Kankakee Times

Kankakee County Planning, Zoning and Agriculture Committee met Aug. 21.

Here is the minutes provided by the committee:

Members Present

Mr. Olthoff, Mr. Fetherling, Mr. Washington, Mr. Kinzinger, Ms. Polk, Mr. Fairfield, Ms. Peters, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Swanson

Members Absent

Mr. Tholen, Mr. Payton, Ms. Dunbar, and Mr. Dunnill

In Attendance

 Board Members

Mr. Sirois and Mr. Wheeler

 Department Heads

Delbert Skimerhorn, Michelle Sadler, Ben Wilson and Erich Blair

 Media None

1. CalltoOrder/RollCall

The meeting was called to order by the Committee Chairman, Mr. Olthoff, at 9:00 a.m. Quorum present.

2. Public Comment

None

3. Approval of Minutes: July 17, 2019

Mr. Kinzinger made a motion to approve the minutes, and Mr. Washington seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

4. Building

 Building Report: July 2019

Mr. Skimerhorn reviewed and discussed the July 2019 report with the committee.

Ms. Peters made a motion to approve the report, and Mr. Fairfield seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

 Stormwater /MS4 Program Discussion

Mr. Skimerhorn asked the committee if there are any stormwater issues that they would like to discuss or make him aware of.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised the committee that he is working on an issue in River Bend Subdivision.

5. Zoning

• ZBA Case#19-05; request for a Special Use Permit#28 (Kennel) in the A1-Agriculture District on a parcel generally situated in Section 16 of Norton Township. The petitioners are Sheryl L & Jeffery D Brooks, property owners and applicants.

Mr. Skimerhorn presented the committee with maps and information. The Zoning board of appeals heard the case on August 12, 2019 and they voted 4-0 to recommend the approval.

Mr. Olthoff asked if there is a limitation on the number of animals for the kennel.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that the Department of Agriculture would have to approve requirements on their end; this is just for the special use permit.

Mr. Washington asked if any of the new laws pertain to this case after the kennel fire that took place. Mr. Skimerhorn stated he was unaware of the fire.

Mr. Wheeler stated that there is a new law that all kennels have to have a fire suppression system. Is that something that needs to be within the zoning requirements?

Mr. Skimerhorn stated that today the committee is approving the special use permit that can have conditions added. A condition could be that they must receive approval from the Department of Agriculture and provide that to the county.

Mr. Wheeler agreed.

Mr. Fetherling questioned the number of animals allowed.

Mr. Skimerhorn and Mr. Wheeler advised that would be determined by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Kinzinger made the motion to amend ZBA Case#19-05 to include the approval of requirements from the Department of Agriculture and a copy of the approval must be provided to the County, Mr. Washington seconded the motion. Motion carried with a voice vote.

Mr. Olthoff questioned if the new law required someone to be on the premises 24/7.

Mr. Smith stated that the announcement from the governor’s office stated that someone needed to be in the facility 24/7.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that this would be a regulation determined by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve, and Mr. Swanson seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

• ZBA Case#19-09; request for a Variance to Section 121-99 (Side Yard Setback) in the A1-Agricultural District on a parcel generally situated in Section 32 of Salina Township. The petitioner is Synergy Seeds, Incorporated, property owner and applicant.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that ZBA heard the case August 12th and ZBA recommended the approval with a vote of 4-0.

The committee reviewed the maps and reports.

Mr. Wheeler asked if there was proper space for fire equipment to access all of the building. Mr. Skimerhorn confirmed.

Mr. Kinzinger asked if there was a requirement for the walls to have fire retardants.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that the minimum requirement to not require a fire wall is 10 feet, which this would meet.

Mr. Fetherling made a motion to approve ZBA Case 19-09, and Mr. Wheeler seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

• Home Occupation Ordinance Amendments

Mr. Skimerhorn reviewed the current ordinance with the committee and discussed the proposed changes with the committee.

Mr. Skimerhorn stated the changes are noted in yellow and he is requesting that this committee approves sending the changed Ordinance to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and then back to the committee for final approval.

Mr. Kinzinger suggested having a health hazard condition considered when the ordinance is reviewed by ZBA.

Mr. Wheeler asked about the signage restrictions.

Mr. Wheeler suggested that ZBA consider the signage restriction to be determined by lot size.

Mr. Skimerhorn confirmed.

Mr. Kinzinger made a motion to approve sending the ordinance to the Zoning Board of Appeals for recommendations, Mr. Washington seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

• Cannabis Dispensary Discussion

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that with the new law going into effect on January 1st, 2020. The current ordinance was written using the act from the previous law for medicinal cultivators and dispensaries and included setbacks from schools, churches, playgrounds, etc. The new law does not include the same details. The Cannabis Dispensary ordinance should be reviewed so it is in line with the new law.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that the following should be considered:

What districts would be appropriate. Mr. Skimerhorn recommended that the ordinance stays as a special use permit in an effort to put specific conditions on a case by case basis.

Mr. Kinzinger wanted to clarify that this ordinance cooperates with the State guidelines and the state laws would take precedence. He would like to keep everything kept the way it is and each case could have specific conditions placed with the special use permit.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that the old statute had limitations and the new statute does not have any limitations, such as being 1,000 feet away from a church. These are restrictions that most constituents would want to have.

Mr. Kinzinger retracted his previous comment and stated that he misunderstood; he would like to see things more restrictive than less.

Mr. Skimerhorn went back to making recommendations to the committee.

Which districts would you like to allow them in?

Will it be a permitted use, or special use permit?

Would there be a lot size restriction. Mr. Skimerhorn advised that a minimum is 20,000 square feet and feel that is appropriate.

Should it be setback from other uses? Such as schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, etc. The recommendation is 1,000 feet.

Mr. Skimerhorn added that the ordinance has not been drafted yet, but at this point he is looking for guidance and recommendations as to what the committee would want. This ordinance, once drafted, would come back to the committee for approval.

Mr. Fetherling asked if there are other counties that have anything finalized.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that every county is writing their ordinances now. There is a lot of discussion happening.

Mr. Fetherling questioned if dispensaries need to be allowed at all.

Mr. Skimerhorn stated that it does not have to be allowed at all, but is best to allow it somewhere. It should be listed in the ordinance somewhere for legal reasons.

Mr. Wheeler read some clarification for the county board members to make their decisions. Mr. Wheeler advised that the County could say the tax revenue would go to the municipalities and the unincorporated areas will not have the dispensaries at all. The big question is if we shut the door now or make decisions on a case by case basis.

Mr. Sirois asked if there could be an annual special use permit fee that could be renewed annually. Also, Mr. Sirois stated that a 1,000 feet setback from schools is not far enough.

Mr. Olthoff stated that he liked the idea of sending it to the municipalities.

Mr. Fetherling stated that in the country, most would not want a dispensary because of the security risk.

Mr. Skimerhorn stated that there are security measures in place. It requires 24 hour security.

Mr. Skimerhorn added that the current ordinance states that it could not be shared with another business. For example, you couldn’t put the dispensary with a liquor store, shopping mall, etc.

Consideration needs to be made for hours of operation, signage, and exterior facades.

Mr. Olthoff stated that if it is given to municipalities, than none of this would concern us at all. Mr. Skimerhorn agreed and stated at that point it would be an easy ordinance to write.

Mr. Fetherling asked how much of the money is expected to come back to the county. Is it a couple cents that will come back to the county like the motor fuel tax?

Mr. Wheeler stated that the tax discussion is for the finance committee, but it is relevant for the current discussion. The county can impose up to a 3.75% tax if it is in the county and municipalities are limited to 3% and the county would receive.75% of the municipal tax revenue. There is a $50,000 application fee for a dispensary with a required $100,000 secured for charity donation required for the ones who will operate or own a dispensary.

Mr. Smith stated that he would like to make a motion that it is not allowed in the county. Mr. Fairfield seconded the motion.

Ms. Peters stated that she would like to not see it here, but it wouldn’t be smart to shut it down at this point. We should continue to let Mr. Skimerhorn work on writing the ordinance and then put it out there to our constituents and vote on it at county board with a larger group.

Mr. Olthoff said that it would go to full board either way.

Mr. Kinzinger agreed with Ms. Peters. Saying no could be dangerous, saying yes could be dangerous. We should make it very restrictive.

Mr. Smith stated if you look at the northern suburbs, they are continuously saying no to the dispensaries.

Mr. Washington stated, “The animal that you know is much more controllable than the animal that you don’t know”.

Mr. Smith restated his motion to not allow cannabis operations in the unincorporated area.

Mr. Sirois commented that he doesn’t want the board to turn away revenue that maybe we would capture even though the municipalities would approve it. It would be money that we would be saying no to; understanding everyone’s feelings towards it, but it is revenue that could be captured in the county too.

Mr. Olthoff stated we would still get.75% if the municipalities approved the dispensaries.

Ms. Peters wanted to clarify that if she votes yes, then does that not allow Mr. Skimerhorn to go forward putting things together.

Mr. Olthoff stated that Mr. Skimerhorn would put together that the county will not allow it and then the full county board would discuss it and come to a conclusion.

There was a motion on the floor by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Fairfield. Mr. Olthoff requested a roll call vote.

The motion tied with a vote of 5 ayes and 5 nays. Voting Aye was: Mr. Olthoff, Ms. Peters, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Fairfield and Mr. Smith. Voting Nay was: Mr. Fetherling, Mr. Washington, Ms. Polk, Mr. Swanson, and Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. Wheeler asked if the recommendations would go to Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Skimerhorn confirmed.

Mr. Wheeler stated that the County Board will still have a chance to say no on a full vote. So, it is recommended that ZBA prepares the ordinance and then this committee could recommend not approving it or approving it. This will allow Mr. Skimerhorn to do the work, have it considered by ZBA, this committee, and then the full board. It seems that if it ties, then let Mr. Skimerhorn do the work.

Mr. Skimerhorn stated he can put the ordinance together, run it through the public hearing process, see what the ZBA has to say about it and then bring it back to this committee.

Mr. Fetherling suggested that we do research on other counties and what they are doing. Mr. Skimerhorn stated that he is in constant contact with other counties.

Mr. Wheeler stated that other counties in other states put a lot of taxation on top of what the state had done and it actually expanded the black market. So the dispensaries lost business to the black market. That is why Illinois limited the amount of taxation, so it would protect the legal tax stream versus the black market. So looking at other states will not be comparing apples to apples.

Mr. Wheeler stated that the next discussion will be in finance to discuss the taxation, but why have that conversation if the board decides to not allow dispensaries.

Mr. Olthoff asked if there have been any inquiries on dispensaries in unincorporated Kankakee.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that there have been at least three phone calls with landowners considering it.

Mr. Washington stated that looking at where the county is now and looking at where we have been, is it not foolish to want to turn down any legitimate source of income to build the counties resources from this point on.

Mr. Olthoff stated that after the discussions today, Mr. Skimerhorn will draft an ordinance, have it go through ZBA and then bring it back to this committee. Does this committee agree?

There were no objections from the committee.

6. Planning

• Hazard Mitigation Plan Grant Opportunity

Mr. Skimerhorn reviewed the Hazard Mitigation Plan Grant opportunity with the board and advised that this will go to Finance Committee next week with this committee’s approval.

Ms. Peters made the motion to approve, and Mr. Washington seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

• Kankakee River Valley Enterprise Zone – City of Kankakee

Mr. Ben Wilson spoke about the Kankakee River Valley Enterprise Zone and advised that the agreement was just received. This is for the Riverfront project and they are requesting $30,000 of the Enterprise Zone funds. The contract will be with the county. The money will be paid out of the general fund, and then reimbursed by the Enterprise Zone.

Mr. Kinzinger made a motion to approve, and Mr. Washington seconded it. Motion carried with a roll call vote of 10-0. Voting Aye was: Mr. Olthoff, Mr. Fetherling, Mr. Washington, Mr. Kinzinger, Ms. Polk, Mr. Fairfield, Ms. Peters, Mr. Smith, Mr. Swanson and Mr. Wheeler.

• 2019 CLG Grant – Authorizing County Board Chairman to Sign Agreement with Consultant

Ms. Michelle Sadler reviewed the CLG grant with the committee. The committee reviewed and discussed the agreement with the board.

Mr. Washington made a motion authorizing the county board chairman to sign an agreement with the consultant, and Mr. Fairfield seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

7. GIS

• Aerial Photography

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that every 5 years the GIS will get aerial photography done. In the committee packets are proposals for the committee to review. There are four different options that GIS is seeking proposals on. Mr. Skimerhorn reviewed and discussed the verbiage within the various proposals.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that the range could vary from $120,000 to $240,000. This would be from the GIS fund for this operation, this has been stock piled for this reason. There are also some grants that are available and have been applied for. The GIS system will coordinate with the new NG 911 system that the state is mandating.

Mr. Washington commented on how important this operation is and the progress in technology is progressing rapidly.

Mr. Kinzinger questioned if there are other ways of doing this and if they have been researched.

Mr., Skimerhorn advised that this is the best way to have completed. While subscriptions are available, the methods have not been tested.

Mr. Olthoff asked what the pixels are for Google Earth.

Mr. Skimerhorn advised that it depends on where you are within the country; some are 12 inch while others are 3 inch. There are limitations and you must pay for google earth access.

Mr. Fetherling made a motion to approve sending to the Finance Committee, and Mr. Washington seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

8. Transportation

• Rural Transit Update

Mr. Wilson reviewed and discussed the rural transit update with the committee. There were no questions or comments from the committee.

9. Old Business

None

10. New Business

Mr. Sirois asked if Mike Zenz had spoken with Mr. Skimerhorn about a stormwater issue within his district. Mr. Skimerhorn advised that he had not spoken to Mr. Zenz, but he can be contacted at any time.

Mr. Sirois commented that he would refer Mr. Zenz to Mr. Skimerhorn to discuss the stormwater issue.

11. Adjournment

Ms. Peters made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 a.m., and Ms. Polk seconded it. Motion carried with a voice vote.

http://www.co.kankakee.il.us/files/committees/pza_82119.pdf