Minutes - 05/16/1977 - Intergovernmental Joint Review Boardf
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Joint Meeting of the
OAK BROOK PLAN CO191ISSION
and
OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
held on May 16, 1977
The Joint Meeting of the Oak Brook Plan Commission and Oak Brook Zoning Board
of Appeals was opened by Plan Commission Chairman Richard A. Barton at 8:00
P.M. on Monday, May 16, 1977, in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room,of the Oak
Brook Village Commons.
Subject: AN ORDINANCE FOR THE MANAGEI4ENT AND CONTROL OF FLOOD PLAINS AND
WETLANDS WITHI14 THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTIES,
ILLINOIS, AND ITS ENVIRONS,
Mr. Barton explained that tonight's meeting was called and advertised as a
Joint Meeting for the purpose of considering the proposed Flood Plain
Ordinance, which requires the presence of a quorum of the Plan Commission
and Zoning Board. Upon roll call it was confirmed that these quorums were
present, as follows:
Plan Commission Members Present:
Mr. Richard A. Barton
Mr. Robert E. Listecki
Mr. R. Clifford Marquardt
Mr. Baxter J. Noyes
Mr. Donald B. Reece
Mr. Harold E. Scott
Zoning Board Members Present:
i Mr
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Also present:
Gene J. Baroni
Edward S. Fraser
George A. Hodges
John R. Lavery
Mrs. Marianne Lakosil
Mr. Kenneth G. Carmignani
Mr. Alfred P. Bianucci
Mr. Robert B. Spencer
Mr. Charles Littleton
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Village
Inspect
Village
Village
Village
Village
Clerk and
ion Bureau Aide
Manager
Attorney
Atty.-Co-counsel
Engineer
Mr. Barton advised that the proposed Ordinance would repeal Section V, N. of
Ordinance G -60, as amended; the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook;
Article V. Section 3.c.9.of Ordinance No. G -140, as amended; the Subdivision
Regulations of the Village of Oak Brook, and provide standards and regula-
tions for the development of flood plain property and wetlands.
He described the procedure to be followed as consisting of a presentation by
the Village, followed by a question and answer period. Thereafter, all
opponents would be heard, 11r. Barton asked that all witnesses for or against
the proposed Ordinance state their name and address and be sworn.
At this time he called upon Village Attorney Bianucci to make the presentation
on behalf of the Village.
Village Attorney Bianucci introduced himself, his associate, Mr. Robert B.
Spencer, and Village Engineer Littleton as those who would represent the
Village in this presentation. The three gentlemen were duly sworn by the
Court Reporter.
Mr. Bianucci explained that the proposed Ordinance is a product of numerous
meetings and deliberations by the Land Use Committee of the Plan Commission,
and the Corporate Authority staff of his office. The proposed Ordinance has
been on display since the time of publication in the "Oak Brook Doings,"
approximately 20 days prior to tonight's meeting. He advised that a
OAK BROOK PLA11 COMMISSION & ZONI14G - 1 - May 16, 1977
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING,
Certificate of Publication would be submitted for the record at a later time
and marked as Exhibit B, for identification.
Mr. Bianucci advised that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Littleton would give the
formal presentation of the proposed Ordinance. He submitted a draft of the
proposed Ordinance, captioned: "An Ordinance for the Management and Control
of Flood Plains and Wetlands within the Village of Oak Brook, DuPage and
Cook Counties, Illinois, and its Environs," and asked that it be marked as
Exhibit A. for identification. It was thereupon marked as Exhibit A by the
Court Reporter.
At this time Mr. Bianucci referred the presentation to Mr. Spencer and Mr.
Littleton.
Mr. Spencer described his part of the presentation as that covering the
provisions of the Ordinance particularly relating to the terms and procedures
to be established, while Mr. Littleton would cover the subdivision improve-
ment and building regulations portion relating to flood plain properties.
The purpose of the proposed Ordinance, he advised, is to provide protection
for structures built within the Village from flood damage, to protect the
Village from flooding dangers resulting from building within flood plains
within the Vlllage, and to protect wetlands within the Village -- those that
relate to the flood situation and water recharge areas.
Mr. Spencer defined two flood plain terms referred to in the Ordinance as
being of primary importance, as follows:
Floodway - that portion of an area which is necessary to carry and
discharge flood water run -off.
Floodway Fringe - that area necessary to detain and hold flood
waters prior to their discharge.
Thus, he said, the floodway is an area of running water, while the floodway,
fringe is an area of slowly moving, or stagnant, water.
Mr. Spencer continued: The flood plain, as a whole, is determined by the
base flood elevation, which is that area having a 1 per cent annual chance
of flooding. That area is also referred to in the Ordinance as the area
subject to the 100 year flood. He described the terminology as somewhat
interchangeable in that a 100 year flood does, in fact, refer to an area
subject on an annual basis to a 1 per cent chance of flooding.
The wetlands are defined, Mr. Spencer explained, in terms of certain plants
which may grow, and there are references to the particular resource material
where those plants may be identified. Wetlands are also areas in which the
water table is within 2 feet of the ground level for at least three months
out of any given year.
These, and other relevant definitions, are given in Section 1.03 of the
proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Spencer referred to the definition of "'compensatory storage," which Mr.
Littleton would discuss later. He described compensatory storage as that
storage for storm water which is provided if there is an encroachment on the
flood plain, pursuant to the building regulations that Mr. Littleton will
refer to, and it requires that there be a sufficient volume of excavated
territory to compensate for any flood plain territory which is the subject
of an encroachment.
Maps listed in the Ordinance were provided by the U. S. Geological Survey,
the Desplaines River Steering Cop.miittee, the U. S. Department of Agriculture,
and the Federal Insurance Administration, and they define the flood plain
areas within the Village of Oak Brook and surrounding areas.
There is also a provision in the Ordinance that any area not covered by one
of the above - mentioned maps, and on which the only available information
concerning the flood plain is that of the Flood of Record, that area is
OAK BROOK PLAN COM14ISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 2 - May 16, 1977
considered to be totally within the floodway until sufficient data is brought
before the Village Board and their approval is granted, defining which
portion of that property is, in fact, floodway and which portion is floodway
fringe. Mr. Spencer advised that the Flood Insurance Administration maps,
which should cover the entire~Village, are to be completed within the next
year, and it is his understanding that these will provide a complete, or
nearly complete, set of maps.
Mr. Spencer went on to explain that presently there are certain structures
within the flood plains which will not meet the zoning, building and sub-
division requirements of this Ordinance. Those non - conforming structures,
and any non - conforming uses within the flood plains, are subject to certain
restrictions as to their expansion, alteration and abandonment. These
provisions are carried within Section 1.06 of the Ordinance, and provide
that those structures and uses will, in fact, either remain as they are, or
be abated.
Article II of the Ordinance covers permitted and special uses within the
floodways and floodway fringes, as follows:
Permitted uses within the floodways - General agricultural and horti-
cultural; private and public recreational; residential use, such as
lawns, gardens or play areas; bridges, docks, piers, retaining walls
and headwalls. These and other uses are permitted provided they do
not obstruct flood flows, that no structural fill or storage materials
or equipment is required, and that they are permitted within the
other ordinances of the Village.
Special uses - Other than which would otherwise be permitted by the
Village ordinances. There is a procedure for obtaining a Special Use
Permit for those uses which will be described later.
Mr. Spencer advised that the floodway fringes include the same permitted
uses, as well as uses which will not adversely affect the capacity of channels
floodways, or drainage facilities or systems. Other uses permitted by
other ordinances of the Village, which may be proposed for floodway fringes,
are, again, subject to the Special Use provisions of the Ordinance.
The occupation and use of the wetland areas also contains similar provisions:
Uses are permitted which will not adversely affect the public water supply,
drainage, storm water runoff or detention, or the public health and
sanitation.
Again, uses which are allowed under other ordinances of the Village, may be
allowed, pursuant to the Special Use procedure set forth in the Ordinance.
Mr. Spencer described the procedure for obtaining Special Use Permits as
follows:
- An application is filed with the Village Clerk.
- The applicant makes his presentation before the Plan Commission.
- The Plan Commission is to make its recommendation, based, if it wishes,
upon certain information provided to the Village Engineer who then
makes his technical recommendation to the Plan Commission.
- If the Plan Commission finds that a particular use is in conformance
with the intent of the Ordinance and will not adversely affect the
flood plain or wetland, they then make their recommendation to the
President and Board of Trustees.
- The President and Board of Trustees make the final decision as to
granting, denying, or granting with certain modifications or
limitation; such use within the flood plain.
Section 2.04 sets forth the information which is required by the Plan
Commission in order to arrive at its recommendation.
Mr. Spencer described the factors to be considered by the Plan Commission
in making their recommendation as being included in, but not necessarily
limited to, the following list:
Danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or
velocities caused by any encroachments;
OAK BROOK PLAN C0124ISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 3 - May 16, 1977
Any exfiltration or infiltration which may result in sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, or water train systems within the Village;
. The requirements of the proposed ,use to be located where it is;
The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan;
. Other necessary items related to the public health, safety and welfare.
He added that the Village Board can, of course, attach conditions to the
issuance of any such Special Use Permit, including modifications as to waste
disposal, water supply facilities, certain construction requirements, and
flood- proofing measures to be provided for whatever structures are proposed.
Mr. Spencer pointed out that Section 2.05 describes the procedure to be
followed if an applicant wishes to develop property in a flood plain in a
manner which is not technically in conformity with the Ordinance, and applies
to the Village for a variation to the requirements of the Flood Plain
Ordinance. This procedure was described as follows:
- The applicant files an application with the Village Clerk.
- The applicant presents his petition before the Plan Commission.
- The Plan Commission holds a public hearing on the requested variation
and thereafter submits its recommendation to the President and
Board of Trustees.
- The President and Board of Trustees make the final decision as to
whether or not to grant such a variation, and, if granted, decide
the conditions under which such a variation can be granted.
Subdivision plats, preliminary or final, which involve any portion of a
flood plain -- in addition to the requirements of the normal Subdivision
Ordinance -- require certain design standards such as:
Major streets will have the center line at least 1 foot above the
base flood elevation; requirements for compensatory storage,
manholes, etc.
Certain building regulations; requirements for building sites;
design criteria; anchoring, etc., which are contained within the
building regulations.
Mr. Spencer advised that Mr. Littleton would continue with a more detailed
explanation of the building regulation requirements.
He added that they have a diagram of a flood plain, indicating the portion
which is the floodway and the portion which is the floodway fringe. Maps
are also available showing the most recent information as to those portions
of the Village now contained within the flood plains.
At this point, Mr. Spencer referred the continuance of the presentation to
Mr. Charles Littleton, the Village Engineer.
Mr. Littleton reiterated Mr. Spencer's comment that some of these items are
in addition to the normal Subdivision Ordinance; however, he wished to expand
on some of the highlights.
He explained that although the Village's present Subdivision Ordinance
already requires some of the information contained in the proposed Flood Plain
Ordinance, the proposed Ordinance goes further, in that it asks for channel
profiles where channels are involved, and further stipulates what developments
can comprise in a flood plain. Mr. Littleton pointed out the following
sections in this regard:
- Channel straightening;
- Flood plain lots, describing the elevation of homes above the high
water level;
- How compensatory storage is to be provided;
- The level of streets;
- Restricts construction on rear lot lines, to be used as floodways;
- Manholes to be constructed 3 feet above the base flood elevation.
OAK BROOK PLAN CO11MISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 4 - May 16, 1977
Mr. Littleton said he would like to recommend here that water -tight
construction also be considered for manholes less than 3 feet above the base
flood elevation.
Referring back to the Subdivision Ordinance, he recommended that a controlled,
restricted release of storm water and the accompanying detention requirements
also be incorporated in this Ordinance.
He also recommended that all residential areas over 5 acres, and all
commercial, ORA, business and school uses be restricted as to the release of
storm water, and that they incorporate detention facilities to provide storage
capabilities for the storm water generated in excess of the released capacity.
The maximum release is recommended to be one - tenths CFS per acre, provided
this release does not exceed the existing capacity of down stream structures,
or the capacity of down stream structures as they are improved; and, further,
that the size of the release control structure shall not be less than 4 inches
in diameter.
Mr. Littleton added that,_ in order words, if you cannot obtain a one - tenths
CFS per acre release with a 4 inch diameter control structure, that the
allowable release would be increased to the point where the 4 inch diameter
control structure would provide the necessary control.
It is recommended that roof top detention be allowed. Recommendations as to
parking lots are as follows:
- That parking lot detention be provided if the maximum water depth
within parking lots does not exceed 9 inches;
- That parking lots are the last areas to flood and the first areas
to drain;
- That parking lot detention will be necessary, primarily in commercial
areas, but will not be sufficient, more often than not, to provide
the entire amount of required detention; therefore, it will have to
be incorporated along with the other detention.
Mr. Littleton continued: All detention areas should have overflow capabilities
such as for storms that exceed the capacity for storms in excess of the 100
year storm, or if there is some malfunction of the detention basin, that these
overflows can be handled safely.
Detention should be provided in addition to natural, existing detention on
the site. In other words, if there is a certain amount of existing detention,
the detention required due to the ' development of the property would be in
addition to the existing detention.
Further, the detention basin design should be based on the storm having a
1 per cent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year, which is
the 100 year storm; that the criteria used to determine the runoff be derived
from technical numbers 1 and 4 prepared by the State Water Survey Division;
and the accompanying storm sewer system, running full, shall be designed to
carry the runoff from a storm having a 10 per cent chance of being exceeded
or equalled in any given year, which would be the 10 year storm.
As to building regulations, Mr. Littleton stated that the construction of
buildings within the flood plain will be such that the buildings will be flood -
proofed to a point 3 feet above the 100 year storm high water level. This
flood-proofing must be in compliance with classification FP -1 of the Corps of
Engineers Flood Proofing Regulations, in compliance with the Federal Insurance
Regulation procedures.
He pointed out the design criteria as calling.; for:
- Outer walls and basement floors to be floodproofed;
- The building anchored to prevent flotation of movement;
- The building designed to withstand hydrostatic pressure of the water;
- Service facilities, such as electricity, heating and plumbing
designed to withstand flooding.
The above criteria, Mr. Littleton explained, is also in compliance with the
residential classification of FP -1, as published by the Corps of Engineers.
OAK BROOK PLAN COIRIISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT NEETING - 5 - May 16, 1977
Commercial structures can adhere to the FP -1 or FP -2 classification of the
Corps of Engineers, which is also stated in the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Littleton then referred the presentation back to Mr. Spencer, who
concluded it with the statement that he and Mr. Littleton believe that the
proposed Ordinance does provide certain changes which will protect the
Village from flood damage. He added that it also complies with the
references to FP -1 and FP -2, with the requirement of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and their Flood Insurance Administration,
which covers the flood insurance program of which the Village is a part.
Also, the Ordinance has been submitted to H.U.D. and they have given verbal
approval, with the FP -1 and FP -2 change, which Mr. Spencer described as
something they have been wrestling with over the past few months. `
Mr. Spencer advised that he and Mr. Littleton would be happy to respond to
any questions.
Mr. Barton thanked Mr. Spencer and Mr. Littleton for their presentation, and
then invited questions from the audience, pursuant to procedure.
Mr. John Novacek, 3202 York Road, Oak Brook, Illinois, asked if there was
anything in the proposed Ordinance specifying whose responsibility it is to
keep the runoff channels open. He explained that on his property he has a
problem with the channel in that he has to open it up twice a year because
the flood waters come through so fast that gravel, silt and debris are
carried through and plug it up. He felt that it should not be the financial
responsibility of the property owner, especially since the problem did not
exist until the past four or five years.
Mr. Novacek advised that prior to that time the runoff_ was very light, but it
has now increased to the proportions of "a Johnstown flood." Ile referred to
Mr. Littleton's cortiments on channel straightening and agreed that it should
be, straightened out, but felt that it should not be his financial reponsibil-
ity to do this, that it should be someone else's responsibility.
Mr. Spencer explained that the Ordinance does not speak directly to that kind
of existing problem; that the Ordinance is to prevent this kind of problem
from arising in the future and to control the kind of development which may
have caused that difficulty.
Mr. Spencer added that there is a provision for non - conforming structures and
uses, and if, after adoption of the Ordinance, it is found they are causing
such problems and are in a flood plain, that they would be subject to certain
controls over any expansion of such structures.
Mr. Novacek expressed his opinion that if approval was granted on one site,
after which -the adjoining property owner had problems, that the adjoining
owner should not have to be financially responsible for this unforeseen
burden.
Mr. Spencer stated that the Ordinance really does not speak to this particular
set of circumstances; that it is the kind of question where the specifics
would have to be available to make a determination as to whether or not there
was anything the Village could do about such a situation.
Mr. Barton asked if there were any other questions from the audience. He
explained that it would not be necessary for a member of the audience who is
merely asking a question to be sworn; however, if anyone makes a statement
it will be necessary for them to be sworn by the Court Reporter.
There being no further response from the audience at this tine, he asked if
there were any questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Fraser advised he had a comment to the effect that it would appear this
Ordinance is creating a situation where the citizens of Oak Brook have a
certain portion of the Village removed from the controls given to them under
the Zoning Ordinance through the public hearing process, in that the flood -
ways, the fringes and the wetlands are now removed from any control by the
Zoning Ordinance, and that there would be no further recorded public hearings
concerning any such structures built in,,the future.
OAK BROOK PLAN C01/121ISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT 14EETING - 6 - May 16, 1977
0 0
Mr. Spencer explained that this Ordinance -- with the exception of two pro-
visions: one in the Zoning Ordinance and one in the Subdivision Improvement
regulations, which are repealed, and would otherwise be redundant under this
Ordinance -- is completely in addition to the other requirements of the
Village. Thus, for any matter other than the flood plain, they would still
be required to code before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Baroni commented that the property would not come before the Zoning
Board if the issue was solely one of flood plain. Mr. Spencer advised that
if, for example, there would be a Special Use, which would be a Special Use
under the'Zoning Ordinance and that property wished to exercise that Special
Use, it'would be required to come before the Zoning Board to obtain a
recommendation under the Special Uses under the Zoning Ordinance, and to
come before the Plan Commission to obtain a recommendation on a Special Use
within the flood plain area. Both of those recommendations would go to the
President and Board of Trustees independantly, for their final decision.
Mr. Hodges asked if this was in the Ordinance specifically; that he did not
see any reference to it whatsoever. Mr. Hodges commented it appears as
though the procedure for the Special Use is rather clear and it seems all
inclusive, and since the proposed Ordinance specifically relates to flood
plains, it appears to take flood plains out of the more broad Zoning
Ordinance. He added that there is no reference to the Zoning Ordinance in
the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Spencer advised that the reference is in Section 1.02, which contains
the repealer. He read the introduction of that sentence: "The provisions
of this Ordinance are in addition to, and not in limitation of, all other
ordinances, rules and regulations of the Village of Oak Brook, . . . . "
Mr. Lavery asked how he got around Section 2.A.4 of the Zoning Ordinance,
and read the following: "Section A: This Ordinance is adopted to the end
fact that: Sub - section 4, Hazards to persons and damage to property
resulting from the accumulation of runoff of storm or flood waters may be
lessened or avoided." Mr. Lavery advised that he was referring to Section
2.A.4 on page 869 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Spencer answered that this is a statement of the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance and, while the two Ordinances may in some areas duplicate one
another, the passage of the Flood Plain Ordinance would not over -ride any
provision in the 'Zoning Ordinance. He added that if there is a matter that
comes before the Zoning Board for a recommendation which involves the
consideration of storm water runoff or drainage or flood plain matters,
those points would still be considered by the Zoning Board and they would
take whatever action they were called upon to take.
Mr. Baroni cited an example that if a gentleman proposed to build a house on
a site that required no Special Use, and the only violation of the Ordinance
was this particular section dealing with the flood plain, then the Zoning
Board would have no jurisdiction. He asked if this was correct. Mr.
Spencer concurred; if it is an otherwise permitted use.
Mr. Baroni asked if this is because it is more of a planning matter than a
zoning matter. 11r. Spencer said this was his understanding of the policy
involved in running all of these by the Plan Commission.
Mr. Baroni advised he was having difficulty in perceiving the job of the
Zoning Board in carrying out the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; that as
long as there is no request for a Special Use variation, or otherwise to
do with the rest of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Board does not have
jurisdiction, as it relates solely to this section.
Mr. Spencer advised this is not an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and
that the provisions of this Ordinance will not be contained within the Zoning
Ordinance. This has been divided according to permitted and Special Uses,
and Subdivision Improvement provisions and building regulations, as a guide
to developers and property owners who will be involved in improvements on
flood plain property.
OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 7 - May 16, 1977
0 0
Mr. Bianucci added that it can be determined by a review of the Ordinance
there is a technique that has been employed in the Ordinance that is not an
exclusive technique. He explained there is no statutory provision, for
example, if the hearing body were to be the Zoning Board rather than the
Plan Commission, a commission of the two, or a separate, independently
conceived board, so this is an approach to a problem in terms of procedure.
He pointed out, as Mr. Spencer had indicated, it is specifically prescribed
as an addition to the existing Ordinance provisions.
Mr. Reece advised that this is specifically covered in Section 2.01, Sub-
section (a), which says: "The following uses, when permitted by the Oak
Brook Zoning Ordinance . . . if and then it deals with it specifically under
(b) Special Uses: "Uses not listed above which are permitted or special
uses under the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance ." He added that the same
is shown in Section 2.02 of the proposed Ordinance, Sub - sections (a) and
(b) and he felt it was quite clear, that the governing Ordinance that would
affect the Zoning is the Zoning Ordinance, and these are just procedures,
assuming that preliminary qualifications have been met, and it becomes a
subsequent consideration that has to be met and can only be considered if
the Zoning Ordinance has been met in the first place. Mr. Bianucci
concurred that this is the procedure.
Mr. Fraser advised he reads the opposite in .S.ection 2.01, taken in and of
itself, which reads: , that any Special Uses that are now permitted
under the Zoning Ordinance will be determined by the Plan Commission and
sent to the Village Board." He stated that the only thing that could
possibly protect the citizens is Section 1.02, stating that these provisions
are "in addition to." He thought perhaps that covers it, he didn't know.
Mr. Bianucci explained that if there is an ambiguity, the intent was as Mr.
Reece had outlined and described it. Mr. Fraser again referred to Section
2.01, in that if there is a special use; "the Plan Commission will
Mr. Bianucci advised that that relates only to this Ordinance, and the
regulation of the flood plain pursuant to this Ordinance.
Mr. Fraser asked if, for instance, there is a Special Use for an R -4 in a
particular area, according to the Article Mr. Reece referred to, that would
not come before the Zoning Board except for the provision of Section 1.02,
possibly, which would be all inclusive. Mr. Fraser said he did not
interpret 1.02 as broadly as it had been explained in the presentation.
Mr. Barton advised that perhaps it would be helpful to give some background
as to the development of this proposed Ordinance, because we may be struggling
under some misapprehensions.
He explained that the Village has had, up until now, basically two control
Ordinances: the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
He recalled only one short paragraph in the Zoning Ordinance that dealt with
flood plains which was not in the original Ordinance but was added about 8
years ago. That was all that was had to control construction in flood plains.
Mr. Barton stated that the Plan Commission perceived a weakness and sought
to remedy it by preparing this draft Ordinance, with the assistance of the
Village Attorney, and in that process a committee of the Plan Commission
reviewed a number of ordinances from other communities in the County and
came up with a recommended Ordinance that seemed to best fit the situation
in Oak Brook.
He explained the purpose of the Plan Commission in drafting this was to
create some new conditions that did not heretofore exist in Oak Brook, that
would make it more difficult for developers to develop flood plain areas,
than it was under the two control Ordinances previously mentioned.
Mr. Barton stated there was no intent on the part of the Plan Commission or,
he is sure, on the part of the Village Attorney, in drafting this, to
deprive the Zoning Board or the Plan Commission of any jurisdiction that
the Zoning Board had under the Zoning Ordinance as it exists today, or under
the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 8 - May 16, 1977
r •
He advised that this Ordinance imposes additional restructions, and if there
is an ambiguity, which he did not read into it, between the proposed
Ordinance and the existing Ordinances, he believed such ambiguity would have
been inadvertent and there was no intention on the part of anybody to deprive
the Zoning Board of jurisdiction that it has had, or the Plan Commission of
jurisdiction it has had under the existing Ordinances.
Mr. Barton pointed out that this is a public hearing at which there will not
be votes taken, recommendations made, or otherwise; that those votes will be
taken at regular meetings of the Zoning Board and Plan Commission. The
purpose of tonight's public hearing is to hear the public and to air these
questions and perhaps the answers can be given in more detail to the Zoning
Board and Plan Commission before they take a vote on it.
Mr. Fraser agreed with Mr. Barton that there should be a better Ordinance
to control the flood plain. He emphasized that the Zoning Board members
were merely pointing out that it appeared to them that the way in which this
proposed Ordinance was drafted, whether inadvertently or otherwise, that it
may have created a situation where a portion of the Village has been taken
out and removed from the control of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fraser advised that the Zoning Board has no axe to grind as to whether
it is in control of something or not, but the Zoning Board was put in for
the protection of the citizens of Oak Brook, and it appeared, other than the
statement in Section 1.02, for additional provisions, that flood plains,
floodways, flood fringes and wetlands were lifted out of the Zoning
Ordinance and put in a separate ordinance.
Mr. Barton advised that due note is being taken of this and it will be
studied and the Zoning Board will have an opportunity to make its recor_lmen-
dation one way or the other.
Mr. Bianucci, as a point of clarification if it is not already understood,
explained that the public hearing was for the purpose of input; that the
Ordinance, per se, is not cast in concrete, and it would be modified if
the respective bodies acting upon it make such recommendations.
Mr. Baroni asked if he was correct in his understanding that this is not part
of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Barton advised that is his understanding, that
it is to exist as a separate and independent Ordinance, which supplements
both the Zoning and Subdivision Control ordinances.
Mr. Baroni asked who is to determine which body a petition is to come before.
Mr. Bianucci advised the procedure would be no different in substance than
the Village presently employs. It would all depend on the type of relief
called for, and the provisions of the respective Ordinances would be applied,
after which a final decision would, of course, be made by the Village Board.
Mr. Hodges commented that he doesn't see how it can be construed as anything
but a Zoning Ordinance, considering the fact that it controls the use of the
land; that most of the criteria came out of the Zoning Ordinance and have
been labeled as zoning questions, zoning matters and zoning items.
Mr. Bianucci explained that this is a superimposition on the Ordinance; that
variations are not being granted to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hodges
pointed out that the Ordinance calls for a procedure for a variation, to
which Mr. Bianucci interjected it would be from the provisions of this
Ordinance.
Mr. Hodges commented that anyone who read the proposed Ordinance could not
escape the conclusion that if they wanted to ask for an amendment, all they
would need is to get the Plan Commission to make a recommendation, and it
would go to the Board of Trustees, directly. Mr. Bianucci differed with
this opinion, in that there is a provision that it is in addition to the
existing Ordinances,,and if one chose to ignore that provision, Mr. Hodges'
conclusion could be reached.
OAK BROOK PLAN C01/21ISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 9 - May 16, 1977.
0 0
Mr. Hodges said he was merely suggesting that when a general category is
taken from the Zoning Ordinance, and from that you go to great lengths to
come up with a lot of specific regulations, you could conclude that you
have taken this out of the general Zoning Ordinance and have, therefore,
set up specific provisions which override.
Mr. Hodges agreed there are a number of ways to read "in addition to" and
"not in limitation of" but his impression from the whole discussion this
evening was that a few words of very plain simple meaning could be added
and satisfy everybody. He stated that his opinion is the addition of the
term "Zoning Board of Appeals" in a few well- chosen places might end a lot
of the discussion on this Ordinance.
Mr. Bianucci commented he did not feel it was his prerogative as a lawyer
to become involved in what otherwise might be a jurisdictional discussion.
Mr. Baroni advised that as he reads the ordinance it appears as though
the Plan Commission is going to administer it, and then the Village Board.
Mr. Bianucci advised that is the procedure, as outlined in the Ordinance.
Mr. Baroni asked if that was intended by the people who compiled it.
Mr. Barton explained that he would answer that question, that as far as the
Plan Commission was concerned, they did discuss the drafting of it, as to
first of all, whether there was a legal requirement that the hearing
procedure be of any specific type. He said the advice received was that
it would be appropriate, as Mr. Bianucci said, for the Zoning Board to be
the initial hearing body, or the Plan Commission to be the initial hearing
body, or for a separate Flood Plain Control Commission, or whatever you
might want to call it, to be the hearing body.
Mr. Barton stated it was the feeling of the draftsmen that it was more
appropriately the function of the Plan Commission because it had to do with
land planning, more than the types of things the Zoning Board normally hears.
He repeated that there was no intention to take jurisdiction from either the
Zoning Board or Plan Commission, and since there is that impression, Mr.
Bianucci will take note of that and make his recommendation.
Mr. Baroni inquired about Permitted and Special Uses, under Article II,
specifically "(2) Private and public recreational ; ". He asked what is
contemplated. Mr. Barton advised this would be tennis courts;and golf_
courses, to name two; bike paths, polo fields, socker fields. He mentioned
that he had said "tennis courts ", which would not be appropriate because
this would be an above - ground structure. Mr. Baroni asked where this is
defined, which question Mr. Barton referred to Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer advised that there is no definition of a structure contained in
this Ordinance, but there is such a definition in the Zoning Ordinance
which would cover such construction.
Mr. Baroni referred to "bridges, docks, piers, retaining walls, headwalls,"
and commented that he presumes one would want to take a look at these
before a permitted use was granted. He asked if that is perceived by this
Ordinance. Mr. Spencer explained that in the introductory portion of
Sub - section (a) there is a provision that they are permitted if they will
not obstruct flood flows, and that no structural fill or storage materials
or equipment is required.
Mr. Spencer added that when anyone wants to build anything in the Village,
they must come in to get a permit, and it will be up to the Building
Commissioner to make the initial determination as to whether it will have
any effect upon the flood plains.
Mr. Baroni asked if it does have an effect on the flood plains, then the
applicant requests a Special Use permit. Mr. Spencer explained he would
assume that the applicant would be denied the building permit, and if the
individual wished to proceed he could come in with a Special Use request.
Mr. Scott commented that it starts out by saying: "The following uses, when
permitted by the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance "
OAK BROOK PLAN COIRIISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 10 - May 16, 1977
Mr. Baroni replied that that is assuming it is permitted, but it is an
obstruction rather than an addition to, which is apparently covered by the
introductory paragraph. He asked if there is a substantial number of
undeveloped parcels that would be covered by this Ordinance. Mr. Spencer
advised that Mr. Littleton has maps showing the flood plain areas in the
Village. There followed the naming of various locations in the Village
which may be affected.
Mr. Baroni remarked he would think that this is a substantial undertaking by
an individual or entity who is a property owner of some duration, who is
required to submit a substantial dollar's worth of information with respect
to a request for a variation that has nothing to do with the flood plain.
He wondered about the lack of a waiver, or an imposition of this kind of
requirement on an individual who may have his property in the flood plain,
but who needs a side yard variation that has nothing to do with the flood
plain.
Mr. Bianucci asked and Mr. Baroni confirmed that this refers to no encroach-
ment on a flood plain. Mr. Barton said there would be no problem under the
proposed Ordinance if there is no encroachment on the flood plain area, but
if there is an encroachment he would have to come before the Plan Commission
for a hearing under the proposed Ordinance, as well as the variation
procedure under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Baroni commented that he is still
concerned about the imposition, notwithstanding.
Mr. Barton suggested that the burden that is added by this Ordinance is
justified by the need to protect the public health, safety, etc., and that
is the ultimate decision of passing any ordinance.
Mr. Baroni commented that, by its nature, the Ordinance has to be quite
verbose; that it seems like we have penetrated the area quite extensively,
and he finds that an extensive penetration of an area gives rise to more
questions rather than less questions, but that this is an editorial comment.
Mr. Baroni referred to Article IV., Sub - section (b) Limitations on periods
of use and operation; and asked what is contemplated by that. .
Mr. Spencer advised that the provision contemplates possible periods in
which there is an increased chance of flooding within a particular area, or
the use of a particular structure, if it is required 24 hours, might be more
of a danger than if one were used only certain portions of the year or if
there were a back -up system for it, particularly in the case of utilities,
so it would not necessarily be used all the time. Mr. Spencer said he
believes the concern was more for times of the year rather than times of the
day, but either one would be covered under this provision.
Mr. Baroni referred to IV. (c) Imposition of operational controls, deposit
of surety bonds, and deed restrictions; and asked if surety bonds are
obtainable. and if this is a circumstance under which a surety bond would be
requested. Mr. Spencer advised that surety bonds are obtainable, and that
there have been two matters before the Village Board, one of which has
involved something of this nature. He stated that surety bonds are obtain-
able and that these kinds of restrictions have been found to be useful in
providing for possible harmful effects of allowing certain uses within the
flood plain.
Mr. Spencer added that it is an area in which the total experience is not
that broad that we can declare that if the Village allows a particular use,
then we have a certain limited area of possible ancillary effects, and,
therefore, the Village presumably, in some cases, would want to be covered
in this manner over a wider area.
Mr. Baroni asked if they would want a bond all the time. He doubted that
there were very many people who could anticipate that a channel was going to
get stopped up where somebody is harmed by it, for instance, in a new
development, and in an unanticipated way by virtue of granting the use.
Mr. Spencer said this would be a policy decision that would be up to the
Village Board. This merely gives theca the authority to require such a bond
if they decide it would be necessary in a particular case, but as to how
broad the requirement might be would be up to the Village Board.
OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 11 - May 16, 1977
•
•
Mr. Baroni asked Mr. Littleton if the administration of this is significantly
judgmental rather than scientific, and specifically determinable based on
measures and standards. Mr. Littleton responded that he thinks it involves
both, that it is a pretty precise means of determining the extent of the
flood water encroachment, and it certainly has to be judgmental.
Mr. Baroni agreed that a certain amount of judgment is involved and asked how
this judgment would be exercised, vis -a -vis side effects of the proposed
plan. He referred to, as an example, Mr. Novacek's channel, which did not
used °to stop up prior to several years ago, but that presumably someone
created an obstacle or obstruction that resulted in a change, or perhaps it
was stopped up to start with every year. He asked how those kind of side
effects would be anticipated, since it would be judgmental, and you may or
may not realize that that is going to happen.
Mr. Baroni continued, that the comprehensive language in the proposed
Ordinance would certainly help in the administration of the law, but the
absence of water in a flood plain is not necessarily always anticipating
forthcoming construction.
Mr. Scott commented that Mr. Novacek's case would not be covered under this
Ordinance. Mr. Baroni said he was using that as an example only because he
did not know of any other example, but this was merely an example of some-
thing that could happen in the future; that since he is not an engineer or
a student of flood control that he did not know what other side effects
there are, except flooding somewhere else.
Mr. Fraser answered Mr. Baroni's question by stating that the factors which
determine the flood plains are highly judgmental, but once they are
determined they then become strictly engineering data and it is the engineer's
problem to come up with the proper solution. In other words, once these maps
have been determined, it is no longer judgmental, it is a fact.
Mr. Listecki stated that since water seeks its own level, if you have a
portion of land at an elevation of 658, which is under water, you can
accurately determine that the adjacent land is going to be under water if
there is no dam in between.
Mr. Barton advised that for an Ordinance like this to stand up, there would
have to be statutory standards. He suggested that there have been a large
number of standards written into this Ordinance, but, as in the administra-
tion of any Ordinance, those standards must be applied by exercising the
appropriate judgment by the administrative officials.
Mr. Barton asked if there were any further questions.
Mr. Noyes referred to Section 1.05, (a) Floodways, and (b) floodway Fringes.
He referred to their having conditions such as the excerpt from (a) which
states: ". . . new construction . . . shall be prohibited," and pointed out
that there might be a lot with a portion in the floodway, yet the portion
that is out of the water has a buildable site area, which would require
coming in for a variation under the Flood Plain Ordinance even though there
was just the end of the lot in the flood plain. He felt there should be
some clarifying language there to be sure that if the buildable area is not
in the floodway they should not have to come in for such a variation.
Mr. Noyes also referred to Section 3.02, Sub - section (d), where he thought
the above - mentioned condition might be covered, but he was not sure. He
asked if it takes care of someone who does not have to come in, even though
their lot has flood plain and,_flood plain fringe.
Mr. Spencer advised that in such a case the applicant would still have to
come in, he believed, and there have been a couple of different drafts on
those provisions, but it was his understanding that such lots that are on the
edge would still have to be reviewed. However, if they do have a building
site that is on the line there would be building permitted on that lot, but
there is a difficulty in having the flood plain run right down the lot lines
and this provision is intended to bring those lots within the provisions of
this Ordinance. He added that this is a matter that is up to the Board and
the policy determination as to the extent of this Ordinance.
OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 12 - May 16, 1977
W
0 0
Mr. Barton asked if there were any further questions from the members of the
Zoning Board or Plan Commission. Hearing none, he advised that he would now
invite any opponent of the Ordinance to make a statement or presentation
and that any such opponent should be sworn before making that statement.
There was no response from the audience.
Mr. Barton advised that the Village Board, the Plan Commission and the Zoning
Board of Appeals will consider this proposed Ordinance in the normal course
of their business. He advised that the Village Board meets on the 2nd and
4th Tuesdays of each month; the Plan Commission meets on the 3rd Monday of
each month and the Zoning Board meets on the lst Tuesday of each month, all
in the Village Hall in this room. He commented that the Plan Commission
meeting tonight will continue after the joint meeting is over, and they will
consider this matter on their agenda.
He asked for a notion from a member of the Plan Commission to adjourn the
joint meeting. Mr. Marquardt moved, Mr. Noyes seconded, that the Plan
Connraission portion of the joint meeting be adjourned. Upon the Aye votes
heard, the motion was carried.
Mr. Baroni moved, Mr. Fraser seconded, that the Zoning Board portion of the
joint meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried upon the Aye votes heard.
Mr.'Barton stated that the joint meeting was then concluded.
OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, JOINT MEETING - 13 - May 16, 1977
r
C (4 ^
� _ a __ • , . r, h � _ 3 ' - ,4 � s ' _J Y ... ` r `11'_iY` '1r !' ,
, { . j i *' • t'_ ° w �'_ -..- > # xi • =(_ \ •. ' � i � e '1 YY -I I Y ., . ,i i t i .S.ru -^ r . -A i + =�M � 6 .. `.i =- '; '�.} `..�,4 � * � t i��}y �.i ^� ,
. • f ::�,<= ` w t . 5, :'.",r.. ::"�'" - - ;, ,. 5 'rr „�- 'i,y 2" _ 'r,,w Y;. Fv
' - �.� - Lri , , `'.Y� S �,l +� iG . xi � ct _ 4" , K '}q W• g
e y , r` j A ..'a.- 5„ r -' •`,! , ` („ fN;. f ,°
^ r , i y . y .A . tS S , �� f y y *�f `. ,. {• , L s ' S s;'� , ' t r irry > Jd ''k't4S M1;uY 'y • �, ar i ' '�d'; , x�„zx."
, n < t..f n ' Y J , - ,q,} � " {,ai^' -" a' 2" f S x `•"` �F.r- �r'�~t !i,( m".. «
\ , i ✓ _ ... e , rt" � - C+,t�Y^FY .fI �' , ; C- tlt� ie, j•. •{N -t.. -, i ^V ✓.�L i-,ir A�'r'vJ,e`
a'S` ",;•4„` .tit ..._%:+'�`&` .: e' •c"��•�•;
': + F •% ' i . - � ay {�,e ;fi °'"z `
F .4,� °`. ,+"''' „ y` • t . �,: '' "lW'�C,`�a" j o y 1 F'4"`�W �y w 3 � 4•s2iayx �{t ,.�'. " ? .e„�,y a`s
• , ii _ r- '; A •. _'/- ''- _ jf ' '„` ' i c _ y ' a , -.'. - 'k'
..,.,... ..+.; �. . �:. a..`., s, . �. atiaa..._., �.'{.. ei�::•. if.=., cr+ .i:.�.`.w..9..a^."d::i.:e.?..1 �.�.:: ,, i`s: ' .. ir5: s: ` m,[ to..,...? s.-. W'.,.., � ,::...s.=sa@.i`k"d.4:..�..�&. Tau-. ... c...'....;. a. ri__ 9tL... i`... t.. s ,....�t':.3ac.:::.�.::en'.i:n, =�....s1: ".e:..s.�u..s:aL;:v a�,..��_.`.,
LEGALNOTICE
ILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
DUPP' ANDCOOKCOUNTIES,ILLINOIS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ,
Nr IcE Is HEREBY GIVEN that a Joint Public pUBLISHER'S CERTIFICATE
Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan j
Commissionofthe Villageof Oak Brook, DuPage and Cook
Counties, I111nois, will be held on May 16, 1977, at 7 30 p m
at The Village Commons, 1200 Oak Brook Road, Oak Brook_
w Illinois, for the purpose of considering
A proposed Ordinance for the management and control THIS IS TO CERTIFY That the notice, a true copy of which is attached to this
of- flood plains Said proposed Ordinance would repeat �ert)f>cate, vas published in T:IE OAK BR'-'OK DOINGS once each week for
Section V N of Ordinance No G 60, as amended, and
Article V, Section 3 c 9 of Ordianance No G 140, as Ono
amended and provide standards and requlations for the __- ,
Weeks successively; that the date
development of flood palm property Copes of the proposed ..........
Ordinance are available for public inspection at the office
of the Village Clerk, 1200 Oak Brook Road, Oak Brook, 111,
during relater business hours 78th
All persons desiring to be near in support of or in of the first publication was the -------------------- ____ ___ __ _____ __ __ __ ____ _______da }' Of
opposition to the proposed Ordinance or any provision ,
thereof, will be afforded an opportunity to do so and may
submit their statements orally or in writing or both The ..A.D , -- 't :r1 I 19._.___._', and that the date of the last publication was
�
hearing may be recessed to another date if nonce of time _ 3 ............... .
and place thereof is publicly announced at the hearing or is
given by newspaper publication not less than five (5) days A D , 19
prior to the date of the recessed hearing the__________________________ day of__._.________._ _.__..___.____ ___
Marianne Lakosd, Village Clerk
Published at the direction of the Corporate Authorities, i AND IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED That THE OAK BROOK DOINGS is a
Zoninq Board of Appeals, and Plan Commission of the 1 secular newspaper of general circulation, published weekly in the Village
Village of Oak Brook, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois
SiPublrshed in the Oak Brook Doings Apr 28 1977 of Hinsdale, County of DuPage, State of Illinois, and circulated generally
in the Villages of Hinsdale, Clarendon Hills, Oak Brook, Willowbrook, Burr
Ridge, adjacent unincorporated and incorporated areas, and in DuPage and
Cook Counties, Illinois, and in other areas; that said THE OAK BROOK
DOINGS is a "newspaper" as defined by the Illinois Statutes made and pro.
vided for such situations, to wit; by Section 5 of "An Act to revise the law
in relation to notices ", 1874, Feb. 13, R S. 1874, P. 723, § 5, as amended 1959,
July 17, Laws 1959, P. 1494, § 1; and is also a "newspaper" as defined by
Section 1 of "An Act concerning the publication of legal notices ", 1909, June
8, Laws 1909, P. 288, § 1, as amended 1927, June 29, Laws 1927, p. 603, § 1, and
as further amended 1945, April 12, Laws 1945, p 1089, § 1, and as further
amended in 1957, July 9, Laws 1957, p. 2270, § 1, and as further amended
1959, July 17, Laws 1959, P. 1496, § 1; and that said THE OAK BROOK DOINGS
has been continuously published at regular intervals of at least once each
week with a minimum of 50 issues per year for over one year prior to the
first publication of the attached notice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, one of tl:e co- publishers of said THE
OAK BROOK DOINGS has affixed his hand and seal this
29th rA Fil A D. 1977
-- - - - - -- --- - - -_ -- -day of- P
16.65
Publishers Charge___ ________ __ ______ __ __
iTpublisher - '�,