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 The DeKalb Community School District #428 has filed an application for a Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use Permit for property located on the south side of State Route 38, east of the Village of Malta, in Malta Township. The site is the former Malta High School and is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The proposal is to rezone the entire property to R-1, Residential District with a Special Use Permit to allow the building to be an elementary school.

The public hearing was conducted on June 10, 2004 by DeKalb County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. At the hearing, the petitioner presented exhibits and testimony to the effect that the request is driven by a need to provide a new elementary school for the District, and re-use of the old high school is the most cost efficient solution. Staff noted that rezoning to R-1, Residential District with a Special Use Permit for a public school is needed because the previous use, which was grandfathered, has expired for more than one year. No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The Hearing Officer has forwarded his report, and recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use, with conditions.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that he had no objections, but asked Mr. Miller why he didn’t suggest doing this as a Planned Development instead of R-1. Mr. Miller commented that a Planned Development would not be appropriate because those regulations anticipate a much larger project than this and would be a more complicated process that is needed in this case.

Ms. Vary asked whether rezoning this property to R-1 would result in more problems if they later approve converting the R-1 and R-2 Districts into Planned Developments. Mr. Miller explained that it would not, because the proposal coming forward would involve significant modifications to the County’s Planned Development regulations.

Mr. Steimel asked whether the question of the sign needed to be addressed. Mr. Miller stated that the sign is something that would be addressed at the Building Permit stage and is not something the Committee nor the Board needs address. Mr. Miller added that the sign as proposed would appear to meet all of the County’s standards.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller whether any agreement as to turning the "M" sign upside-down into a "W" had been worked out. Mr. Miller commented that the main issue was with the size of the sign, but that it would meet the County’s regulations, and that it was only highlighted in the staff report because the petitioners had not submitted anything at that time indicating the size of the sign. Mr. Miller went on to state that since that time, the petitioners have submitted information that show that it will not be a problem. Mr. Steimel commented that it would be good to preserve that sign as a memorial of the Wright family.

Mr. Miller noted that the petition will now go to the full County Board at its July 21, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Miller reported that James Dionisopoulus and Tana Knetsch, the property owners, have filed an application for a Variation to waive the restriction of Section 8.03.D.a. of the DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance that a nonconforming use which has ceased for a period of one year or more shall not be reestablished. The six-acre subject property is located on the east side of Motel Road, opposite Dove Tail Point, in Sycamore Township, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.

The request is to allow the property to be used for a single-family residence, despite the fact that the house on the property has been vacant for several years. Because the property is only six 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 8.03.D.a. mandates that a nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a period of one year, the subsequent use of the property shall conform to the zoning district. The petitioners have indicated that the house has been vacant for seven years. 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 Kevin Buick conducted a public hearing on June 10, 2004 regarding the petition. The petitioners and petitioners’ attorney provided testimony to the effect that they were unaware of the restriction against re-establishing the residential use at the time they purchased the property in 2000, and that they paid a high price for the property because it has a residence on it. The attorney also indicated that the house has been vacant for seven years, and therefore the problem was caused by the previous property owner, and that the current owners have always intended that either the existing house would be repaired, or a new house would be constructed on the property to replace it. It was asserted that, because of the floodplain on a portion of the property, it is not suitable for any use other than a single-family residence. 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.

Ms. Vary noted that she had problems with this issue, because it is a loophole in the regulations and the Committee seems to be making a lot of exceptions to this regulation. She noted that the purpose of the one year regulation was return as many of these nonconforming uses to their original use, in this case agricultural. She stated that she understood the current owners do have a hardship and did not know that there was a problem when they purchased the lot, however ignorance of the law does not mean they are not subject to it. She recognized that the surrounding properties are residential and that the DeKalb County Unified Future Land Use Plan has this area marked for low-density residential use, and because of this, she will probably vote to approve of the Variation, in spite of all the negatives she mentioned.

Mr. Steimel asked if the only structure that could be built upon the property was a house. Mr. Miller informed him that the waiver of the restriction would be to allow the nonconformity to continue, which in this case is a single-family residence. He also noted that if this Variation is approved, the old house could be torn down and a new one constructed. He further pointed out that due to the state of the current house, it would be unlikely that it could be repaired or added onto, and that any new house would be subject to the County’s floodplain regulations. Such regulations would require that the new house be constructed up out of the floodplain and would therefore improve the situation.

Mrs. Dubin commented on the fact that people are unaware of the various rules and regulations and asked whether there is a way people can be informed. Mr. Miller responded that although many local attorneys are becoming more aware of the County’s regulations, there is not any practical way to inform everyone, since the County is not part of most real estate transactions.

Mr. Slack asked if it would be possible to get on an MLS listing, to show what a property is zoned as. Mr. Miller said it would, but that the zoning by itself does not tell people what it means; people have a wide range of ideas as to what zoning means, and just listing A-1 for instance doesn’t tell you that single-family residents are not a permitted use.

Mr. Faivre commented that he believes that 99.9% of people would assume that if a house is there, it could be replaced. He also stated that he feels it should be replaced, if it meets this criteria. Mrs. Vary responded that the idea is to try and get rid of these nonconforming parcels, and suggested that when a title search is done on a house, people should contact the Planning Department to determine whether a parcel is conforming or not. Mr. Miller commented that many appraisers to contact the Planning Department for this information, however, not all do, and there is no way for the County to compel them to do so.

Mrs. Vary asked if it would be possible to send a letter to real estate agents. Mr. Miller commented that appraisers would be a better choice, and that many of them already do contact staff on a regular basis. However, there are too many of them to try to contact them all.

Mr. Steimel commented that it would be too much to try and police these transactions and added that if the house is in the floodplain, then it might not be buildable anyway. Mr. Miller indicated that the house is in the floodplain. He also went on to comment that situations like this is why the Variation procedure is in place; the regulations are general in nature, and cannot always be applied to specific situations. Therefore, the Variation procedure allows for relief from these regulations, when they do not seem to make sense in a particular situation.

Mrs. Vary commented that she would like for there to be a way to make unaware home buyers aware of the regulations. She added that the fact that the petitioners paid a premium price for the property is what has swayed her the most in their favor. However, this means that the property will stay nonconforming and would likely continue so on, if the Board approves it. Even though she doesn’t want to penalize that current owners for this, she asked, if the Board keeps approving these Variations, how will they ever cease being used for nonconforming uses; how can this trend be stopped? Mr. Steimel asked whether her end goal was to convert all this nonconforming residential uses back to agricultural use. Mrs. Vary pointed out, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that one of the goals of the regulations is to end nonconforming uses to return such properties to conforming uses.

Mrs. Dubin commented that she is concerned that about the fact that even though people are using attorneys and real estate agents, they are finding themselves unable to develop their land the way they thought they could, and the Committee is being called to sit over and over again on these kinds of proceedings.

Mr. Steimel noted that the petition will now go to the full County Board at its July 21, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Miller began by reminding the Committee that last month he had brought forth a reorganization plan for consideration, and had reviewed for them 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), which he felt that would be more efficient and provide for a better division of duties throughout the office. He stated that he had met with Gary Hanson to develop a cost analysis of the proposed reorganization, as requested by the Committee at its last meeting. He went on to state that since then, he has revised his proposed reorganization plan. He suggested that instead of eliminating two positions, that only the part-time secretary position be eliminated, to be replaced by a full-time Assistant Planner be brought in as per the reasons stated at the last meeting, the cost of which would be partially covered by rolling over the money budgeted for the part-time secretary into this position. Additionally, the Code Enforcement Technician will stay but will have its duties reassigned, which is within the prevue of the Planning Director to do. He noted that the Code Enforcement Technician would not change in terms of hours worked or compensation. He also presented the Committee with a Cost Analysis spreadsheet, worksheets detailing the list of duties for the two positions, and a new flowchart for the Planning Department. He ended by asking the Committee to endorse this idea, and support it as part of the 2005 budget.

Mr. Steimel commented that this is not a matter the Committee needs to act on as such, but that this would require support and approval when the time comes to review the 2005 budget. Mr. Miller stated that if the Committee agrees with his suggestions, then he will add to his 2005 budget. He further added that he has discussed this with Gary Hanson, who has helped him refine some of the costs and benefits of this change. He noted that Mr. Hanson indicted that he feels this does have merit and pointed out that with two full-time professional planners in the office, the County would have less need to go to consultant planners for the larger jobs. Ms. Vary asked how often this has happened. Mr. Miller replied that twice over the past four years, and potentially more often if staff is called upon to do things through the Regional Plan Commission (RPC).

Mr. Miller also noted that he sees the Assistant Planner as being responsible for taking the minutes at this Committee’s meetings and for the RPC meetings. Mr. Steimel noted that this would allow for backup to the Planning Director.

Mrs. Dubin asked for some clarification of the flow chart Mr. Miller presented to the Committee. Mr. Miller indicated that not all of the positions listed on the flow chart are envisioned for this coming fiscal year, but as a possible future expansion should it be determined such is needed.

Mr. Faivre asked if the part-time secretary needed beyond her normal hours, and was that overtime considered as part of the budgeting for the Assistant Planner. Mr. Miller responded that given the nature of Planning Department, the secretary often had to work more than her normal hours, and that this was taken into consideration when he budgeted for the Assistant Planner. He also noted that even taking into consideration the budget of the part-time secretary, the addition of an Assistant Planner is likely to represent a $30,000 to $33,000 cost to be added to the budget.

Ms. Vary summarized the advantages of suggested reorganization as being: two full-time, professional planners; may decrease some consulting costs; will give better RPC support; creates backup; and allows more continuity.

Mr. Miller added that during his discussions with Mr. Hanson, he asked him if there were any other revenue source possibilities. Mr. Miller noted that with more professional planners available, it would be more likely that the smaller communities would take advantage of the staff as a resource. He further noted the work he was done for the Village of Malta, as an example of how that arrangement could work.

Mr. Miller reminded the Committee that at their last meeting, he had provided them with a list of possible changes to the County Zoning Ordinance. He had requested that the Committee review this list, and be prepared to discuss the possible changes. Mr. Miller noted that, as per their request, he sent a copy of the list of possible changes to all of the Board members for them to review, and he also included a hard copy of the Zoning Ordinance, with most of the proposed changes inserted, in the Committee’s packet for their review. 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 FP/C, Floodplain/Conservation and A-1, Agriculture, with all non-agricultural uses being treated as Planned Developments. 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. Steimel pointed out that the recent rezoning of the Northern FS property as an example. He noted that if FS had decided to leave, then any other use allowable in the M-1 District could move in their without any review by the County Board. Mr. Miller noted that this suggestion represents a major change to the Zoning Ordinance, representing a lot of work to draft the necessary regulations and make changes to the existing ones, and that what he was looking for from the Committee is their thoughts on this proposed change first.

Mr Steimel asked whether this change would make the current uses nonconforming. Mr. Miller responded that he envisions crafting the new regulations such that existing uses would become conforming, but subject to the new regulations for any future changes. He stated that it is not his intent to make it any more difficult for existing properties to do anything that they can do now.

Mrs. Vary asked if staff followed any particular model in coming up with this idea; if there were any other communities doing this also. Mr. Miller answered that there are other communities doing this, and part of what he would be doing is checking the available materials out there on Planned Developments and checking the legality of such a change. Ms. Vary commented that she is concerned that this does not make things any more difficult for the people than it already is.

Mr. Steimel commented that he remembered having an issue brought up a few years ago involving the removal of the A-2 District, in which some people on small acreage with horses were left in limbo, and he inquired what happened with that issue. Mr. Miller responded that there were not many parcels zoned A-2, and that most of them were rezoned to A-1, which allows horses, and the others were rezoned to R-1 or PD-R. He also added that we have changed the regulations since then to say that properties zoned PD-R are allowed one (1) livestock animal per 2.5 acres.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that this possible change makes sense in his mind for two fundamental reasons: the Committee is looking at making many changes to all of the various zoning categories, and this one change would allow them to do this in one step instead of many; and it would allow the Committee and the County Board to better craft were and how development will go in the County that is not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. He also added that if they go with this one change, it would eliminate some 40% of the other changes included on the list.

Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to explain the list they found on their tables. Mr. Miller commented that the list notes the vacant properties currently zoned R-1, R-2, B-1, or M-1 in the County. He further noted that many of the parcels on the list were vacant because they have various development constraints, such as being land-locked or in floodplain, which prevented them from being developed.

Mr. Steimel asked how this change would affect unincorporated communities, such as Elva or Shabbona Grove. Mr. Miller responded that most the way he see the change being crafted, what could be developed today, could be developed after the change.

Mr. Miller agreed to bring draft regulations before the Committee at its next meeting. Also, since this change could potentially eliminate many of the other proposed changes, Mr. Miller suggested that the Committee only address the other five questions proposed, instead of looking at the list of changes. The Committee agreed with this suggestion.

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.

Ms. Vary commented about the Mazion Use Variation that had been recently addressed by the Committee, noting that upon further reflection on the issue, had regretted her support of that request. She pointed out that Mrs. Mazion’s main argument for not having built a house already, was that "she was not ready to" (which Mr. Miller noted is a common argument many petitioners present), and how that was not a good reason to support such petitions. She went to note that too many exceptions are being made to the County’s rules, and fears that exceptions like this are leading to a loss of irreplaceable farmland and to the County becoming more like the Kane and DuPage Counties. Mr. Steimel noted that on the other side of the ledger, a "property right" formerly possessed by the property owners is now gone, and that an effort to strike a balance needs to be made. Mr. Miller noted that the County has not denied any petition for a Use Variance in which the property clearly meets all of the criteria, but that the problem is that too many properties being brought forth only marginally meet the criteria. Mr. Miller commented that the Use Variation is a very specific and narrow loophole.

Mrs. Allen commented that she feels that the County should not punish those who want to be sure they can build on a piece of property before they purchase it, but since they did not pay a premium price, the County says "no." Mr. Miller responded that the issue is whether the original property owner paid a premium price when they bought it, not what the current purchaser is paying.

Mrs. Dubin commented that she is not concerned with the solitary house here and there, but with how to stop the large development and conserving farmland. She thinks that these small parcels are not really addressing the bigger issue. Mr. Miller noted that his reason for raising the Use Variation issue was to point out that this regulation is an exception to the "40-acre rule". What he hoped to accomplish with all of these questions was to bring forth changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would help better enforce the Unified Comprehensive Plan and make it a reality, and to highlight things, that through practical use of the Zoning Ordinance, need to be tweaked.

Mr. MacMurdo commented that he feels that it should remain; otherwise, people in this situation have no other recourse than to go to court. He went on to note that all it would take is one sympathetic judge to throw the whole process into disarray. Mr. Steimel noted that he agrees with this argument.

Mr. Faivre commented that he agrees with Mr. MacMurdo, but that he doesn’t feel that they go far enough. He gave as an example the Stahl Use Variation request, which he noted he had to vote to deny based on it not meeting criteria, however, he felt that "common sense" and everything else about he situation made him feel that the property would have been perfect for a house. He noted his vote was only to maintain consistency with the County’s rules, and that he feels that the regulation should be expanded to allow for situations such as this, for the times when "common sense" tells you that it makes sense for everything else.

Mr. Miller explained that it is an important point to note: when the Board creates an exception to a rule, it opens the door for uncertainty. He noted that the two extremes in this case: remove the rule so anything goes; or remove the exception so its "black and white", makes things simple and easy. The Use Variation proceed muddies this situation. He noted that when the Estate and Rural Residential Districts were eliminated, it was recognized that allowing these small parcels should not have houses on them, because of the costs of providing services to those houses, and the way in which these costs accumulate over time. Mr. Faivre responded that although he agreed overall, this was not the case with the Stahl property. He did not feel it would have added any more costs, and the Board had no room to allow "common sense" to come into the issue.

Mr. Miller explained that there is always a cost: if the Board approves this one based on it being close to other houses, then why not one on the next property and then the next, and so on. He noted that what reason would the Board would have no reason to stop anyone else from making the same argument, and that "common sense" is far too subjective a criteria.

Mr. Steimel noted that this is a "grey area", and asked whether there could be a sunset clause if they removed this rule. Ms. Vary noted that a sunset clauses had already been given from 1991 to 1993, and Mr. Miller noted 1993 was when the Use Variation procedure was put into place.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the question at hand was whether or not this loophole should be closed; he was looking for some direction from the Committee as to what to do next: are they fine with the regulation and he should leave it in as is; should he remove it; or if they are still thinking about it, should it be tabled for further discussion at the next meeting.

Mr. Slack noted that Councilman John Gudmunson was in the audience and asked him if he had any questions. Mr. Gudmunson asked if Mrs. Mazion could sell the 12 acres she is to build a house on, and rebuild again. Mr. Miller noted that property could not be legally split the property without rezoning the property.

Mr. Miller then addressed the third item, 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, under the current language, a Variation could be sought from the requirement that the County Board makes the decision on a zone change. 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. He added that he has discussed this change with the Hearing Officers, who agreed that it made sense.

Mr. Steimel commented that he agreed with Mr. Miller’s arguments.

Mr. Faivre asked Mr. Miller who would be affected by this change. Mr. Miller indicated that only one person would have been affected.

Mr. Miller then moved to address the question of whether or not to eliminate "agricultural labor housing" from the A-1 District. 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 may be 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.

Mr. Lyle noted Illini Farms as an example of some actual farm labor housing. Mr. Miller also noted that the Schelkopf farms has farm labor housing, but that there aren’t many others. He went to add that no one is coming to the County for approval for agricultural labor housing, and that it is hard to regulate these uses.

Mr. Miller commented that if the Committee does not feel that the rule should be removed, then he would propose that the regulation be re-written to make agricultural labor housing an Interim Special Use instead of a permitted use. This would allow the County to better police and control such uses.

Mr. Steimel commented that many farmers are getting away from farm labor housing because of the headaches of dealing with them as tenants.

Mr. Miller noted that agricultural labor housing was once a Special Use, but that the Vidmar case, which said that the County could not regulate lot size. However, the County subsequently got the law changed so that they could, which Mr. Miller felt puts them back where they were.

Mr. Lyle asked whether the trailers currently being used for farm labor housing would have to be removed if they ceased the farm operation. Mr. Miller responded that the County would be limited in what actions it could take to force removal of the trailers. He did note that since the trailers were originally established with Special Uses, then the County may be in a position to revoke that Special Use and have them removed.

Mr. Lyle asked whether nurseries could have farm labor housing. Mr. Miller responded that a nursery by itself does not allow for any dwelling units, however, if the nursery was part of a farm or at least 80 acres and a farmhouse, then it could potentially have agricultural labor housing. But no such applications have been bought forth to the County.

Mr. Lyle then asked what impact eliminating this rule would have. Mr. Miller noted that it would mean that farm dwellings would be limited to one house per 40 acres.

Ms. Vary asked where are most of the laborers currently staying. Mr. Miller and Mr. Lyle both commented that many of them are currently living in apartments within the towns.

Mr. Miller then moved to the question as to allowing 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, and 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. Steimel asked whether staff ever has trouble identifying which is the front and the back yards. Mr. Miller responded that sometimes when both frontages are the same size, but typically, the facing of the house answers that question. He went on to point out that the matter is whether the accessory structure is between the house and the street, not the orientation of the house.

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. Steimel commented that he felt the proposed change makes sense.

Mr. Miller then commented that during last meetings discussion of this question, the question was raised why require anything at all. He noted that on further thought, he believed that it allowed the County to have some control and oversight of what the property owner is proposing to do. This would allow staff to require documentation and assurances from the property owner noting that they understand what they can and can not do, which puts the County in a better position to address any concerns that may come up from neighbors. Such documentation also prevents the property owner from claiming that they were unaware of the rules and regulations governing their use.

Mr. Faivre commented on the vote taken at the last County Board meeting changing the regulations so that anyone operating a business without the required permits would be fined, in the form of double fees on said permits. He noted that if an individual is operating a home office, then found out later that they were supposed to get a permit to do so, under the current rules, they are to cease operation immediately. Mr. Miller noted that staff’s current policy towards already operating businesses is that once they have been advised of the need for permits, as long as the business is actively taking steps to make an application for the appropriate permits or variations, they can continue to operate. Mr. Faivre pointed out this was Mr. Miller’s interpretation of the rules and that a future Planning Director might not feel this way and follow a more strict interpretation of the rules. Mr. Miller responded that the in office policy is a matter of record; additionally, the County Board has oversight over the Planning Director, which would allow them to either inform him that their interpretation is too stringent or to direct him to change the regulation.

Mr. Steimel commented that the activity would be in the residence, unlike the issue last month, where Mr. Larson operated his business out of a separate building. Mr. Steimel asked whether this change would apply to that situation. Mr. Miller responded that one of the changes he has proposed to the Zoning ordinance was to allow home occupations in accessory buildings.

Ms. Vary asked how does staff find out about home occupations that only require telephone connections. Mr. Miller noted that typically staff either receives a complaint or the property owner calls to inquire about it. Mr. Steimel asked how staff originally found out about Mr. Larson’s business. Mr. Miller informed him that neighbors had called in complaining about a number of commercial vehicles on his property.

Mr. Lyle commented that he didn’t see why people couldn’t do it, when there aren’t any delivery trucks and anything obvious going on.

Mrs. Dubin commented that with the new economy, many individuals are being forced to utilize their homes as their business locations to save rental costs, and that most didn’t realize that anything was required before starting their business.

Mrs. Allen commented that the only way the County would know is if people are honest and call in. Mr. Miller added that complaints would also make staff aware of these businesses.

Mr. Miller reiterated that what the change was recommending was that if a home business does not receive deliveries, if all they are doing is taking phone calls or doing computer work, and has no employees, then it is permitted. If they want to provide a service (such as a beauty parlor) or if it involves keeping stock or increased traffic, then it requires a Special Use. If it doesn’t involve any of these things, then staff could say that it is a permitted use, ask that they submit a letter stating: what they are doing; the address of the property; and their name. Staff could then issue a zoning permit.

Mr. Faivre asked there would be a fee associated with this zoning permit. Mr. Miller did not feel that it wouldn’t require a fee.

Finally, it was agreed that the Committee would continue its discussions on these and other possible changes to the Zoning Ordinance at its next meeting.