Loading...
2009-09-16 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/16/2009 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 16, 2009 Child day care home— petition for special use 931 Twisted Oak Lane Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Cohn Ms. Myer Also present: Ms. Chantal Kessel Mr. Roy Kessel Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A; Letter from Lisa Jacobs dated September 10, 2009 Exhibit B: Letter from Kathy Reynolds dated September 15, 2009 Exhibit C: Letter from Brian Sheehan dated September 16, 2009 Exhibit D: Memo to the Plan Commission dated September 10, 2009 from Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Roy Kessel stated the petition has been submitted and they have been working with the Village to make sure that all of the conditions of the special use requirements have been met. The first item relates to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. That application has been submitted and completed. They are waiting for three additional items to be completed there. One is the background check as the finger printing has completed. They have a new requirement that the Village fire inspection is not sufficient and they require the Illinois State Fire Marshal to come to the property as well. They do not have an exact date on when that will occur as it is based on the previously scheduled inspections that the Fire Marshal has in other locations. The remaining item will be the DCFS physical inspection of the premises. Their requirements are fairly similar to the Village so they are not anticipating any additional holdups on that. Mr. Kessel stated the Village has sent out a report from the health officer and the fire department on the review of the conditions of the property. They identified a few minor items that have all been corrected and there was an updated report issued today indicating that all of those items have been complied with. Mr. Kessel stated the child care hours will be approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The request is for approval to care for 8 children, which is the number allowed by the zoning regulations. The residence has a driveway which can hold four vehicles so there should be no vehicles on the street or any burden on traffic or additional traffic congestion. The backyard is fully fenced and an additional closing latches and locks have been installed to comply with the requirement. There is a play area back there and that space is sufficient for the use of the children and should not create any additional noise burden on the area. It is a corner lot so the distance between the side and the other lots should not present any problems. At this time the petitioner does not anticipate having other employees on the premises. Mr. Kessel noted they understand there is periodic inspection by the Village. He stated they have already obtained the application for the business license, and the paperwork will be completed if the zoning approval is granted. Mr. Kessel submitted two letters of recommendation from individuals whose children have been cared for by the petitioner and indicates their comfort and satisfaction with the services she has provided. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if Mother's Love Day Care is currently operating. Ms. Kessel stated she is currently watching three children. Commissioner Stark asked if the petitioner plans to provide care for eight children. Ms. Kessel indicated that she plans to care for up to 8 children. She noted that she has two of her own children, so only six children would be received into the home for care. Commissioner Stark asked the ages of her own children. Mr. Kessel stated they are first grade and third grade. Commissioner Khan noted that Mr. Sheehan's letter has an incorrect address for day care home. Mr. Pfeil noted that the address has been corrected on the permanent file copy of the letter. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the Commission is satisfied that the special use criteria had been adequately addressed. All Commissioners stated yes. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that there are no persons present to ask questions or provide any additional testimony. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/16/2009 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 16, 2009 Child day care home 931, Twisted Oak Lane— Special use in the R-4A District Village Zoning Ordinance—Regulations concerning Child day care homes —Workshop #1 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Weinstein Commissioner absent: Ms. Myer Also present: Ms. Chantal Kessel Mr. Roy Kessel Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Ms. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to approve the minutes of the public hearing of August 5, 2009. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the regular meeting minutes of August 5, 2009. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Cohn attended the Village Board meeting on September 8, 2009 and there were no referrals to the Plan Commission. There were three issues of interest that did come up. First, the Villas of Chestnut Ridge project, which has been stalled for economic reasons, will be completed by Red Seal Development Corporation. The proposed new homes are somewhat smaller and priced lower than the original models in response to current economic conditions. The new appearance package for the proposed homes was approved by the Village Board. The second item concerned the ground sign at Adam's Road House restaurant and off-track betting (OTB) facility. The sign is proposed with changeable copy, and there was some interesting discussion among the Board members about the First Amendment and the right to free speech in relation to business signage. The third item was a proposal to add a dance club in the old laser tag area of the eSkape family entertainment center at Town Center. The Village Board decided to handle the amendment of the special use rather than referring the petition to the Plan Commission. CHILD DAY CARE HOME, 931 TWISTED OAK LANE — SPECIAL USE IN THE R-4A DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the petition to the Village for approval of a special use to operate a child day care home at 931 Twisted Oak Lane, a single-family detached home zoned in the R-4A Single Family Dwelling District, subject to final approval of a license by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Bocek, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Weinstein, Ottenheimer NAYS:None ABSENT: Cohn, Myer ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 7 to 0. VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE — REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHILD DAY CARE HOMES —WORKSHOP#1 Mr. Pfeil reviewed his memo dated September 10, 2009 concerning issues that he has identified in discussions with other Village staff and the Village Attorney. One of the issues is whether there is a need to for a distance parameter or standard concerning the proximity of day care homes to each other. He noted that it is challenging to identify an appropriate standard. A separation requirement of 400 to 800 feet between homes could be stipulated, which would basically allow one day care home per block. The standard could be varied based on particular circumstances. Commissioner Bocek asked if the distance would be measured along the block front or as a radius. She noted that a block front measurement would not address situations where the proximity may be along the rear yards of day care homes on different blocks. Mr. Pfeil said the distance standard should address proximity in all directions, not just on the same block front. Mr. Pfeil stated the next concept is the requirement that the person providing the day care be a resident of the home. This needs to be explicit in the ordinance. He noted there have been a few situations where it appears that people interested in purchasing or renting a property may have been doing it with the intent of not necessarily living there but just to provide daycare. We clearly do not want that happening and we need to tighten the ordinance. Mr. Pfeil noted the next item might be somewhat controversial by asking that a person who wants to provide daycare be a part of the neighborhood for a while before they rent or buy the house and petition to operate a day care home without getting to know the neighbors. Mr. Pfeil commented that requiring fencing of the rear yard play area is an excellent standard intended to protect children. He suggested that the Commission discuss whether the ordinance should make it a standard that cannot be varied or waived. Mr. Pfeil noted that the standards do not currently state that a self—closing gate is required for the fenced area. Mr. Sheehan requires this type of gate, and the ordinance should add this as a stated requirement. Mr. Pfeil noted that a public hearing will be needed concerning amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Teplinsky noted that the hearing concerning 931 Twisted Oak Lane is a very good example of the requirement for distance from other day care homes, as the two homes tonight were 785 feet apart but they are in two different neighborhoods. He said that the Village has not really had problems with the proximity of day care homes. If we put a hard and fast distance requirement in the ordinance it might not necessarily be an equitable decision. It really depends on the character of the neighborhood, whether there is a major intersection separating the homes and other factors that affect the particular situation. With respect to the requirement requiring a day care provider to be a resident of the home where the care is provided, he feels that should be an absolute necessity. Although we cannot require the operator to be the owner of the home, perhaps there should be a minimum requirement of a lease that is entered for the site. Mr. Pfeil noted it should be stated in the ordinance that in a non-ownership situation a person willing to provide the day care must show a written lease. Mr. Teplinsky stated it should be a written lease for a minimum term perhaps. Chairman Ottenheimer said he concurs with Commissioner Teplinsky's comments. He asked if the Commission has any thoughts in term of a residency requirement and how long it should be. Commissioner Bocek suggested two years and Commissioner Stark suggested 6 months. Commissioner Bocek stated she feels day care home operators should be committed to the neighborhood before starting the day care. Commissioner Teplinsky noted that two years would certainly discourage people who are leasing homes from entering this sort of business as he cannot see how someone would rent for two years just for the opportunity to become a day care operator thereafter. Perhaps that is not a bad thing. Chairman Ottenheimer suggested establishing a time that is sufficient to allow the neighbors to get to know the petitioner. He asked if that can be done in six months. He also noted that it somewhat depends on whether it is winter or summer. More people come out and see each other in the summer as opposed to winter months. Commissioner Bocek stated it cannot be less than a year for exactly those reasons. In her opinion it should not be less than one year. Mr. Pfeil stated he has some concerns about whether this is a fair thing to do. He suggested that a one year period is the longest period that seems reasonable. He said that six months is sometimes enough to get to know the neighbors and other times it is not. Commissioner Bocek stated we are seeing a lot of people who are out of work who want to do day care because they need the money. You are essentially talking about children and that might be more important than how long someone has been a resident. If they have a history and a lot of experience in day care perhaps it does not matter how long they have been a resident because you know they are committed to day care. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he agrees with that but you need to balance that with the fact that it is in a residential area that is not zoned for this sort of work. You have neighbors and folks living there and there must be something taken into account that would allow the residents and neighbors to come to a meeting and express their feelings and ideas. Chairman Ottenheimer stated it seems to him that the neighbors who do usually show up either in support of or in opposition to are those that are knowledgeable because they know the petitioner and have lived in the neighborhood with him. In his opinion a residence requirement is very important. He stated he is starting to lean towards nine months. Commissioner Teplinsky stated if we have a residency requirement for a period of time prior, we are pretty sure when they are standing here telling us that they actually live in the house, it is actually true. Chairman Ottenheimer stated the problem with a year or longer residency is that there are not too many leases that are longer than a year generally. So if you require them to live there a year you may be discouraging day care in that way. Commissioner Bocek noted if they have an existing day care somewhere else in Buffalo Grove and then move they would not be able to have day care in the new house for a period of time. Mr. Raysa noted that as always there have to be standards that are not ambiguous. Commissioner Smith asked if there are any other towns that have criteria in regard to this matter. Mr. Pfeil said he would have to check on what other towns are doing in this regard. Commissioner Smith noted that the petitioner at 931 Twisted Oak Lane has people coming from Palatine. If a provider needs to move from one community to another, she wouldn't be able to maintain service for her client families if the new town had a waiting period for establishing residency before applying for approval to operate the day care facility. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that just because a person has been operating in a town, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were good neighbors. Commissioner Bocek stated perhaps either they have a history of two years experience or they have one year residency in their existing home so that it is fair all the way around. Commissioner Stark stated that an important factor is being apart of the community and getting along with your neighbors. They could have ten years of day care experience in another town but may not be good neighbors. Commissioner Weinstein stated he is not a proponent of this concept because you are basically telling someone who has been doing this for their whole lives that they cannot buy in Buffalo Grove unless they are willing to take a year off of what they have been doing to make a living. He stated he is uncomfortable with this kind of restriction. He asked if there is something that could be done to grant waivers if the neighbors show letters that they have no objection in which case we could shorten the residency requirement. Mr. Pfeil asked how many neighbors would need to sign off in that scenario. Chairman Ottenheimer said he can see problems with that type of situation. Someone could be an awesome day care provider but your next door neighbor just does not want it for any reason and they say no and that is really basically letting the neighbors makes the decision as opposed to the Village. Mr. Pfeil noted that a person could still file a petition after the set amount of time to establish residency, so the neighbors wouldn't necessarily be able to block a person indefinitely assuming that the public hearing process determined that the day care home would be appropriate for the particular situation. Commissioner Teplinsky noted that if someone is a successful operator in another village and then could not legally transport their business to a residential neighborhood in Buffalo Grove may be harsh but they may not be able to do that any way because perhaps they want to purchase may be too close to another day care center. There are things here that could absolutely prevent us from granting a special use. There a lot of places where folks can set up their businesses that are not in a residential neighborhood here and that is the point for having the special use criteria. It might be harsh but the intent here is to make sure that whoever wants to set up here is an actual good neighbor here. The only way to know that really is by going through this process which would include some sort of track record in the Village. It is harsh but so are many other restrictions we put on zoning here. He stated he is in favor of a residency requirement. He agrees that one year would be a long time and it would discourage people from leasing homes and setting up these sorts of businesses. However, he is not sure that is a bad thing either. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if anyone checks the requirements for day care special uses prior to making the petition. Once they find out they have been doing it illegally they come to the Village and make their application. Mr. Pfeil said that there are distinct groups of potential providers. Some actually go through a due diligence process and call the Village for pertinent information. Others ignore the zoning regulations and operate without approval until they get caught. He noted that the Village gets several calls a year from people moving in from out of town, and they want to know if they can run a child day care home in the home they are considering for purchase or lease. The answer, of course, is that staff can't guarantee anyone that a special use would be approved. Now that the information is available on the Village website, there is less excuse for people to plead ignorance about the requirement for a special use approval. Chairman Ottenheimer noted you can always put a standard in like nine months to a year but if you have had prior experience it is three months or something like that. Commissioner Smith asked what is the negative by just leaving it as we are doing it right now on a care by case basis. Mr. Pfeil stated that is clearly a choice. Commissioner Smith if there have been any complaints or other issues with the way we have been doing it. Mr. Pfeil noted that there have been a few petitions where neighbors were not at all in favor of the proposed day care home and stated their objections as the hearing. Commissioner Smith noted that they will still be able to do that if we have this in place. Mr. Pfeil stated it is very much dependent on the particular neighborhood. Sometimes it is just a difficult situation where the neighbors feel strongly that the petitioner will not be careful about managing traffic and other impacts. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Raysa if there was a reason for having something like this in place. Mr. Raysa stated there are no issues with the way we have been doing things on a case by case basis. He noted Mr. Pfeil is just saying we have seen these issues come and should we address them specifically in the criteria. Commissioner Bocek noted one of the concerns she has had about the people that have come before the Commission is the number of kids and the number of people managing these kids. The fact that some people cannot even call 911 is also a big issue. Mr. Pfeil stated that is really up to DCFS. The ages of the children determine whether or not an extra care provider is needed. He noted that the Village's zoning trumps any license DCFS might grant that allows more than eight children. He noted they have had that issue with DCFS and have worked very hard to wait on issuing a license until the applicant has initiated the Village zoning approval process. The Cook County DCFS is not as responsive and helpful as the Lake County DCFS staff. Commissioner Khan asked if we can lower the limit from eight kids. He stated that just one person to overlook eight kids is not good. Mr. Pfeil said he thinks we will get into the economic argument from some of the providers who would say that they need to care for enough children to make an adequate living. When the Village enacted its day care regulations in the early 1990's there was discussion about the appropriate maximum number. Some people really are doing this as their job and eight is more economically feasible for them than to have only 5 or 6 children. Commissioner Stark stated the whole issue of not being able to communicate with 911 is somewhat like "buyer beware." If the parents are not able to communicate properly then as parents they would make the decision about leaving their child. He asked if we have ever approved a home day care which was subsequently never set up. Mr. Pfeil stated there was one in the mid 90's, but generally petitioners follow through. Commissioner Stark noted concern with the approvals for some of these day care homes that are subject to the petitioner satisfying requests by the health officer or fire department. Perhaps having all of the health codes taken care of before they come to the Commission is good so that they show they are really serious. He asked if it is worth having the Village's fire code requirement now that the State requires the State fire marshal to inspect. Mr. Pfeil stated the Village definitely needs to do its own fire inspection and health inspection. The State has decided to get involved in fire inspection of day care homes, but it apparently takes a considerable amount time for a provider to get an appointment. Commissioner Cohn asked what can the Village do about a person who lacks the capacity to communicate and call 911. If DCFS thinks they are qualified to run the day care but the Village does not, is the Village pre-empted by that or does the Village have the authority to pass its own non-zoning ordinance under its general health and welfare authority to regulate that issue and should we be doing something about that. It is a very serious question and while it is within the authority of parents to have good judgment, at some level there might be a role for the government as well. Mr. Pfeil noted he would have to explore this with police and fire personnel. He stated he will have to get better information concerning how situations are handled when there is a language problem. Commissioner Cohn stated he is not sure this is an issue for this group but it is an issue he recognized. Commissioner Weinstein stated he does not see how we can get into that at all whether in Springfield or Congress or whatever. There is really no requirement that anyone call 911. We just need to move on because he does not feel we can get into that in any way shape or form. Commissioner Cohn stated it is a matter of saving a child's life. He stated he understands there are real sensitivity issues but there needs to be someone protecting the kids. Commissioner Weinstein stated it is a real issue but he does not believe we can do anything about it. Commissioner Weinstein stated he does not have an issue with the proximity as it is currently and he does not feel we should get a specific number distance. In terms of the fenced rear yard, as long as we have a fenced rear yard requirement he will never vote for a waiver. As long as it is in the ordinance he does not believe in varying it ever. All Commissioners were in favor of a public hearing on this matter as the next step. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said the next meeting will be scheduled for October 21, 2009. STAFF REPORT Mr. Pfeil stated Lake County's planning department has been coordinating a wind energy task force because of the general interest by residents and businesses in looking at alternative energy sources. Some communities in Lake County have enacted moratoria on prohibiting new wind energy installations to provide time to enact appropriate regulations. It will be a few more months before a draft model ordinance is completed. There will be a meeting of the task force in Buffalo Grove on October 7, 2009, and will feature an acoustics expert since sound from the turbines is an issue that has really been troublesome for applications near residential properties. Buffalo Grove's zoning regulations allow wind energy conversion systems as a special use in all districts, and there have been inquiries by residents and businesses concerning the approval process. NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Stark, seconded by Commissioner Bocek and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair