Du Page County Development Committee met June 2.
Here is the agenda provided by the committee:
1. CALL TO ORDER
10:30 AM meeting was called to order by Chair Sam Tornatore at 10:30 AM.
A. Please turn all beepers, pagers and cell phones "off" or to "vibrate" during the meeting
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chaplin (Remote), Covert (Remote), Hart (Remote), Ozog (Remote), Rutledge, Tornatore
ABSENT:
3. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS -CHAIR TORNATORE
Chairman Tornatore welcomed everyone back to the Development Meeting to those in person and those Members who are joining the Meeting virtually.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person, at the beginning of the meeting. Any comment on Zoning items must be limited to discussion of testimony and/or evidence presented in the Zoning Board of Appeals. No new testimony or evidence can be presented.
Melanie Grussenmeyer is also in favor and feels that proposed option #2 is the best for all residents and not as restrictive as option #1, which would allow more residents to keep hens if they want.
Edgar Pal is in support of hen keeping.
Anton Dimov is currently on a pilot chicken program in incorporated Villa Park. So far no issues with noise or attracting other animals, which is are both reasons some people are against residential hen keeping.
Amy Field is in support and feels that a property owner should have the right to utilize their land in order to provide food for their family. She added chickens with proper care are a very positive addition to your backyard. She included some suggestions to the 3 different options proposed by the County.
* Laura Ryan, is in support of hen keeping and feels they would be a welcome addition to her neighborhood, bring simple joy to the neighbors and make people more environmentally sustainable
*This comment was received after the Public Comment portion of the meeting and was not read at that time.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Mar 17, 2020 10:30 AM
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sheila Rutledge, District 6
SECONDER: Elizabeth Chaplin, Vice Chair
AYES: Chaplin, Covert, Hart, Ozog, Rutledge, Tornatore
REGULATORY SERVICES
A. Action Item -- T-1-20 Text Amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance relative to allowing Hens on residential zoned properties Request to proceed with a Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing to consider proposed Text Amendments to the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance relative to chickens.
Chair Tornatore started the discussion with explaining the Committee's task, as giving direction to the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a public hearing on the issue of residential chickens, at which time they would refer it back to the Development Committee and a recommendation would be made to the County Board.
Chair Tornatore asked Paul Hoss to give the Committee an overview of the issue. Mr. Hoss referred the Members to look at the packets that were distributed. Included are a memo that includes general information, the current zoning code, code enforcement, and regulations for consideration. In Exhibit #1 it explains where the proposed changes would go in the ordinance. Next is a memorandum that goes over the pros and cons that we have discovered though discussion with municipalities and the other collar counties. Included are applications for the Village of Bartlett and the County of McHenry, which both allow the keeping of residential chickens. The last pages are the research collected by the Zoning Department when spoke with municipalities and counties about their regulations. The Zoning Department has put together 3 proposals. He continuned, first it needs decided whether to allow chickens, then should they be allowed as a right, or by some zoning entitlement, like a conditional use. The first proposal would allow just hens and in single family residential districts only. The number of hens would be limited to 4. The setback requirements would be a 30 ft setback from all property lines and behind the front wall of the house, which is consistent with our current 4-H regulations. Slaughtering of chickens would not be allowed on the property. The second proposal has all those same regulations in place, but it would require a zoning entitlement through the conditional use process. The homeowner would go through vetting, have a public hearing and notice would be given in the newspaper and to neighbors within 300 ft of the subject property. The County Development Committee would the review the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation and make their own to the County Board for the final decision. The third option is a combination of the two previous, but would also include the current requirements of 4-H project members, but on a lot that is less than 40, 000 sq. ft., which is the current requirement.
Member Rutledge stated she knows that this issue has been brought up before for consideration, but believes now under current conditions, it is time to institute a hen keeping ordinance. She added that she thinks the #2 option is the best, but, believes the number of hens allowed should be raised to 6. She encouraged the other Members to vote in favor of moving this forward.
Member Covert had a question about the possibility of having a community coop, if the current 3 options were not to pass. Chair Tornatore said anything is a possibility. Paul Hoss explained that currently there are community farmettes in the County , because they have larger sized lots. To be able to do that on a smaller scale, would take more work, but is certainly doable.
County Board Member Dawn DeSart inquired about the 4 hen rule being based on the zoning regulation of four pets, would that include household pet?. Mr. Hoss explained that the zoning regulation could be written that 4 pets are allowed, plus up to 4 hens.
Member Chaplin, inquired if they would go with option #2, would an application need to be filled out? Mr. Hoss replied that yes they could require that, just like the examples given in the packet, an application would verify that the property owner is willing to comply with all the codes and also authorizes inspections by the County. Or it could be offered as a right, with no application. Member Chaplin asked if the property owner could request to have more than 4 chickens? Mr. Hoss replied that they could have a conditional use to add more chickens. She also wondered about if the coop is necessary? Mr. Hoss stated any enclosure in a fenced in area or inside of a building would need to be a certain number of feet from property lines. If they choose not to have a coop, they would still need to meet those distance requirements.
Chair Tornatore asked Mr. Hoss if the Committee is required to choose one option to send onto the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hoss replied that its possible to send all 3 options to ZBA to be publicly vetted.
Member Ozog brought up the Melanie Grussenmeyer, who submitted a public comment. She spoke to her previously about this issue and how her zoning request was denied for chickens at County Board. She feels that #2 is the best option.
She also requested more information about the minimum size of lots required. Mr. Hoss said there is no minimum on lot size, but they must meet setbacks required for the #2 option. The required setbacks are based on agriculturally zoned and 4-H properties, which has worked so far for the County.
Member Hart thinks it is about time that this issued was revisited and is in favor of #2.
Chair Tornatore has a concern with the pushback they may get from neighbors, if chickens become a matter of right.
Member Chaplin brought up the option of sending all 3 proposals to the Zoning Board of Appeals, so that there can be community input.
Chair Torntore liked the idea of sending all three options onto the ZBA for consideration. Members were all in agreement with this. He entertained a motion to amend this to send all 3 options to the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration.. Member Hart moved and Member Covert seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sheila Rutledge, District 6
SECONDER: Elizabeth Chaplin, Vice Chair
AYES: Chaplin, Covert, Hart, Ozog, Rutledge, Tornatore
7. OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business
8. NEW BUSINESS
There was no New Business
9. ADJOURNMENT
Without Objection the Meeting was Adjourned at 11:30 AM
http://dupage.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=7275&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up