Inconsideration

The public hearing began with an explanation by Hearing Officer, Ron Klein, of topics that were not going to be covered. Someone started rumors that Wind Farms and the 40-acre Rule were part of the hearing. Klein wanted those who might have came to the midday meeting on proposed zoning amendments. because they heard those rumors. to know that the issue of the Wind Farms or the 40-acre rule were not going to be discussed.

When public comments began Mel Haas from Malta set the record straight on who started the rumor. He produced documents published for the County Board to the public that referenced a proposal to:

Amend Section 4.02.C., the A-1 District special uses, to add “large (capacity of more than 100kW per hour) wind energy system(s)” to the examples of possible “essential service structure” — SOURCE: dekalbcounty.org

The item was pulled by someone and Haas wanted to know who that person was and what the procedure for removing the item was. Klein didn’t know so he referred the question to the zoning administrator, Paul Miller, who asked the Hearing Officer if he really had to answer that question. Klein didn’t see the point in answering, neither did Miller. Haas was told he could get an answer after the public hearing.

According to Haas, after the meeting Miller offered the explanation that county board members became concerned about the wind farm issue upon hearing from their constituents plus the State’s Attorney’s office advised against having an item on public hearing that was the subject of litigation. Haas is a member of a citizen group that is suing the DeKalb County Board on issues related to NextEnergy’s wind farm in the southern part of the county.

Although the removal of the wind farm issue was announced on the County’s website on Friday, July 15 (according to Haas), there were members of the audience who didn’t know which page on the website that announcement was on. Others from the southern part of the county told the hearing officer that they don’t all read the Daily Chronicle, many read the Sandwich Record, she said. Miller replied that the County was doing the best it could do.

Some think the County does only the minimum required by law when it comes to public notification.

One man named Paul approached Larry Anderson (Dist 1), chair of the DeKalb County Board, after the public hearing concluded. Paul had taken the day off, without pay, to attend the hearing because of the wind farm issue. He wouldn’t be as upset if it was an evening meeting. That would only mean a waste of his time. Anderson told Paul that Paul Miller and the appointed staff set the meeting times. But Anderson reminded Paul that he could always talk to his county board member.

After Anderson walked away from the dialog, Paul turned to me and said, “Well, he’s (Anderson) my board member. I’ve sent him at least three emails. He’s responded to none. I did talk to him about the wind farms on the phone once. He told me what I could do with myself.”

Once the wind farm question was debated by Haas, Klein and Miller during the public hearing the rest of the meeting seemed to be devoted to the County’s 40-acre rule. Staff appears to be reducing the property rights the government gives its citizens by eliminating any and all variances to the 40-acre rule.

One factor that staff would like the county board to consider:

Litigation following denial of a Use Variation by the County Board puts the question before a judge who may or may not understand the history of Use Variations, and who in any event is then in the position of making a land use decision that is intended to be the province of the legislature. If Use Variations are not an option, property owners who seek to build on parcels of less than 40 acres in size cannot appeal to courts for administrative review. They would instead have to challenge the authority of the County to set a minimum lot size at all, and that authority is overt in the State statutes.

Citizens would still be able to file suit if they thought the County somehow erred or short changed them in a zoning matter related to a variance request. They just wouldn’t be able to ask the courts for an administrative review because, as Miller explained, the judges don’t really know what they’re role is. They’d just have to prevail in a challenge of the authority of the County to set a minimum lot size at all, and that authority is overt in the State statutes.

Do you know who your County Board member is? Did you know all 24 board members are up for your consideration in the 2012 elections?