indicate that in no case should a single-family residence be on a lot of less than 22,000 square feet in area, and the subject property is only 21,780 square feet. A final issued concerned the provision of water and septic system for the property. Due to the small size of the parcel, the only way the County could approve a new septic system would be if the smaller lot used the well of the adjoining larger lot to the west, currently owned by the mother of one of the petitioner’s. He closed by noting that while this might be feasible currently, should either property be sold, it could lead to well disputes in the future.

Mr. Simonson noted that this appears to be a clear case of the petition not in any way meeting the required criteria and therefore denial would appear the only reasonable response.

Mr. Slack asked Mr. Drake to clarify how he felt about the proposed solution to the well and septic issues. Mr. Drake noted that was not unheard of in the County for a house to use the well of a neighboring property especially if the lots were owned by adjacent family members. If this was done in this case, then the petitioners would be able to meet the distance requirements to establish a sewer system on the smaller lot. He added that the potential for municipal septic and sewer would likely not occur for 20 to 25 years.

Mr. Doherty, attorney for the petitioners, identified himself as well as the petitioner and his mother in the audience and asked if the Committee wished to address any questions to them regarding the petition. Mr. Steimel cautioned the Committee that only questions related to information presented at the public hearing could be addressed.

Mr. Steimel went on to comment that he felt there could be quite serious future difficulties with the idea of two lots sharing a well system. He noted that in the past, when one of the parcels is sold, it seems to invariably lead to a dispute. He noted that current regulations exist to prevent such inevitable disputes.

Mrs. Dubin asked for clarification on the issue of whether Mrs. Schell was aware when she originally purchased the property that it might not be buildable. Mrs. Schell responded that she didn’t know one way or the other at the time she purchased the property. Mrs. Dubin asked if Mrs. Schell had any knowledge of prevalent pricing for buildable lots was at the time she made the purchase. Mr. Steimel cautioned that this was not evidence presented at the public hearing, therefore it was inadvisable for this line of questioning to continue.

Mr. Doherty commented that the appraiser that they had brought to the public hearing has testified that it was his opinion that the land cost seemed to support the belief that this was a lot with mobile home and residential construction potential. He went on to note that it was important for the Committee to consider that the family had actually had two residences on these lots (due to the placement of the mobile home) for over 40 years. All that was being asked was to replace the mobile home residence with a more permanent structure. He closed by noting that any concerns about a future well dispute could be addressed by the construction of a very thorough and binding well agreement document.

Mr. Steimel noted that it was the Committee’s responsibility to review the information contained in the record of the public hearing and to base their findings on that document as well as the existing ordinances in effect.

Mr. Faivre commented that as he read the appraiser’s testimony in the Hearing Officer’s report, he seemed to only say that the lot would be "more" valuable "if" it were buildable. He noted that this statement suggested to him that the appraiser did not consider this purchased at the price of a buildable lot. Mr. Doherty commented that he did not believe the record accurately reflected the appraiser’s statements.

Mr. Slack asked again if there was any documentation that had been presented at the public hearing that would support the contention that the lot was purchased at a premium price. Mr. Doherty responded that there was some information on comparables presented at the hearing that he believed supported that contention.

Ms. Vary asked Mrs. Schell to specify what was purchased for the $79,000 purchase price. Mrs. Schell commented that the price covered two lots and one trailer.

Mrs. Dubin asked if the 20 to 25 year time frame for sewers to reach this area was a reasonable assumption given the rate of growth the County is experiencing. Mr. Drake commented that 20 to 25 years was the reasonable life for a septic system, and Mr. Miller added that even with growth rates accounted for as projected by the Unified Comprehensive Plan, it was still highly questionable that this area was still unlikely to receive municipal services prior to that time.

Mr. Lyle noted that a house on the property would certainly improve the aesthetics of the parcel. He asked if the issues that have are causing concern would be eliminated if the mother would sell the one-acre parcel to her son, thus giving him an acre-and-a-half parcel. Mr. Miller noted that there would still be concerns about two houses on an acre-and-a-half parcel.

Mr. Miller began by noting that Theresa and Earl Hughes have filed a petition for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a retail use to be conducted within and immediately adjacent to existing agricultural structures that are no longer used for agricultural purposes. The five-acre subject property, 8329 East Sandwich Road, is located on the east side of the road, approximately 3,100 feet north of Bastian Road, in Squaw Grove Township. The parcel is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

The required public hearing was conducted on March 4, 2004 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. The petitioners provided testimony and exhibits in support of the requested Special Use, including that the business had been in operation on the property during the past year. They indicated that the scale of the business would be limited, and that the necessary parking spaces would be gravel. The petitioners also submitted a petition in support of the request, along with four letters of support. Seven members of the public spoke in favor of the petition and none spoke in opposition. The Hearing Officer has submitted his Findings, and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions, as well as granting a Variation from the 200-foot lot width requirement for Special Use Permits.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to discuss the conditions being recommended. Mr. Miller responded that there were four items included in the report. The first would limit the days and hours of operation to Thursday through Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Second, the use should be limited to the one barn only and not be expanded into other buildings on the site. The final two conditions noted that there be a site plan submitted and approved, and that the operation be limited to the employment of only one additional employee beyond the operator, Theresa Hughes.

Mr. Simonson asked if there had been any concerns expressed about the amount of traffic this could generate. Mr. Miller noted that there were no concerns addressed on that count and pointed out that the business has already been in existence for a year prior to making the Special Use application, thus giving the neighbors ample time to assess any traffic concerns and make any complaints if they felt the need to do so.

Mr. MacMurdo asked about the clause restricting the operation to one employee given that this is a business that has the potential for fairly wide seasonal fluctuations.. Mr. Miller explained that this was a condition imposed to control the scale of the operation, and that the condition was discussed with and agreed to by the petitioner. He commented that the Hearing Officer took into account the size of the building and the location of the site. Mr. MacMurdo then asked if the Hughes had expressed any concern about that limitation. Mr. Miller responded that they had not. He went on to comment that if the operation does grow to the point that additional employees would be required, the petitioner could come back to the County Board and ask for an expansion of the Special Use.

Mr. Faivre commented that this seemed to be an extremely difficult condition to actually enforce. He asked what the County would do to assure that only one employee be allowed. Mr. Miller replied that enforcement on issues like this are always problematic. Typically, the items are controlled by neighbor complaints that alert the office to the conditions being imposed.

Mrs. Allen noted that it was her opinion that the physical limitations of the space would render it almost impossible to have more than one employee functioning at any given time.

Mr. Faivre noted that additional security or parking needs might appropriately necessitate additional personnel and it seemed to him that restricting those options created an over-burdensome condition on the property owner. He closed by noting that he believed this condition should not be included with the Special Use.

Mr. Slack commented that he too had a philosophical problem with limiting the number of employees and felt this was an intrusion and over-regulation on the operation despite the good intention of trying to limit the operation from growing larger than the County might be comfortable supporting. He closed by noting that he also strongly supported removing this condition from the Use.

Mr. Miller commented that another issue that could arise from allowing an unlimited number of employees would be the potential to cause inadequacy of the parking area for the operation.

Mrs. Dubin asked how long the business had been in operation prior to applying for the Permit. Mr. Miller responded that the petitioner had ceased operations when they became aware that a Permit would be required.

Mr. Simonson commented that he felt there should be some restriction imposed on the business to force it to return to the County for review and approval prior to expansion. He noted that neighbors should be given the opportunity to speak to the impact of expansion on traffic and parking.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that it was the size of the customer demand, not the number of employees, that should regulate the size of the business. A business should have the flexibility to adapt quickly to staffing needs or even more problematic difficulties could arise.

Mr. Lyle commented that he could not see any reason for a large expansion of employees and therefore, he felt there would be no great reason to be concerned about too-rapid expansion.

Mr. Steimel noted that the matter would now be forwarded to the County Board for consideration at its April meeting.

Ms. Vary asked if a 2/3 vote would be needed at the County Board since the Committee had amended the Hearing Officer’s original recommendation. Mr. Miller replied that this restriction would not apply in the case of a Special Use.

Mr. Steimel recognized Ms. Dashney from the Health Department to present the annual report on the Solid Waste Program. He noted that her report would be followed by a report from Dale Hoekstra from Waste Management Inc on the County Landfill license.

Ms. Dashney noted that the text of the report had been included with the evening’s information packet, but she wanted to highlight certain items. She noted that the comprehensive 2003 rate for recycling was 49%. This figure is down somewhat from prior years. She noted that two reasons for this were the levels of reconstruction being done as well as the fact that the County’s largest recycler did not sell the majority of the materials that were brought in. She went on to note that many of the companies surveyed noted the state of the economy as a reason that recycling was down.

She commented that the Department had several successful collection projects over the year. The Tire Collection project netted enough materials to fill nine semi-trailers and the Oil Collection resulted in 7,300 gallons of oil being turned in. The Department also held a recycling drive for athletic shoes to be used to construct athletic field surfaces such as tennis and basketball courts. This project was done in conjunction with Nike as well as McHenry County and the County Recycling Education Program.. She noted that the Recycling Education Program had participation from over 1,300 students in the past year from kindergarten through fifth grade. She noted that there had also been a continuation of the Earth flags program awarded to local schools.

Upcoming projects for the year including a composting workshop in April, another oil collection in June, and a computer and electronics recycling event. Cell phones will also be collected in conjunction with the local Rotary Club for distribution to Domestic Violence programs. That collection is scheduled for August 14, 2004 at the Farm Bureau.

Another project that was attempted was a "cans for cash" program held at the apartments near the University where curbside recycling is not available.

Mr. Slack asked why there was no curbside recycling available to multi-family units. Ms. Dashney replied that there was historically a difficulty with keeping trash separate from the recycled materials. However, she noted that individuals in these facilities can take their recycling to nearby drop off points.

Ms. Vary asked if they had ever considered a battery recycling project. Ms. Dashney noted that batteries can be recycled at the curbside if they are placed in a separate bag and clearly marked.

Mr. Steimel asked for clarification on the issue of co-mingling recyclables. Ms. Dashney noted that DeKalb has adopted single stream recycling and therefore allows for recyclables to be co-mingled. Mr. Slack commented that it would be good for Waste Management to do more advertising on this fact.

Mr. Steimel asked about the possibility of a written reminder to the public noting what are and are not appropriate materials for recycling. Ms. Dashney replied that they had printed a recycling brochure, but it was a costly project and funding is extremely tight at this time. She did note that they would use the local newspapers whenever possible.

Mr. Steimel thanked Ms. Dashney for her report and turned to Mr. Hoekstra for the Waste Management report on the landfill.

Mr. Hoekstra began by presenting an aerial photo of the landfill site taken in April of 2003. He noted that such photos are taken annually to do surveys of the site usage.

He noted that there are approximately 14.5 years remaining on the life of the landfill at this time. The total volume of trash taken into the site had reduced slightly from 2002 to 2003, with 80,245 tons in 2002 to 78,705 tons in 2003, including with 5,700 tons of out-of-county trash. He noted that they can accept up to ten percent of the overall volume in out-of-county trash with the current actual average being between 7.5% to 7.8%.

He then reviewed the property lines and parameters and noted how the areas for trash and for yard waste had been separated. He further noted the areas that had been closed and capped. He noted that the current active area is the northeast side of the site.

He commented that they have had good success with their composting area which takes approximately 18,400 tons of materials, break them down to 24,000 to 25,000 yards if material and finally producing 12,000 to 15,000 yards for sale to a wholesale nursery and groundcover operation. At this point the majority of the materials are being purchased by Midwest Trading Co., Inc. from South Elgin, but many local private landscapers as well as local homeowners purchase materials as well.

He then spoke briefly on the operation of the gas-recovery sites utilizing their main flare (visible from State Route 88). He commented that he is often asked why Waste Management did not sell the gas produced by the site. He noted that while Waste Management was one of the first operations to generate electricity from this sort of gas production system, it had not proven to be very cost-effective once federal tax credits for alternative energies were discontinued. He noted that there was a potential to pipe electricity to a dedicated user, but there were simply no industrial operations of sufficient size near the facility in this county.

Mr. Faivre asked if there were test wells on the site and if so, have the reading been coming back with acceptable levels. Mr. Hoekstra replied that they have been frequently monitoring the ground water on the site. This has become especially critical on the west side of the facility due to activities that had been done on the site prior to its acquisition by Waste Management. He commented that in the 1950's the site had been a burn pit. This has resulted in some contamination of the aquifer. He added that Waste Management has developed a plan in cooperation with the Illinois EPA to address this. They are also using tree plantings on the site to assist in leaching the groundwater. He noted that they have seen a 5% to 10% drop in the contamination levels by using this approach.

Mrs. Dubin asked if the 14.5 year life of the site had taken into account the rate of anticipated future growth. Mr. Hoekstra noted that they had not utilized broad projections. He noted that it is also difficult to predict contracting competition from other companies. He noted that currently some areas of the County sends only a small amount of their refuse to the facility and are instead utilizing competing haulers.

Ms. Vary asked what provisions Waste Management has made to address debris from the site scattered by high winds. Mr. Hoekstra replied that there have a series of portable wind screens that are set up at the site as well as a temporary labor force kept on call to recover any debris that escapes the screens.

Ms. Vary then asked about plans for the site after it reaches its maximum capacity. Mr. Hoekstra replied that the company will have a 30-year post-closure responsibility to work with the County to return the land to some viable use. He noted Settler’s Hill in the western suburbs as one example of a site converted to recreational use.

On an unrelated matter, Mr. Miller noted that he would not be attending the April P&R meeting due to a professional conference. Mr. Anderson will attend in his place.