editor's note: It's with pleasure that I present the
following response from Paul Miller regarding the concerns
expressed in this forum. Several readers contributed thoughtful
concerns they had about the proposed changes in the DeKalb
County Zoning Ordinance.
I encourage you to continue to express your thoughts regarding
the proposed changes in any forum available, public or private.
A representative government performs best when it receives input
from the people it represents.
comments: 6
December 8, 2004
Mr. McIntyre;
Thank you for forwarding some of the correspondence you have
received regarding the proposed changes to the DeKalb County
Zoning Ordinance. For your use, I offer the following feedback
to some of the questions raised:
1. The subdivision that was proposed in 1996 along Plank Road
was denied by the County, and the County prevailed in court when
the developer sued. It cost thousands of dollars. The changes
being proposed for the Zoning Ordinance will not stop the County
from being sued, nor make it any cheaper to defend its
decisions. But County staff believes it will increase the
County's chances of prevailing in court, and thereby defending
the growth policies that were expressed by hundreds of people,
and endorsed by the County and 13 municipalities, when the
current Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
2. The County cannot simply pass an ordinance that says it will
not approve new subdivisions. State zoning law allows that any
person may petition for a change to any of the existing zoning
districts in the Zoning Ordinance. As long as the County has
straight residential, business and manufacturing zones that
apply to existing houses and businesses, developers can request,
and reasonably expect to be granted, the same zoning district
for new uses. One real concern is that if the County continues
to deny new applications for residential zoning, a developer
could argue that the County is discriminating against new
residents, an argument that may be compelling to some judges. By
"grandfathering" the existing houses and businesses, the County
makes it clear that those properties and uses are okay and may
remain, but more of the same is not accommodated by the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Staff has heard the concern that underwriters and mortgage
companies may charge a higher rate of interest or increased fees
if a property is legal, nonconforming (grandfathered). Staff
notes that there are hundreds of properties throughout DeKalb
County that are now, and have for many years been, legal,
nonconforming. Appraisers, realtors and attorneys involved in
pending sales visit the Planning, Zoning and Building Department
every day to check zoning, and in no case has it been pointed
out that the legal, nonconforming status of a property has
compelled a higher interest rate or greater fees. In fact, on
average, two dozen farm houses are divided from the farm fields
every year, each one being made legal, nonconforming, and never
has the seller or buyer indicated that the zoning status has
cost them money. Staff will, however, attempt to get more
information from mortgage brokers to see if this is a legitimate
concern and, if so, whether or not the possible costs are
significant.
4. Just to clarify, it is not that there has been no
applications for new subdivisions in eight years; no new
subdivision has been approved by the County Board in eight
years. The County has received applications, and denied each of
them. One is the matter of a pending law suit. Every month staff
fields calls from developers, some of whom have options on large
farms and are proposing hundreds of new houses. Because of the
existing policies, staff has been able to direct most of these
toward the cities, where the Comprehensive Plan says growth
should occur. There is no guarantee staff will continue to be
successful in doing this. Staff believes the proposed rezoning
of all properties to the A-1 District will help continue to
implement this approach toward growth.
There is no particular hurry to the proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Regulations Committee of the
County Board and staff has been working on possible changes for
over six months. Each of the meetings have been open to the
public, and the agendas have been published. The County is
listening very carefully to what property owners, the public,
and other interested persons have to say about these proposed
changes. The Open House meetings conducted in Waterman, Genoa
and Sycamore were intended for two-way conversation, and
throughout the process, the draft regulations have been revised
when legitimate issues have been pointed out. The draft
regulations have also been reviewed by the State's Attorney's
office, and by other planning and zoning experts. The December
16 public hearing will be followed by the issue going again
before the Planning and Regulations Committee, and then before
the full County Board. All interested persons are encouraged to
attend the public hearing (December 16, 1:00 p.m., in the DeKalb
County Legislative Center at 200 N. Main Street, Sycamore) and
be heard.
5. You were correct with your response to the individual who
suggested that the proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance is
driven by the "anti-growth" people. DeKalb County is not
anti-growth and never has been. It is in favor of controlled
growth. That is why it endorses the growth plans of each of the
communities, including the Village of Waterman, by lifting those
individual city growth plans and inserting them into the County
plan. The County believes the cities have the right to grow as
they see fit, whether that means a lot of growth or none at all.
Again, thanks for taking the time to forward some of the
comments regarding this possible change to me. I encourage you
to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Although there are always some who will assume that the County
is up to something sneaky, the fact is that this process is and
has been very open, and participation by the public is strongly
encouraged.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Miller
DeKalb County Planning Director
Comments:
Zip Code: 60115
<The Open House meetings conducted in Waterman, Genoa and
Sycamore were intended for two-way conversation, and throughout
the process, the draft regulations have been revised when
legitimate issues have been pointed out. >
I was at one of
those meetings. Mr. Miller's attitude seemed to be one more of
disgust with residents' concerns than of two-way conversation.
Can he tell us specifically what changes were made to the
Ordinance as a result of issues pointed out at those meetings?
editor's
response: To defend not only county staff but municipal
staff in DeKalb, Sycamore, Genoa and Waterman who have worked on
comprehensive plans... They put an inordinate amount of time
into the plan and exert a lot of effort in trying to get the
public to pay attention to what is going on and to offer their
input. But it seems that we don't really pay close attention
until we figure out how it might impact us. These proposed
changes are an effort to complete the county's comprehensive
planning and future land use. I support the county's future land
use plan, that incorporates each of the municipality's
comprehensive plans. I do not support the unilateral rezoning of
all unincorporated areas to A-1 and that is based on the input I
am receiving from readers, like you.
Zip Code: 60552
I'm glad to hear that staff is going to ask experts for input
before going ahead with this. Nonconforming can affect mortgage
rates, it can affect insurance rates and it can affect the
ability to sell.
Paul Miller response: In response to concerns raised at the
Genoa open house meeting, staff interviewed representatives of
lending institutions (mortgage companies and banks), realtors,
appraisers, a representative from a title company, and a
mortgage broker, in order to get a better handle on the concern
that rezoning property to the A-1 District, which would make
properties "legal, nonconforming," might have negative impacts
on the cost of selling or refinancing a house. The conclusion is
that as long as the County rules allow that the house may be
rebuilt if it burns down, the vast majority of underwriters will
have no problem with the "legal, nonconforming" status of those
properties. Both the lenders and the appraisers agreed that it
would be unlikely that a "legal, nonconforming" status of
rezoned properties would result in higher fees, higher interest
rates, or lower loan-to-value. Apparently, very few underwriters
actually look at zoning; the majority simply want to know that
the loan is protected should the house be damaged or destroyed.
Another follow-up to a concern from the open houses dealt with
what property owners who have lots of two acres or more in size
might need to do to allow horses on properties that had
previously been zoned residential (which does not allow horses).
Staff confirmed that the regulations allow that any lot of two
acres or more in size may have farm animals, regardless of its
prior zoning.
Zip Code: 60115
Whoa!!! The county is getting sued??? That's big news. Who is
suing the county and why doesn't the public know about this?
Which developer is suing the county? This should be public
record. Why hasn't this news been in the newspapers?
Paul Miller response: The County is
being sued for denying the application of Janice K. Nelson for a
Planned Development-Residential project on a 30-acre tract of
land located on the east side of Somonauk Road, south of I-88.
Zip Code: 60134
Since the County is obviously reading these comments will they
be recorded as public input? I cannot make the public hearing on
the 16th. If I had court on that date I would ask for a
continuance.
Zip Code: 60115
Mr. Miller said, "throughout the process, the draft regulations
have been revised when legitimate issues have been pointed out."
The link to the PDF version of article 8 of these changes has
been on the county website throughout the three Open Houses.
Each of these Open Houses were well attended and many legitimate
concerns were expressed. Article 8 has not changed. Could he
specifically point to a change?
Zip Code: 60115
Janice Nelson is not a deep pocketed developer. She owns the
land in question. It can't be used as farm land.
