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

Mr. Miller began by reporting that Judith L. Mazion, the property owner, has filed a petition for a Use Variance for a vacant 12-acre parcel located on the south side of Chicago Road, approximately 2,800 feet east of Governor Beveridge Highway, in Somonauk Township. The petition is to allow the construction of one single-family detached dwelling on an agriculturally-zoned parcel of 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 April 22, 2004. The petitioner presented evidence that the subject property pre-dated 1976 and that the price paid for the property at the time of purchase reflected the fact that it was a site where a house could be built. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request, and none in favor. The Hearing Officer has submitted his Findings and Recommendation and recommends approval of the request.

Ms. Vary asked if there were a nearby house on a parcel that used to be a part of this parcel. Mr. Miller clarified that the house in question has always existed on a separate and distinct property from Ms. Mazion’s. Ms. Vary then commented that she had some questions regarding the issue of whether Ms. Mazion would be caused a hardship if she was not allowed to build now since she has held the property for 26 years without attempting to build before. Ms. Mazion responded that she had simply not been "ready" to build previously, but was ready now.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that he had visited the property and commented that the area where the house is shown is a heavily-forested area and would have no viable agricultural value. Ms. Vary commented that tree preservation was a viable agricultural goal. She closed by noting that this use also appears to contradict the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Mazion commented that there were 150 to 175 trees on the property and the plan she had submitted would preserve the vast number of the trees by placing the house in a clearing area.

Mr. Faivre commented that in all previous deliberations, the Committee has relied heavily on whether the proposal meets the criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance. Since this has clearly been shown to meet all criteria, he felt strongly that the Committee should support the petition.

Mr. Steimel noted that the petition will now go to the full County Board at its June 16, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Miller reported that David Larson, owner of the home and accessory buildings at 27707 Moose Range Road, Sycamore Township, has filed a petition for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow the continued operation of a home business. The subject property is located on the west side of Moose Range Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of Plank Road, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural. A Special Use Permit was previously granted for the home business, but has expired.

DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein conducted a public hearing on the request on April 22, 2004. The petitioner presented evidence and testimony in support of the requested Special Use, explaining that he intends to continue to use a portion of the accessory building as an office for the consulting business that has operated on the property since 1995. Staff explained that the original approval from the County Board was in 1997 for a "home occupation." This was an interim approval, first for one year and subsequently for another five years. The current request would allow the business to remain on the site permanently if the County Board agrees that it is substantially similar to the Special Use category that allows service uses to be conducted in buildings no longer used for agriculture. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report and recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions.

Mr. Steimel asked if this Special Use, if granted, would continue only as long as Mr. Larson owned the property. Mr. Miller replied that was one of the recommended conditions from the Hearing Officer.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that after the hearing, he had gone out to the property and observed several "for sale" signs. Subsequent checks with local listing services indicate the property is actively being marketed for sale. He questioned why the County is expending time or resources to pursue this application if the applicant is moving toward sale.

Mr. Miller noted that Mr. Larson was not in attendance at this meeting, despite a contact from the office confirming that he was aware of the time and location of the meeting, and could not address this directly. He then went on to note for the Committee’s information that Mr. Larson had an outstanding balance due of fees for the petition in excess of $600 that he had been requested to settle prior to the P&R meeting. He further commented that Mr. Larson was given several notices since June of last year informing him that this Special Use permit was expiring. He did not respond in a timely matter and was subsequently brought before the Code Hearing Unit and assessed fines and fees. Mr. Miller closed by noting that, all of this history aside, while Mr. Larson may be seeking to sell his property, there are certainly no guarantees of how long it may take to do so. In the interim, it is clear that he wishes to continue his business in the location until such time as a sale is finalized. If the County Board denies this petition, the business use of the property must cease and failure to do so would result in another Code Hearing situation.

Mr. Steimel noted again that the Special Use will cease at the time that Mr. Larson sells his property. Mr. Slack commented that he recalled Mr. Larson stating at the violation hearing that his business was failing and he was seeking to cease operations in the near future. Mr. Miller noted that it was difficult to address these issues without the petitioner’s presence. However, having said that, he also pointed out that Mr. Larson has paid a substantial portion of fees to pursue this matter and that would seem to indicate that he was desirous of retaining the Special Use.

Mrs. Dubin asked if he could sell his land and still retain his Special Use as a tenant of the property? Mr. Miller responded that the recommendation from the Hearing Officer for the Special Use includes a condition that requires Mr. Larson to remain in ownership of the property. Therefore, he would not be able to continue the Use as a tenant. He closed by noting that while this particular type of business is not particularly suited to agricultural property, the unobtrusiveness of the business has allowed it to continue without issue for approximately nine rent free years to Mr. Larson.

Mr. Faivre commented that it was again clear that the Hearing Officer felt that the criteria outlined in the Code had been met and any information related to a sale of the property or failure of the business should not come into play. He did, however, support the idea of withholding final approval until full payment of all fees had been made. Mr. Steimel also agreed that payment of the outstanding fees would be an appropriate condition of approval for the petition.

Mr. Steimel asked if it was policy to require full payment of fees prior to final County Board action. Mr. Miller responded that the Board can elect to defer action until all fees are satisfied. However, he noted that this was the first case the office has had since the fee payment changes that has carried an outstanding balance this far. Mr. Miller suggested to the Committee that it could send two Ordinances to the full Board. One could recommend approval of the Special Use and the other could recommend denial of the Special Use based on the failure to pay the outstanding fees prior to the County Board meeting. Mr. Steimel could then present the Board with the appropriate Ordinance depending on the circumstances existing that night.

Mr. Slack asked if that clearly allowed the Committee to forward a recommendation of denial if the fees are not paid. Following additional discussion, the motion was amended.

Mr. Miller noted that West Side Rental has filed an application for a Special Use Permit, in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.01.B.2 of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance, to accommodate a proposed agribusiness. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of State Rte. 64 and Anne Glidden Road in Mayfield Township. The property would consist of 10 acres of an 80-acre farm, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The application also includes a request for two Variations, from Sections 7.07.A.3. and 7.07.B3. of the Zoning Ordinance, related to the maximum permitted area and height of signage proposed for the business. The Variations were requested to accommodate a free-standing sign that would be 200 square feet in area and 31 feet high, rather than 32 square feet in area and eight feet high as permitted.

The required public hearing was conducted on May 13, 2004 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Kevin Buick. The petitioner provided testimony and exhibits in support of the requested Special Use, and indicated that DeKalb Implement has to relocate because the current site on Rte. 38 has been purchased by Northern Illinois University under threat of condemnation. The petitioner further indicated that the proposed site was selected because it is in the center of the business’ service area and outside of town limits so as to reduce traffic conflicts with agricultural equipment. One member of the public spoke in favor of the request and four in opposition. Those opposed cited concerns about changing the character of the area from agricultural to commercial. The Hearing Officer has submitted his findings and recommendation. He denied the requested Variations from the Sign Regulations, but recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions.

Mr. Steimel underlined for the Committee that the Sign Variation would not be under the Committee’s jurisdiction, and therefore would not be an appropriate topic for tonight’s discussions. Mr. MacMurdo asked if that was dictated by State Statute or local ordinance. Mr. Miller responded that State law allows county’s to decide whether the zoning board (or hearing officer) should make decisions on variations or make recommendations only. DeKalb County has always taken the position, through its adopted regulations, that the decisions on variation requests should be made by the Hearing Officer.

Mrs. Dubin asked if the denial of the sign variation would cause the company to reject the site selected and move elsewhere. Mr. Johnson, speaking as the petitioner, responded that the company would still go forward with the project as proposed despite the denial of the Sign Variations.

Ms. Vary commented that this project was proposed on prime agricultural land and that the closest agribusiness appears to be two miles away. She noted that she could understand why the adjoining neighbors would be upset at the radical change of the land use. She closed by asking if the petitioner had purchased all 80 acres of the parcel. Mr. Johnson replied that they had purchased only ten. He closed by noting that another agribusiness, Maplehurst Grain, was located less than a mile away.

Ms. Vary noted that this petition seemed to go against what the land was designated for in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Steimel responded that the petitioner was a business that the local agricultural community would very much seek to retain in the area. Given that they were being forced from their current location, he felt it was an appropriate and agriculturally beneficial use of the land supporting the spirit of the Plan. He commented that there have been several implement dealerships lost to the County or forced into consolidations, and that has caused great difficulties for local area farmers. The location of this proposal provides for safe and efficient transport of equipment to the local area farms.

Ms. Vary commented that she realized the burden on the business placed by the move, but is still concerned about the change in the nature of the area. She further noted the concerns of the nearby property owners that once this business was approved, that other less-desirable types of businesses might crowd around it, specifically gas stations and the like. Mr. Steimel replied that current zoning would not allow for such businesses on that corner and any other requests would be put through a rigorous and stringent review.

Mrs. Dubin commented that she shared some concerns at the "exception" of allowing this business use on the land and wondered what other exceptions might come through the door. Mr. Steimel noted again that agribusinesses support the farmers that the County is desirous of supporting.

Mr. Wiegand, County Board member, asked to speak from the audience. He commented that as he reviewed the Findings of Fact, there was mention of another John Deere dealership owned by the same company located in Kings, Illinois - just 18 miles away from the proposed location. He wondered why two dealerships would be situated so closely to each other. Mr. Johnson replied that the dealership currently located in Kings had been a foundering dealership in Ogle County that they had made successful by running it as a service center. Mr. Wiegand asked if they intended to close the Kings location when this new proposed location opens. Mr. Johnson replied that they had no intention to close that location.

There followed some general discussion related to the conditions that had necessitated the move of the John Deere dealership from the current location as well as the potential impacts of such land use approvals. Conversation closed with an agreement that there may be additional education needed regarding what sorts of actions and decisions are most beneficial to agricultural land usage.

Mr. Miller opened the discussions by noting that at its February 18, 2004 meeting, the County Board inquired of the State’s Attorney and staff whether a fine or additional fee could be charged to applicants who seek zoning actions after having been found in violation of the County Code. Staff has since discussed the issue with the State’s Attorney, and concluded that the fee schedule for zoning actions can be amended to require that applicants who have been found to be in violation can be charged double the normal application fees. A precedent for this approach already exists in the County Code for individuals who build structures without the required Building Permit (Section 14-3(b)), whereby fees are doubled for structures built prior to obtaining a permit.

Mr. Steimel asked what sort of fee levels are being discussed. Mr. Miller replied that the typical fees are from $400 to $1,000 dollars, and those fees would be doubled for violators under the proposal. Mr. Steimel asked if this would have been applicable in the recent case of the Hinckley craft shop that the Committee had addressed. Mr. Miller replied that the Hinckley case would likely not be applicable as the owner was not aware they were in violation prior to notification and, more importantly, did cease operations as soon as they were made aware and while they pursued the appropriate permits and approvals. He noted that it is the case where a violation is on-going after notification, or when the action takes place despite the owner having been advised of the need for zoning approval, that this change is aimed at addressing.

Mr. Steimel asked if the recent case of the landscaper who was aware they needed appropriate permits but admitted they had simply "never gotten around to it" would be applicable. Mr. Miller replied that such a situation would likely have resulted in double fees under this proposed revision. Again, it illustrates the intent of the Board to impose some punitive action on individuals who are aware of their violations, but choose to not address them in a timely manner.

Mr. Lyle asked how many notifications are sent to violators prior to the fees being doubled. Mr. Miller replied that for individuals who have existing permits or Special Uses, there are typically two advance notices sent with ample time for response. These are then followed by a notice informing the individual that the Use has expired and noting that continuation would result in a violation situation.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that with three notices prior to applying the double fee seemed reasonable. Mr. Miller responded that there is another situation in play currently regarding a local storage facility wherein two notices were sent and the Use has expired on May 16^th without the holder of the Use initiating action to resolve the issue.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that it seemed fairly straightforward to assess a penalty to an individual who had received notice after notice without handling the situation. Mr. Miller commented that there was also a second type of situation. This would involve individuals whose actions are not known by the Planning Office staff and for whom we do not have any existing files (and therefore no way to alert them to when their Uses were expiring). These individuals would receive notification and, if they chose not to begin to resolve the situation in a timely manner or continued operations in clear violation, would have the double fees assessed.

Mrs. Dubin asked if it was the intention to change any current notification letters to clearly inform the recipients they are in danger of incurring higher fees by non-compliance. Mr. Miller agreed that such a change would be made. He again reminded the Committee that this would only be true in the case of the individual who had a current file being monitored by the office. For individuals who are unknown and receive their first notice, they would be given an opportunity to cease operations and take proper action under the standard fee schedule.

Mrs. Allen noted that there is also a storage facility south of Sandwich and asked if those individuals will be given notice prior to the expiration of their Use. Mr. Miller agreed that they would and noted that their files were part of the group being monitored.

Ms. Vary commented that this does seem to be a good incentive for compliance. Mr. Steimel commented that he assumed this would be for someone willfully not complying, as opposed to someone like the local craft shop owner who did move to comply appropriately. Mr. Miller noted that it was always the intent of his office to encourage compliance, not move directly to punishment. This process is designed to address the egregious violator, not the citizen who simply was not aware they were in violation of the regulations.

Mr. MacMurdo asked if an individual could appeal the application of a double fee. And if so, would that person make their appeal to Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller replied that Code requires that all appeals of his interpretation or application of the regulations go to the Hearing Officer for review.

Mr. Faivre asked where, in the proposed zoning application fee language, there was a reference to the three-notification requirement. Mr. Miller commented that procedures at that level are not generally written into the actual zoning fee schedule. Mr. MacMurdo pointed out that putting that level of procedure into the regulation, could open the issue to misinterpretation.

Mr. Miller noted that perhaps this could be placed in another section of the regulations. Perhaps the Violations section of the zoning ordinance could contain a concurrent reference to apply the three notice standard for existing uses being monitored.

Ms. Vary asked if a language proposal for the Violations section could be brought to the Committee at the next meeting. Mr. Miller noted that would be possible.

Mrs. Allen commented that if the Committee feels the office is not following appropriate procedures, they have the right to direct staff to correct any procedural problems that may arise.

Mr. Miller began by reminding the Committee that on December 17, 2003, the County Board adopted the DeKalb County Unified Comprehensive Plan. This document set forth a vision for the future of the County and provides direction for growth and development. The primary tools for turning this vision into reality are the zoning regulations contained in the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance. Because the Comprehensive Plan has been amended and refined, it is essential that the Zoning Ordinance also be amended and refined as necessary to implement the Plan. At the same time, it is appropriate to consider any technical changes to address problems in interpretation and administration of the Zoning Ordinance.

As part of the Unified Comprehensive Plan project, the planning consultant prepared a model Unified Development Ordinance that contained draft zoning and subdivision regulations. These draft regulations were made available to the County and each of the municipalities participating in the Regional Planning Commission. Staff has used these model regulations to evaluate potential changes to the County Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that, because the County’s Comprehensive Plan generally discourages growth and development in unincorporated, rural DeKalb County, many of the model regulations are not needed in the County Zoning Ordinance. However, portions of the model Unified Development Ordinance have been used heavily, most notably the definitions section.

Mr. Miller noted that the Committee had been provided a list of possible changes to the County Zoning Ordinance. He commented that staff is requesting that the Committee review this list, and be prepared to discuss the possible changes at its May 26, 2004 meeting. Staff will be requesting direction on which possible changes to proceed with in the form of an official Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the Committee should consider the first set of "Questions for the Committee," as these are some of the most substantial possible changes being advocated by staff. Rather than attach a written evaluation of each of these at this time, staff will be prepared to discuss these items with the Committee, with the intent of focusing subsequently on those changes deemed appropriate.

Mr. Steimel then asked if Mr. Miller could do a brief overview of each of the six most critical questions as presented in the report to the Committee. Mr Miller began with the first question addressing the issue of reducing the County zoning districts from the current six to only A-1, Agriculture and Planned Development. He noted that such a move would underline the County’s desire to not strongly encourage development, residential or otherwise, within unincorporated areas, and to provide the County a stronger set of options when development is proposed. He closed by noting this would change the conditions of lots carrying these designations from "by right" land use allowances to allowances controlled more by the discretion of the Board.

Mr. MacMurdo asked how many vacant lots carry the four zoning categories being proposed for elimination (R-1, R-2, B-1 and M-1). Mr. Miller responded that there are very few and so the impact in that respect would likely be negligible. Mr. MacMurdo asked if a listing of the vacant lots could be produced for the Committee’s future review. Mr. Miller agreed that could be done.

Mr. Miller then addressed the second item, requesting elimination of the Use Variation. He provided the Committee some historical information on the origin of the allowance. Discussion followed regarding the growing temptation of many to try to bend the loophole which had been intended for a very small and carefully defined set of individuals to accommodate more and more attempts to acquire the right to build residences on small parcels of currently agricultural land.

Ms. Vary noted that the Committee has certainly struggled to deal with some of the criteria set for the Use Variation, specifically the issue of determining when an individual had paid a "premium price" for the property.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that he had some concerns regarding eliminating the Variation and opening the door to litigation that might ultimately damage other areas of the regulations. He commented that it was important to maintain the integrity of the 40-acre rule so often re-endorsed by the County Board.

Ms. Vary asked if some input could be received from the State’s Attorney regarding the vulnerability of the provision to litigation. Mr. Miller noted he could obtain that information for the Committee.

Mr. Miller then address the third item on the listing, the restriction of variation requests to issues related to "bulk regulations" only. He explained that the way the current provisions are written, it leaves the door open to interpretation that the Hearing Officer can technically allow variations from any provision in the Ordinance. For example, an individual has, under current language, asked for a variation from a definition. He explained that bulk regulations are limited to only those provisions which outline dimensional or numerical requirements, such as set-backs, lot-width, building heights, lot coverage ratios, etc.

Ms. Vary asked if there were a definition of bulk regulations provided within the Code. Mr. Miller commented that there is a proposed definition in the new ordinance language being proposed.

Mr. Miller then moved to address question four which proposes to eliminate the allowance for agricultural labor housing. He noted to the Committee that this is an increasingly obsolete practice applying to far fewer individual farm land owners. Mr. Miller noted that individuals applying currently are trying to use it as a way to establish a second residence against the provisions of the 40-acre rule. He noted that of the one or two areas that have existing and legitimate labor housing usages, those individuals would be grandfathered and allowed to continue as long as their legitimacy continued.

Discussion followed related to the fact that more and more migrant workers are not living on the work sites, but rather choosing to elect lower cost housing in nearby towns. Mr. Miller noted the difficulty of enforcing and verifying when an individual is legitimately ag labor, absent the requirement of a W-2 or some other form of formal document. Mr. Miller then asked the individuals on the Committee who are engaged in active farm activities if they saw any reason to continue the allowance as broadly as it is currently constructed. Mr. Steimel commented that he would take time to consider this over the next month.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that if the allowance were removed, they could always address an individual case as a planned development. Ms. Vary asked if that would open the door to several structures being allowed. Mr. Miller noted that there would be no option for multi-family options.

Mr. Miller then moved to the fifth question, to allow accessory structures on through lots provided the front yard setbacks are met and the site plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. He commented that a through lot is one that has a roadway in front of as well as behind the lot. He noted that the current regulations prohibit a shed or accessory structure between the principle house and a street. In the case of a through lot, it prohibits the owner from placing a shed anywhere but to the side of their principle structure, greatly reducing their lot use option or forcing them into seeking a variation from the prohibition He then commented that one approach would be to adopt a "buildable area" approach whereby the lot would have to observe front setbacks at both the front and back of the lot and side setbacks as applicable to the zoning class. However, structures could then be placed anywhere within the square.

Mr. Miller then moved to the sixth question which would remove the requirement of a Special Use for home business where there is strictly phone and computer use, but no customer visits, employees or frequent deliveries. He noted for the Committee the difficulty in enforcing prohibitions against many home businesses.

Mr. MacMurdo asked if someone with a beauty salon in the basement of their house would be eligible for this exemption from the Special Use. Mr. Miller replied that it would not be exempt because that business would necessitate customers coming to the location and potentially causing parking or noise problems for their neighboring properties.

Mrs. Dubin commented with the new economy, many individuals are being forced to utilize their homes as their business locations to save rental costs. Ms. Vary concurred that technologies easily allow this sort of usage. Mr. Steimel commented that the elimination of this requirement could be perceived as a very "citizen friendly" action. Ms. Vary concurred that this would also go a long way toward eliminating time and money costs to the petitioners as well as to the County.

Mr. Miller noted that it would still be the intention of the County to ask for a permit as a form of "registering" the businesses, however there would be no fee attached. Mr. Faivre asked why the County would need to require a permit. Mr. Miller replied that the greatest advantage would be to give the County the opportunity to clearly indicate the parameters of the usage to the individual to prevent them from slipping into prohibited uses and putting themselves in potential violation situations.

Mr. Miller then posed the question to the Committee if they would prefer to address the above mentioned items as well as the several other proposed changes during their regular meetings or if they would want to set aside a special meeting, perhaps on a Saturday morning, to tackle the material all at one time. Ms. Vary commented that she would like to try setting a time at the next two regularly scheduled meetings and if the Committee does not seem to be making progress, address setting additional times at that point. Mr. Miller cautioned the Committee that there can be a danger of loss of momentum on large scale projects like this if they are carried on too long.

Mr. Faivre asked if the rest of the County Board will be informed about the possible changes as they are being debated. Mr. Miller replied that they will, of course, receive the Committee minutes, but also noted that he would send a copy of the proposed changes to the overall Board for their information. He closed by commenting that he will also ask Ms. Supple from the Administrator’s office to post an internet notification for the members with the content and when the discussions will be held.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that if the Committee opted to agree to the reduction in zoning classes, that alone would resolve a large number of the following items.

Following additional discussion, the Committee determined by consensus that they will initially handle these discussions at their regularly scheduled meetings.

Mr. Miller began by noting that the Board is given the responsibility for the overall creation and elimination of positions throughout the County. He noted that the involvement is focused on organizational structure, and not on employee evaluation, etc. Mr. Miller then provided the Committee a brief overview of how he had arrived at the reorganization plan that he was brining forward for consideration. He commented that he had previously come before the Committee with a recommendation regarding the Building portion of the Office that had been quite successful. Mr. Miller closed by reviewing the basics of the proposal to eliminate the positions of Code Enforcement Technician and Secretary and replace them with two positions (Assistant Planner and Zoning Technician) that would be more efficient and provide for a better division of duties throughout the office.

Mr. Steimel commented that this is a matter being discussed at tonight’s meeting, but is anticipated to be settled at a future meeting prior to the completion of the budget cycle for FY2005.

Mr. Slack asked if the proposed Assistant Planner’s attendance at the Regional Planning Commission meetings would alleviate Mr. Miller’s responsibilities for attendance. Mr. Miller responded that it would not and that it was his intention to continue as the primary staff for that body as well as the Planning and Regulations Committee. He noted that the other position would simply provide a secondary backup as well as performing other duties currently performed by the Secretary.

Mr. MacMurdo requested that Mr. Miller provide the Committee additional budget impact information prior to the next meeting. Mr. Miller agreed that would be done. Mr. Steimel concurred that cost would be a primary consideration in the Committee’s endorsement of any reorganization. Mr. MacMurdo closed by recommending that Mr. Miller review the budget information with County Administrator Gary Hanson before the meeting to gather his input. Mr. Miller agreed that he would do that before the meeting as well. He closed by noting that the Committee would be asked not only for a motion of support, if they felt it so justified, but would also be asked to speak in support of the reorganization at the County Board as well as throughout the budget process.

On an unrelated note, Mr. Steimel commented that the recently completed Unified Comprehensive Plan for the County had received a Planning award from the American Planning Association. Mr. Miller, Board Chairman Sands and Paul Rasmussen from the Regional Planning Commission attended the awards ceremony. Mr. Miller added that the award had surpassed several others and received quite a bit of very complementary comment from the Association.