Carroll County Zoning Board of Appeals met Feb. 3.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
Meeting was called to order at 6:27 p.m. by Clark VanBuskirk the ZBA chair. Roll call was taken showing Zoning Board Members Don Swanson, Clark VanBuskirk, Penny Kreusch and Paul Skoog present. Alternate ZBA member Steve Dykstra was also in attendance. Present representing the county was Jeremy Hughes. No members of the public were present. The minutes of the previous ZBA meeting held 01.06.2020 were called for approval, there was no discussion and the minutes were approved as read.
Notice for this public hearing circulated in the Carroll County Review the week of January 21st 2020.
The meeting was turned over to Jeremy as to address the purpose of the hearing. The first item on the agenda was the continuation of discussion on the new Zoning Ordinance Chapter 735 pertaining to Adult-Use Cannabis Business Establishments. Jeremy explained that the goal of the discussion was
to review and approve a recommendation to the county board for a final draft of the ordinance.
Once again, there was considerable discussion pertaining to specifics of the ordinance, including identifying sensitive areas and the written setback requirements. It was discussed that the setbacks are one of the few methods the state has given local governments to regulate the location of such businesses and that the goal in having setbacks from areas deemed as sensitive is to alleviate concerns of having an adult business in close proximity to locations that could be viewed in line of sight from schools and other locations that youth commonly occupy. It is also to protect a homeowner who may not want such a business immediately located next to their home. The setback distances from sensitive areas were reviewed and it was agreed upon that the distance should be more uniform between the various types of cannabis businesses. The allotted zoning districts for each business type were reviewed. At the previous meeting it was indicated that the preference of the ZBA for Cultivation centers would be to include it under the special use of Agricultural (ag-1) district (which in the former draft of the ordinance it had not been).
Discussion continued onto the requirements of information needed from the petitioner at the time of application of special use, and why such requirements were a part of the process. The concerns centered around making the application process as objective as possible when reviewing applicant information. The suggestions that were made at the previous meeting were discussed and several of the requirements were struck from the ordinance or reworded as to make the information requirements more objective to a potential applicant.
The last item of discussion was including an exclusion for the process of variation from the setback requirements. The decision was unanimous that variation should not be allowed and that if any setback distances should be modified in the future that it should be done by amending the ordinance and not by variance on a case by case basis.
The motion was made and seconded to recommend approval to the County Board for the ordinance chapter 735 “Adult-Use Cannabis Special Use”. The motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item on the agenda was Chapter 360 Building Regulations. A spreadsheet that showed the cost of various building permits from the local Jo Daviess, Whiteside, Stephenson and Ogle Counties was reviewed and discussed, showing how Carroll County compares to the local fees and policies. Jeremy then went through the redline items of the ordinance that were up for a possible change/discussion. Those items included:
1.) Requiring structures that are 64 sq. ft. or less to obtain building permits. There has been some confusion from the public on which structures require permits and which do not. In an attempt to clarify, the new position will be that all structures (permanent and non-permanent) of any size will be required to pull a building permit.
2.) Adding roof mounted solar to the requirement of pulling a building permit. There has been a dramatic increase in residential scale solar projects and as an attempt to keep track of the locations implementing solar, we would like to start documenting roof mounted solar in the same manner that is being used for ground mounted solar.
3.) Re-write of a sentence that relays the same meaning, that permits are allowed to be renewed for no fee when construction has already started. Permits that are issued that have not begun construction will be charged a permit fee every year that a renewal is needed.
4.) Setting a sq. ft. building size for the cost of a building permit. All structures less than 400 sq. ft. will pay a $10 building permit fee. All structures 400 sq. ft. and greater will pay a $50 building permit fee. This does not apply to additions to a structure which are set at $50 regardless of square footage.
5.) Increasing the $10.00 permit fee to $20.00 for swimming pools, decks, utility sheds, car ports and all structures less than 400 sq. ft.
6.) Adding a permit fee for agricultural structures. There was discussion that the fee could possibly be set higher than $50.00. A permit fee of $50 or $100 were discussed, currently there is no permit fee for an Agricultural Structure.
7.) Increasing the fee for Land Evaluation Site Assessment being set at $75, the justification also included a desire to go on sight for any LESA request, double checking slope calculations and taking a picture to add to the LESA reports kept on file. There is about 10 LESA reports done each year. It was noted that Soil and Water also offer LESA reports and charge a $150 fee.
8.) Increasing the fee for Wind Energy Special Use public hearing from $500 to $800. 9.) Modifying the fee for Commercial Solar, something that was already done with the adoption of Chapter 725 SOLAR FARMS. Just cleans up the language to make the policies match.
10.) Modifying a building permit late fee from twice to three times the cost of original permit. The current policy establishes that a late fee shall be paid and a permit obtained for a structure found to be built without permit. If the request to comply is not met within the given timeframe a violation case hearing is scheduled with the circuit court and a fine of $500 may be imposed by the court for each offense until the building permit requirement is met.
11.) Increase the fee from $500 to $1000 for a non-complaint variance, only to apply when a structure has been built and has a non-compliant issue that requires a variance.
12.) Striking section 360-9 fine for an Ag structure built without permit of $25 to striking this section and using the same policy for all structures, which is twice three times the cost of the original permit.
After introduction of the items up for review/modification, there was some debate in discussion. Specifically, there was varied opinions on the permit fees. There were several recommendations made that the permit fees be modified in a way to better reflect a fair and more equal cost based on the work required for administration and review of the building permit application process. Several of those ideas discussed included setting a flat fee for all construction types and another was setting a fee based on the square footage or size of the building project.
After a lengthy debate and discussion, the ZBA decided to make a recommendation that the county board approve all modifications of Chapter 360, excluding permit fee modifications listed in Sec. 360 (A) # 1 through 5 of the ordinance. All other items of list have been recommended for approval. The ZBA agreed that more work should be done to address the various ideas of modification of permit fees.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM.
https://www.carroll-county.net/vertical/sites/%7B7FC08AB3-4BE5-4C4B-891B-83D2782F3DCA%7D/uploads/ZBA_Minutes_02.03.2020.pdf
Alerts Sign-up