Loading...
1983-03-14 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS , HELD MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1983, AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS. Temporary Chairman Marienthal called the meeting to order at 9:13 P.M. Roll call indicated the following present: Trustees Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, (erschefske, and Schwartz. President Clayton was absent. Also present were: William Balling, Village Manager; William Raysa, Village Attorney; James Doyle, Assistant Village Manager; William Brimm, Finance Director; Gregory Boysen, Director of Public Works; Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer; James Truesdell , Village Planner; and Paul Kochendorfer, Village Treasurer. PUBLIC HEARING Temporary Chairman Marienthal noted the item for discussion is a Public Hearing for an Annexation Agreement for the Johnson Property. Mr. Marienthal described the property. Temporary Chairman Marienthal called the Public Hearing to order at 9:14 P.M. Publication of this Public Hearing was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on February 26, 1983. Temporary Chairman Marienthal read from the Notice of Public Hearing. Mr. William Johnson, representative of the Johnson Family, and petitioner, was sworn in to give testimony. Mr. Johnson made a presentation. He stated that the property in question is approximately 5L.3 acres, bounded on the east side by the Commonwealth Edison and the Soo Line Railroad rights-of-way, on the north side by property owned by Mr. Tom Costopoulos, on the west side by the Buffalo Grove Commerce and Industry Center, and on the south side by Lake-Cook Road. They are petitioning for a basic I zoning category, and do not have a developer or a land plan in mind. The area designated as block 8 is a retention basin. There is an existing 4 acre retention basin in block 8. Mr. Balling stated that the property in question was platted in 1929 as Columbia Gardens, Unit 4, as a residential subdivision in unincorporated Lake County. The Annexation Agreement which was negotiated contemplates a replanning and a replatting of the subdivision at the time of development of the site. The site does conform to the Buffalo Grove Comprehensive Plan with respect to land use. The Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of this annexation. Mr. Balling referred to the most recent Annexation Agreement, dated March 9, 1983, and referred to Mr. Truesdell ' s memo of March 11 , 1983, highlighting certain deviations from the Village's model annexation agreement. Mr. Johnson stated that he is in agreement with the points noted in Mr. Truesdell 's memo to Mr. Balling of March 11 , 1983. Mr. Bill O'Reilly, President of the Buffalo Grove Park District, stated his dismay that the Buffalo Grove Park District is not included in this annexation. Mr. O'Reilly stated that the first notification that the Park District received of this annexation was on December 15, 1982. Upon that notification, the Park District planned and prepared to go to the Plan Commission meeting of January 5, 1983; during this period, the Park District had not received a copy of the \ / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 14, 1983 �./ PAGE TWO annexation agreement, and were not aware that they were not a part of this annexation. The Park District attended the Plan Commission meeting on January 5, 1983. On December 21 , 1982, Mr. Balling sent a letter to the Wheeling Park District regarding the sales agreement between the Johnsons and the Wheeling Park District which dates back to July, 1977. The letter discussed the developer's intent to annex into the Wheeling Park District. There is a clause in the sales agreement talking of contracts with time being of the essence, and also to the annexation position between the Johnsons and the Wheeling Park District, stating that, for a two-year period, between July, 1977, and July, 1979, the developer reserved the right to annex into another Park District. The Buffalo Grove Park District was not aware of this at the time. The letter stated that, after July of 1979, the developer could petition into the Wheeling Park District. The point that the Park District wishes to make is that the developer believes that he has a contractual relationship with the Wheeling Park District to annex to the Wheeling Park District. The fact that was a two year period, leads the Park District to believe that there may not have existed a contractual relationship as may be spelled out in that sales agreement. If time is of the essence, why did it take between July of 1979 and January of 1983 for the developer to annex into the Wheeling Park District? At the Plan Commission meeting on January 5, 1983, the developer was asked if he had petitioned the Wheeling Park District for annexation. The developer replied that he had not. The developer was also asked if he had a preference as to which Park District he would wish to be annexed to; the developer answered that he had no preference. On January 6, 1983, the Park District was advised by the President of the Wheeling Park District that they were going to discuss and annex the property at their meeting on January 6, 1983. The Buffalo Grove Park District was represented at the meeting of the Wheeling Park District on January 6, 1983, where it was stated that the developer had petitioned for annexation to the Wheeling Park District on April 27, 1982. At the January 6, 1983 meeting of the Wheeling Park District, the Buffalo Grove Park District requested that the Wheeling Park District not annex the property, but the annexation took place anyway. The Buffalo Grove Park District is asking that the developer petition the Wheeling Park District for disannexation of the property. Mr. O'Reilly stated that, between April 27 , 1982, and January 6, 1983, there were several courses of action which the Buffalo Grove Park District could have taken to preclude annexation. Not having been notified until such a late date, there was nothing the Buffalo Grove Park District was able to do in that regard. Mr. O'Reilly stated that, if the developer had stated that he had petitioned the Wheeling Park District at the January 5, 1983 meeting of the Plan Commission, the Buffalo Grove Park District could have requested the developer to withdraw his petition for annexation prior to the action of the Wheeling Park District on January 6, 1983. On the afternoon of January 6, 1983, attempts were made to meet with Mr. Johnson, but he was unavailable. The Buffalo Grove Park District is asking Mr. Johnson to request disannexation `./ from the Wheeling Park District, in lieu of that, the Park District is asking a cash donation on the same basis as if that land were developed with homes on it. The Buffalo Grove Park District believes there is an obligation on COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 14, 1983 PAGE THREE the part of the Village to support the Park District, either by requiring the developer to disannex from the Wheeling Park District, or to offer a cash donation to the Buffalo Grove Park District. There were no other public agencies present to:give:testimony. Trustee Stone questioned Mr. Johnson regarding Paragraph 11B; he asked Mr. Johnson what his objection is to making application within 30 days from the annexation if it is his intention to make the request of Wheeling that they provide sewer service. Mr. Johnson replied that he does not think that the request should be tied to the Buffalo Grove annexation. Trustee Stone asked Mr. Johnson if he had told Mr. Raysa that he intended to make his request on the day following the annexation of this property. Mr. Johnson stated that he had no public comment. Trustee Stone asked Mr. Johnson if he had made the statement at the January 5, 1983 Plan Commission meeting that he had not petitioned the Wheeling Park District for annexation. Mr. Johnson replied that he probably did, and that if he did , he was in error. Mr. Johnson stated that, when he initially came to this Board, he stated that annexation to the Village of Buffalo Grove was not contingent on annexation to the Buffalo Grove Park District. Mr. Johnson said that he also stated that they had petitioned the Wheeling Park District for annexation of all of their properties concurrent with the sale of the Country Club in 1977. The west property (that in question) could take place approximately two years later; due to a number of circumstances the annexation did not take place until January of 1983. The initial sale contract of the Country Club stated that the Johnsons would annex all of the property to the Wheeling Park District; he stated that that was made known on the date of his initial appearance before the Buffalo Grove Village Board. Mr. Johnson stated that they will not offer a cash donation to the Buffalo Grove Park District, and they will not request disannexation from the Wheeling Park District. Trustee O'Reilly stated that Mr. Johnson was very vague about the Park District the first night that he appeared before the Buffalo Grove Village Board. Trustee O'Reilly asked why the Village must forcibly annex the five additional lots referred to in Paragraph 4; she also asked the staff how these costs would be covered. Mr. Balling stated that the costs of the involuntary annexation would come out of the legal budget under recording fees, and then be reimbursed for the expenses. In answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Johnson stated that they have attempted to contact the owners of the five lots, but they are unwilling to sell . Trustee O'Reilly asked how the Village would cover itself for litigation costs which could arise over these outlots. Mr. Balling explained that situation. Mr. Raysa stated that a letter of credit, bond, and/or hold harmless could cover the Village with regard to possible litigation. Regarding Paragraph 11B, Mr. Balling stated that this consent would be solely limited to the improvement of the vacant land controlled by the Johnson family. Mr. Raysa stated that, on Page 13 regarding the Appearance Commission to get through the system in 45 days, if the Village does not meet that 45 days, it would be a default. Mr. Raysa stated that it is not implied consent if the Village does nothing; it is a default if the Village does nothing. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 14, 1983 PAGE FOUR Trustee O' Reilly asked what recourse the Village has once it gives away the sewer rights. Mr. Raysa stated that the Village would have no recourse. There was discussion as to the rights of Buffalo Grove once the property is annexed to Buffal Grove, and the sewer agreement is secured with Wheeling, and the possibility of non-compliance on the part of the petitioner. It was suggested that there be a recess to discuss the above scenario with the Village Attorney. RECESS Temporary Chairman Marienthal declared a recess from 10:03 P.M. until 10:24 P.M. Trustee Schwartz stated that a question has arisen concerning the default provisions in Paragraph 24 as they relate to disconnect. For the purposes of clarifying this issue, it is Trustee Schwartz' understanding that the petitioner and the staff have agreed to meeting during the week. Based upon that, Trustee Schwartz moved that this Public Hearing be recessed and continued until March 21 , 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Trustee Hartstein seconded the motion. Trustee Stone referred to Paragraph 11B, and stated that he is uncomfortable without having a date certain when the owner of the property would petition Wheeling for service. Trustee Stone would like to suggest that a date certain, possibly within 30 days of the annexation agreement, be set. Trustee Swartz stated that this issue might relate to the issue that he has raised to be investigated during the coming week. Mr. James Bartlett of 933 Plum Grove Circle stated that the Village is taking in a piece of land and committing 100% of services , but only getting 50% tax return because of not including the Park District in the annexation. Regarding the default, Mr. Bartlett commented that the possibility of giving away the sewer rights and losing the annexation is a very risky position. Mr. Don Shepherd of 208 Stonegate stated that there seems to be a lack of cooperation with the Village the the Park District. Mr. Bruce Heath stated that he thinks the Village should go back to the drawing board; he thinks that the Village is getting no benefit in this annexation , but a lot of troubles; he would just as soon not even have the land in the Village. Mr. Nick Kotchera of 200 Timber Hill Road stated that the petitioner has been misleading the Park District Board. Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows on the motion to continue the Public Hearing: AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz NAYES: 0 - None Motion declared carried. Temporary Chairman Marienthal stated that the Public Hearing will be continued until 7:30 P.M. on March 21 , 1983. �./ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 14, 1983 PAGE FIVE ADJOURNMENT Moved by Gerschefske, seconded by Schwartz, to adjourn the meeting. Upon voice vote, the motion was unanimously declared carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 P.M. Janet Sirabian, Village Clerk