The DeKalb County Board controls the use of land outside the municipal boundaries through its zoning regulations. The County is now proposing updates to its Zoning Ordinance following the adoption of the Unified Comprehensive Plan in May of 2011. Before the updated Zoning Ordinance can be approved by the County Board, a public hearing must be held.
The required minimum of one public hearing will be held on Thursday, July 21, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Conference Room East in the DeKalb County Administration Building located at 110 E. Sycamore Street in Sycamore. This will be the only opportunity for public input on this zoning application.
The petition, DC-11-09, is available for inspection at the DeKalb County Planning Department, 110 East Sycamore Street, Sycamore, IL 60178 (815) 895-7188.
The complete text of the proposed changes to DeKalb County Zoning Ordinance may be viewed at the DeKalb County website by clicking here.
Here’s some samples of the proposed text amendments:
Eliminate Section 10.02, Use Variations
Section 10.01.D. of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that the Hearing Officer shall not grant a Variation from minimum required lot size. This regulation is primarily intended to protect the integrity of the 40-acre rule for farm dwellings in the A-1, Agricultural District.
However, Section 10.02 creates the possibility for just such lot size Variations. The “Use Variation” represents possible relief from the 40-acre minimum lot size under certain specific conditions. This Amendment is to eliminate the Use Variation provisions from the Zoning Ordinance.
Here’s the logic behind the change:
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.
Some might argue that the judicial system is the checks and balances citizens have against occasional overzealous legislature. There have been very few requests for variance from the 40-acre rule. Rarely are the courts involved. Perhaps the Zoning Administrator does not like his authority to be challenged?
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”
How are those wind farms working out? How much revenue has the County received from their deal with Florida Power and Light (NextEra)? Is the wind power industry as it currently exists a source for renewable energy or another source of corporate welfare? Does adding large capacity wind energy systems as an essential service structure open the barn door for corporate wind farmers in waiting? Does adding such language prevent a question from getting in front of a judge who may not know or understand DeKalb County’s wind farm history?
Best question saved for last: How has the wind farms impacted the lives and properties of the neighbors who didn’t sign confidentiality contracts?
Mark July 21, 2011 on your calendar. The 1pm start is inconvenient and expensive for those who don’t get paid to attend such meetings. But it is the final opportunity for the public to have input.
Click Here To Submit A News Tip Or Story
2 Comments
I haven’t been involved in the wind farm or it’s approval. I am sure there are some people that don’t like it for a variety of reasons. However, what is the alternative another nuclear plant or more coal burning power plants? There are problems with each type but we all rely on electricity.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The wind farm changes to the amendments were removed from the Public Hearing agenda pending litigation
@Stephen, I am a proponent of wind as a renewable source of energy. I accept that the government must provide incentive to initiate new advancements in renewable energy. But government should lead that path not the corporations. That might be so in practice at the federal level but it is not so at the local level.
It’s my understanding that we are in year two of a three-year “period of assessment” for the wind farms. I was glad to see the wind farm language removed from the amendments. A period of assessment should include full public discourse and analysis of the impact and effects of the existing wind farm before any thought is given toward expansion.
I don’t live near a wind turbine. Those who do should have an unfettered voice in its evaluation. Paid silence is a factor here and it is government sanctioned. We deserve better.