Good morning, everyone.

Today is August 6, 2025, and I call the Lake County Planning, Building, Zoning, and Environment Committee to order at 1032 a.m.

In addition to being able to attend in person, remote attendance has been made available to the public via Zoom at the link on the agenda.

This meeting is being recorded through Zoom.

Per county board rules and open meetings act, attendance via remote means is permitted for qualifying reasons as long as the majority of the committee members are physically present.

But we have nobody online today for a qualifying reasons.

Okay, so we're going to move to um member campos.

Can you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Yes.

Here.

Member Complos?

Yeah.

Member Frank?

Here.

Member can you think?

Member Schlick is absent and member Wassick is absent.

Here.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Member Wasick.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any addenda to the agenda?

No addenda to the agenda.

Any public comment?

No public comments.

Okay.

I have no chairs remarks today.

Um, any unfinished business?

No one finished business.

Okay, we're gonna move on to new business, and we're gonna welcome PBD director Eric Wagner, deputy director and zoning administrator, Krista Barclay Braun, and senior planner PBD Taylor Gendel.

So this is a resolution directing the Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct a public hearing on proposed tax amendments to chapter 151 of the Lake County, Illinois Code of Ordinances relating to a sustainable development incentives ordinance for unincorporated Lake County.

Can I get a motion, please?

Motion by Member Frank, second by member campos.

Proceed.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um so the committee has previously directed staff to research potential sustainable development incentive ordinance for unincorporated Lake County.

Um amendments are being drafted to provide applicants with the option to incorporate various sustainable practices into a project in exchange for certain density and dimensional standard-based incentives to be approved administratively through a weighted system.

Um these proposed incentives available for including additional sustainable practices would allow for increased density or floor area and reduced building setbacks.

Um and then some of the sustainable practices that the applicants would be able to choose from include, but aren't limited to building electrification, EV readiness, geothermal heating, green roofs, or solar energy.

So at this time, staff is just seeking confirmation from committee on the general direction of the proposed amendments and to initiate a formal hearing process.

So the next step would be county board's approval of a resolution to initiate the ZBA hearing.

Um, and then staff would complete the drafting process and proceed to ZBA for the hearing of the proposed text amendments.

That's all okay.

So is this the first time we're doing something like this?

Yes, it's very exciting.

Okay.

So yeah, just to sort of um expand on Taylor's comments.

This is a new direction for the department.

Traditionally, we have um through our regulations required certain sustainability features.

This is a way that we can sort of add the the carrot to the stick um in the equation in trying to drive innovation and development in the county.

And so by offering um developments, ways in which they can uh they can improve their bottom line for penciling out projects in exchange for additional sustainability benefits to the property, the environment, the community.

We think that that's a great way that we could encourage more of this happening without requiring it.

stick um in the equation in trying to drive innovation and and development in the county and so by offering um developments ways in which they can uh they can improve their bottom line for penciling out projects in exchange for additional sustainability benefits to the property the environment to the community we think that that's a a great way that we could encourage more of this happening without requiring it okay and can you give a couple examples like what what could they incorporate that that would be you know uh appealing to us they could put solar on the roof uh they could put a green roof on the building um they could have EV readiness so just have it ready to uh have an electric vehicle not necessarily install it but have it electric charging station and the interesting thing about this approach that we're taking is that it starts with sort of a baseline series of sustainability um approaches or ideas but when we have the framework in the ordinance we can add to it as time goes by and so when we see more sustainability practices that are become better becoming feasible within the marketplace um we can start to amend the ordinance to add those incentives in as well so that we can over time you know develop out a whole series of of feasible strategies to incorporate voluntarily incorporate sustainability into new developments and so um this is I believe a start of something that's gonna be ongoing as time goes by and we can continue to build on the on the positive work in starting this this uh this new approach okay member frank thank you chair so uh just so I understand what the framework would look like do you envision that this is like a set of options that are essentially trade-offs like hey you want to you know not you want to build up beyond our traditional setback limitations uh we're open to that conversation if you incorporate three other points yeah eco friendly you know elements right so so they're they're trade-off items that are on the menu that previously were not is that right exactly and it's important to note that we're not the first community in the country that's doing this this is actually the point system has been in place in a number of jurisdictions across the country over the years you'll see that um that's actually been successful in driving sustainability and development and so that's um an opportunity for us to sort of join the the growing list of communities across the country that taking this sort of characteristic approach so and we have a lot of good you know background sort of best practices to draw from in that regard that's great thank you for pointing that out I think it's unusual when we do something where we're not the first because we're used to being the first it's okay to it's okay to do something and we're not the first I just have one other question if that's okay.

And that is um I just completely lost my train of thought so I'll be raising my hand again in about two minutes.

Okay.

So are there other are we the first county in Illinois to be incorporating these types of things um I know Chicago does it but I don't know if county does I I don't know if we've looked at county specifically I'm not sure okay just curious but this definitely goes along with our um you know strategic plan and I feel like we are we've been doing a great job of incorporating additional things uh to make us more environmentally friendly as a county member Frank I remember thank you thank you chair that's about water uh we spent almost half of the previous committee talking about water we spent a lot of time energy and resources on water in the county we're you know obviously lucky to have great water resources here is gray water recycling still not permitted in Illinois building codes is that's not an option that could be considered so the Illinois plumbing code does regulate um that particular um area of innovation and unfortunately right now from what we understand we can't recycle gray water back into things like irrigation and so forth um but and so uh we'd have to explore that further in terms of a legislative fix to be able to accommodate gray water recycling and development um it is something that we looked at a number of years ago um in the context of our state legislative program but um we haven't done anything since that's certainly something that we could look at in an upcoming legislative um program session uh so thank you and that that means for both commercial and residential it's still not permitted in Illinois as far as I'm aware okay I I'm not on that committee but I would be really interested in seeing us advocate for that okay thank you chair okay thank you any other questions any other questions okay um all in favor aye okay we're gonna move to 8.2 resolution directing the Lake County zoning board of appeals to conduct a public hearing on proposed text amendments to chapter 151 of the Lake County Illinois code of ordinances updating the existing lighting ordinance for unincorporated Lake County oh sorry no I need a motion motion by member frank second by member knees they're all going to be very similar but uh the committee previously directed staff to research lighting regulation

We're going to move to 8.2 resolution directing the Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct a public hearing on proposed text amendments to Chapter 151 of the Lake County, Illinois Code of Ordinances, updating the existing lighting ordinance for unincorporated Lake County.

Oh, sorry.

No.

I need a motion.

Motion by Member Frank, second by member Knijznick.

Yes.

They're all going to be very similar.

But the committee previously directed staff to research lighting regulations that incorporate dark sky principles and coordinate with facilities on a potential dark sky policy for Lake County owned facilities.

But similar to our work with bird friendly building design.

Staff envisions taking this in a phased approach to developing regulatory and policy strategies.

So with the introduction of non-residential dark sky based regulations first, and then followed by a discussion of facilities policy and residential regulations at a later time after we can do additional research on the costs and feasibility of that.

So staff's recommendation right now is to start with dark sky based non-residential regulations for lighting, which incorporate best practices such as the shielding of lighting fixtures, reducing the use of upward lighting in new developments.

And these recommended non-residential lighting amendments given dark skylighting's demonstrated effect of reducing bird strikes would complement the county's previously adopted bird friendly building design regulations.

So at this time we're again just seeking uh confirmation of the general direction of the proposed amendments and to initiate the formal ZBA hearing process.

Okay.

So we've had presentations on dark sky previously, and there's some of our communities have adapted these practices.

And yeah, I think it's a unique thing that people are starting to think about.

Um, I worry about safety, but it doesn't seem to be an issue in most of these communities.

There's less less lighting only like when you're driving at night.

But um, I haven't heard of anything that would cause alarm about that.

Have you guys heard anything about that?

It's really not less lighting, it's just directing the lighting down.

So yeah.

I think we we we've looked into some of the research that has been done because people there have been studies like um if there's correlated, you know, some correlation between lighting on a site versus criminal activity.

And I from what I recall, there was not any direct it well, it wasn't it was not a causation there.

So um, as Taylor said, it's really about getting not reducing the amount of lighting, but getting the lighting directed to where it needs to be and not where it doesn't need to be.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah, makes sense.

Any questions?

Member Frank.

Thanks, Chair.

Yeah, um, just want to underscore what you just said, which is this doesn't, if done properly, put safety for business customers or businesses at risk.

It doesn't prohibit lighting.

But if if you begin to analyze it and look at it, there's a lot of cases where we just have too much lighting.

And it's not just a risk to bird populations.

It has a, you know, we're starting to understand the impact on human health as well.

Uh, I unfortunately have a street lamp at the end of my driveway, and I have a tremendous amount of light that comes into my house every night.

And it's it's excessive, it's not aimed, it's overly intense in terms of the brightness.

And so, you know, these policies are really designed to help uh focus lighting and probably save money on energy efficiency in the long run as well.

So uh I think it's a really important next step to try and protect bird population and humans as well.

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with that.

I think we've been, you know, that's come to light so much more in the last few years, um, protecting the bird population.

And I'm sure I I don't think a lot of people have really thought about how we aim the lights, how that's gonna change perspective or living conditions or you know, a lot of things.

I think we're starting to think more strategically about these things, which is a good thing.

Any other comments?

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

We are moving to 8.3 resolution directing the Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct a public hearing on proposed text amendments to chapter 151 of the Lake County, Illinois Code of Ordinances relating to logistics centers and unincorporated Lake County.

Can I have a motion, please?

Motion by Member Kenijnik, second by member Frank.

Okay.

So as logistics facilities have become more prevalent throughout the country and the region, the creation of more impact specific regulations for these uses is a timely priority.

The logistics market has expanded due to various innovations in the marketplace, marketplace, including the recent growth of e-commerce.

This leads for an additional need for logistics facilities for shipment, storage, et cetera.

Historically, zoning ordinances for warehouses have failed to adequately address new logistic uses and the impacts that come with them, such as traffic, noise, um, aesthetic and environmental impacts.

So from a land development perspective, these logistics centers or sometimes they're also called distribution centers or fulfillment centers.

They're generally much larger.

They operate more hours, they generate more truck traffic than a traditional warehouse.

So the Lake County code doesn't currently contain logistics specific standards that would properly address these impacts.

So staff has been conducting best practice research and has begun drafting amendments to the code to regulate specifically these logistics centers and unincorporated Lake County.

Um the proposed amendments would include the creation of new use types for both small and large logistics centers, um, update some new definitions for these centers, um, increase the setback requirements and also um have add an or add a requirement that all logistics uses obtain a conditional use permit um and other standards designed to address the operational impacts of the surrounding communities of these potential logistics centers.

So once again, at this time we're just looking for general direction from committee on the proposed amendments and to initiate the formal hearing process at ZBA.

Okay.

No, I think that's really good that we're putting in some language if we haven't had it before.

And I feel like a lot of these distribution centers are popping up more and more, especially um when you look at companies like Amazon, you know, spreading out their footprint.

Um, any other comments on this?

Member Frank.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I'm really um happy to see us engaging in this.

I feel like there was a proposed development recently that you know got a lot of attention and I think we felt like hey, there's not a there's not a plan uh for this.

What about um what parts of our zoning code would also apply to like data centers?

Like is that something we would want to consider incorporating in this or having a different set of uh codes for that?

Data centers are a different land use, obviously.

They but they have very in some cases very intense impacts.

Um, they're high energy usage, you know, the the grid in a lot of areas can't even support the development of a data center, but it also has other types of sort of immediate impacts on surrounding uh communities.

And so um, even though data centers are an important part of our economy and they're an important part of sort of data infrastructure that we need to expand um, you know, across the country, we have to be context sensitive with these types of uses.

We have started to look at data centers in terms of how they're regulated in other parts of the country.

That's not an amendment that we're ready to propose yet.

Um, but we do anticipate that in the relatively near future, we're going to move forward more formally through request to the committee that we begin that process of of really digging in and deciding how the county might take uh data centers on as a new regulatory topic.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so for this uh proposed text amendment on um logistics, would part of the regulations consider like number, overall number in terms of capacity and need, countywide.

Like I have a concern that um economic factors would cause developers to overbuild in this particular sector.

And I would want to make sure that we were considering that in our zoning regulations.

Is that is that possible to incorporate?

We all we already see in other parts of the region.

If you go down 94, there already appears to be overcapacity within certain larger developments that may be visible from you know the tollway, for example.

Um, there is right now a glut of available logistics space.

And so, you know, I think those factors of like what's the what's the the need, what's the local economic need for a logistics facility?

What's the capacity within the system to accommodate new entrants into the logistics area?

Those are certainly something that could be incorporated into a regulation, but we also want to make sure that in so doing we stay within the the fence line, so to speak, of what state law allows for counties in terms of regulation.

And so we don't want to go step over the line and and regulate in a way that's not um that's not permitted by the Illinois Counties Code with respect to zoning enabling.

Um and so that's going to be part of the analysis as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

Member Knij.

Thank you.

Um, really just a comment and I appreciate the question that um member Frank just raised and your response about data centers.

Uh, I just, and I'm happy to hear that fairly soon we can expect to see hear from you some recommendations about these types of policies that would apply to data centers.

But I just want to urge you um maybe to not make sure that's not far down on the priority list.

Uh my husband works for Microsoft and he specifically on the AI side, and he talks a lot about how there's enormous overwhelming push for more and more and more of these data centers, and they're just gonna um the need or demand is just gonna keep growing at an expensive exponential rate.

But then I'm also thinking about what he says, and then I'm also thinking about what I heard at NACO at an event, um, uh one of the workshops that I was in about the um the economic impacts on the Great Lakes region.

And one of the things that stuck with me is that um they're gonna be this area, the Great Lakes region is going to be very popular and appealing for people who want to um build data centers because uh we don't have the water shortages that other areas of the country do.

So um no c no question really, just a comment, like and I can see by your nodding your head, you're already thinking about this, but um, I I would just urge this committee to encourage whatever they we can do and to encourage the team to um you know help figure out the right policies for that.

I think that's coming quicker than any of us realize that those types of um initiatives to try to bring data centers to this area, especially with sort of we have kind of like wide open spaces and um and water and uh so I just you know we we shouldn't push it off too far in the future.

Thank you.

I will say that um the ordinance does have at least a temporary stop gap to deal with these intensive uses like data centers.

We do have sort of general unclassified industrial uses, sort of described within our ordinance and the regulations for those, although very um very broad, do at least provide for some limited amounts of protection, you know, um, in terms of addressing the impacts of those uses.

For example, they're not allowed outside of industrial zones.

And so you have to have an industrially zoned property for one of those to even be cited to begin with.

And so we're not gonna see them in a cornfield, you know, out, you know, along the highway.

We're gonna see them potentially in places like industrial parks that have been, you know, that have adequate um energy supply and so forth.

So that's those those are the kinds of things that help us sleep at night today when we know that you know, we don't have a sort of best practice-based specific regulation for data centers, but we at least have something in place that could um allow us to um address those impacts if we do get something in the short term.

If um data centers they can go into existing sort of structures that maybe used to be used as warehouses or we have a lot of these empty buildings, or do they have to be sort of generally built from the ground up?

They they typically, because of the way the because of the types of you know, of processing that's happening inside those facilities, it's highly climate controlled, highly highly um specific in terms of how it's designed and built.

And so retrofitting those existing space.

I mean, I I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, but it's definitely like new build is more of a likelihood in that uh particular sector.

Right, thank you.

I was just curious.

So I definitely would urge you to move that up on your list, um, looking at data centers.

Um I think this committee is very interested in making sure that we have good regulations around it.

And I was at the same meeting with Sarah at NACO, and this is gonna be there's that now a Great Lakes caucus at NACO that's talking about a lot of the things that are going to be happening in this Great Lakes region.

And we do feel that um it's gonna become a larger economic corridor.

People are, there's a lot of organizations now that are moving in that direction, pushing for people to come this way because we're going to have the resources that others on the coast do not.

And so I think that's definitely going to be something that we want to focus on and think about.

And we have a lot of opportunity being right here on Lake Michigan to really try to entice a lot more types of businesses to come our way.

So okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

All in favor.

Okay.

Excuse me, Chair, I got a question.

Oh, I apologize.

Member Wasick, please.

Oh, actually, a comment on a question.

I fully endorse the idea of looking at data centers.

Uh, a very large complex is coming into my district, and we have no idea of the impact on the red or any other resources.

And also, um, thanks so much, Eric, to you and your team for teeing up um text amendments on uh logistics.

We have two very large logistics facilities um, you know, just down the road of us.

And I was wondering if you were going to consider not only carbon impact of these centers in your amendment, but also the impact on our roads.

I know at least one of these facilities that I'm referring to is is off of a state highway, and also uh several county highways are really taking a pounding because the trucks are getting bigger.

You know, there's obviously impact from diesel exhaust.

And are these things that you would consider in your text amendment?

So as we've pointed out previously, carbon footprint is not a specific area that under the counties code, it's Illinois statutes, we're able to regulate in the unincorporated area.

Um, however, you know, we can we can address sort of the um we can address carbon footprint in different ways um through the intensity standards that we apply to development.

Um, as far as impact on roads, that is absolutely something that's going to be part of um the packet of amendments um for any um land use in recent years that um we've sort of started to regulate.

We've uh that has like perceived or probable impacts on local roadways, both from the construction end and going forward.

Um, we do take into account uh road impacts, and there are you know, going to be um sort of performance guarantees and so forth that are part of the set of amendments that can ensure that during the construction of a facility and over time uh those those impacts can on the roadways, local roadways can be mitigated.

Thank you.

Any other okay, any other questions, member Wasick?

I'm good.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

We are going to move to thank you, ladies.

We are gonna move to 8.4 resolution approving a memorandum of understanding between the village of Old Mill Creek, the village of Wadsworth, and Lake County relating to the operation of the Route 173 corridor intergovernmental agreement in the final year of its current 20-year term.

Can I get a motion, please?

Motion by Member Knighnick, second by member Campos, Eric.

Eric Wagner and BJ Gatty.

Um this morning uh we'd like to uh discuss with the committee um a uh project and an agreement that the I'd say the vast majority of you are unfamiliar with.

This is uh the gateway agreement that um was developed back in 2006 to guide future development um within the sort of a far-flung northeast corner of the county um in the vicinity of Route 173 and 94.

This is an area that's largely rural, largely agriculture, agricultural currently.

It is at the essentially at the intersection of three communities, both the unincorporated area, the village of Old Mill Creek, and the village of Wadsworth.

Because of the sort of strategic location of this intersection, um, you know, as sort of the gateway to Illinois, um, back in 2006, the three units of local government, this is the county and the two villages got together to talk about how to ensure that future development within that sort of intersection vicinity was was properly planned in terms of aesthetics, land use controls, and uh infrastructure.

And so as a result of a series of discussions uh between the three parties.

We ended up adapting an intergovernmental agreement that controlled through this triparty um set of controls, controlled development that would occur within the boundaries of this so-called gateway area.

And the gateway area is on the screen here, it's the area in orange.

The majority of the areas within has been within the village of Wadsworth on the east side of 94, both north and south of 173.

Um, this second most voluminous jurisdiction is on the west side of 94 within the unincorporated area, and Old Mill Creek has a little tiny section at the north uh west corner of the district.

The agreement controls sort of, I guess, as you said before, the location of specific land uses within that area.

It also controls the aesthetics of development in terms of the design of development that would occur.

And that was important to the three parties because of the visibility of this area from two major roadways.

And then finally, uh, in order to ensure that proper infrastructure, both water and sewer uh was incorporated into any new development plans.

We required as a condition of of development approval within that area that those new developments be cited only with uh public sewer and um in most cases public water.

It's an 800 acre area, and so a lot of potential for development over time.

But um since the time that we established the agreement, there hasn't been any development within the gateway area.

Um, this is a little bit of a close-up of some of the areas in which you have um sort of land use designations.

Um the area west of the tollway is largely uh confined to both uh residential on the north and then office research on the south to the east of the tollway.

You have office light assembly and warehousing with a primary activity as office, all the way along 41, um, which is on the far eastern side of the gateway district, there's an area for retail and service.

Um, and that's sort of designed sort of as a highway commercial area for development.

So looking at the the reasons why development has not occurred within the district, and we've actually had a couple of different proposals that were um floated within this last 19-year period.

The primary driver for inactivity within the gateway district has been the lack of available sewer.

Um the the sewer uh interceptor that the county currently has in place is actually in it's on the edge of Antioch, um, all the way like a mile and a half west of the property.

In order to develop or the mile and a half west of the edge of the gateway district, and in order to develop um an extension of that sewer main all the way to the gateway district, it would require um a price tag of several million dollars.

And that figure keeps going up year to year because of the increased cost for materials and labor.

And so the lack of sewer in the area is is uh essentially a cost issue.

Um, that's why we do not have development within the gateway district.

It's important that we're talking about this today because next year, this gateway agreement will expire.

It will expire in the fall of 2026.

And so the parties are now, the three parties are now beginning to have conversations about what a new agreement would look like if we were to renew the agreement for another 20-year planning period.

Uh member Peterson has been involved in those discussions with the mayors of both uh Old Mill Creek and uh Wadsworth at a staff level, we've participated in the discussions.

And we do collectively feel like there need to be some significant modifications to the agreement going forward if we were to renew another 20-year agreement.

And we're, and those conversations and discussions continue as we're talking today.

We we meet periodically with the other two communities to talk about some of the again impediments and some of the potential opportunities to enhance the developability of the gateway district.

Meanwhile, we have a developer that has uh purchased property at the far northeast corner of the gateway district.

And I don't have a pointer here on my uh desk, but it's the area on the map in exhibit A that is in that's highlighted in red.

It's about a 15-acre property that is um within the village of Wadsworth.

The village of Wadsworth has been in discussions with the property owner uh for the last two years.

The the proposal at this location is for a um a truck sales business.

This is technically not on 41.

This is on an old 41.

And so if you look at the land use um map here, all the way along 41 until it starts to curve and split between 41 and old 41.

That entire quarter is designated in the agreement as retail service.

This property is like the it's the odd man out.

It's it's not because it's fronting on old 41, it's it doesn't have that um retail service designation.

Um, and yet the this the corridor north of that uh property along Old 41 is relatively developed with some truck stop and other um service retail service uses.

And so it is a uh, in staff's opinion, it's a good fit for the property uh based on its location.

It's also important to note that this particular property is on the very edge of the gateway district's boundaries.

And so it's it's the farthest from uh available infrastructure sewer in particular, that's again more than a mile and a half away to the west.

And so the development right now, because of both the land use designation for the property and the uh lack of availability of sewer and water, um, the development cannot proceed to um fruition.

And so that's this current agreement is preventing the property owner from developing the property that they've owned for the last couple of years.

So as we continue to discuss uh between the three parties the potential for renewal of the agreement, the parties and our attorneys have talked about the idea of recognizing the uniqueness of this particular property situation and waiv the the practical or the strict requirements of the current agreement as applicable to that property, given the fact that we're in the process of sort of beginning the negotiations over what another renewal would look like.

And uh at the advice of our respective attorneys, um, the parties have decided that the appropriate instrument for waiving the requirement would be a memorandum of understanding that would be acted on by the highest um sort of board of each of the respective communities, and this is the county board and the two village boards, and then um upon approval by that authority executed by the uh chief administrative official of each of those communities.

Um, and so what you have today is a proposed memorandum of understanding for committee recommendation to send to the board on uh the on the August board meeting for action.

If all three parties um are able to execute this agreement, that would then allow the village of Wadsworth to continue the development review process within its jurisdiction with this particular property owner.

And that process would involve rezoning the property, going through a public hearing process, and all of the attendant regulatory reviews.

That's part of that, including in this particular case, ensuring that there was adequate on site sanitation sanitary facilities and a private well to accommodate the development.

And so there will be a public process for the review of the development at this location in the village subsequent to the execution of the MOU by the three parties.

This is something that is going to be an ongoing conversation with this committee.

This particular unique situation is sort of a step in the direction of revisiting the uh three-way agreement, the gateway agreement as a whole.

And so over the next year, we're going to be coming back to the committee with news and updates on what direction it looks like the three parties are going to go in.

I'm optimistic that we can get something in place, but that's something ultimately that's a policy decision by the three governing bodies.

And so our plan is to keep the committee fully engaged in this process as we uh as we continue to sort of negotiate the what the terms might look like for another 20-year agreement for the three parties.

Okay, thank you.

Member Knežnik.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure I understand.

So the matter before us today, whether or not uh we want to support this idea of an MO MOU.

The purpose is to not interrupt the process that the village of Wadsworth and this landowner are going through in order to meet all the requirements, hoping that with a new 20-year agreement, it can continue going forward.

So we're trying to be good neighbors to Wadsworth.

And ultimately, if the you know, whatever happens with the agreement, whether the agreement expires and it's not renewed or the agreement continues for another 20-year period with new provisions.

This development will have already been through the entitlement process by then.

And so it will be it's you know, entitlements will be secure to proceed with development if the village decides to allow it within its jurisdiction.

So if we don't agree to this, it really just puts their whole project on hold for a year and sets them back.

That is correct.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Member Peterson.

Thank you.

Well as Eric has said, I've been involved with the three villages and discussing this situation with them.

And um I really do feel bad for them because they're kind of in a stronghold here.

You know, nothing has happened there for close to 20 years.

And um it's a smaller village, but they they really need development.

I mean, seriously, it's gonna, you know, affect a lot of things if they don't eventually don't get it.

So um like all the mean other municipalities are in favor of this, they'd like to see this happen.

And um, I would really appreciate your support.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Member Frank.

Thank you.

Uh, thanks for sharing that your perspective, uh, Vice Chair.

So the original intent of this agreement was so that the three entities would coordinate and there would be a plan, not to prohibit or restrict development, correct?

Correct.

Well, it it's a plan, but uh a three-way agreement to guide and to a certain extent restrict development into certain designated areas.

Yes.

Okay, and would this development be consistent with that?

I mean, are there the development as proposed doesn't conform to the land use designation for this particular area?

I'll go back to the map here.

It's it within the office white assembly warehouse zone, if you will.

And the unlike the the remainder of the the west sort of the eastern border of the um the gateway district, which is that orange strip going all the way down 41, all the way down to the southern border.

Okay, unlike that whole area, it does not allow retail sales.

All right, but it's adjacent to the other.

It's adjacent.

And in fact, it that was, you know, at the time, I wasn't involved in the original discussions and planning for that.

Um, but it it at the time it was envisioned that this would be part of a larger um office uh development area that would be accessed by uh Mill Creek Road, which is that small local road to the west of the property.

Um that just hasn't materialized.

It is like just looking if you drive down Old 41, it is definitely it's definitely a very commercialized quarter from the that property all the way north to the essentially to the state line.

Okay.

So I'm assuming that if we were going to look at renewing the agreement, we would also revisit the designations for each of the sections.

Yes, because hey, this hasn't worked, right?

We need to revisit that.

Absolutely.

And maybe if we're incentivizing additional or denser or different uses, we could also have conversations with them about incentivizing or incorporating some parcels that would not be developed.

I mean, I think that would be a reasonable trade-off for us to have a conversation with the parties about.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I I agree with member Frank.

And I'd love to see us work to make something happen as opposed to, you know, um, putting a barrier up so nothing's going to happen if there's an interested parties and there's a way to help our municipalities.

I think we need to, you know, and they're motivated to work with us.

I think we should be motivated to work with them.

I I will point out to the committee that whatever we end up doing here from the standpoint of negotiating new agreement, one of the elements that's very likely going to be absolutely necessary for this to be a practical 20-year agreement going forward is the is the creation of financial incentives for uh any development to occur.

Essentially, the and that's that's uh an area that that's currently being explored by the three parties in terms of you know whether some sort of sort of special taxing district could be developed around some of the properties here, whether there are additional state grants and so forth that could be made available.

There are some development um incentives that are already in place at the state level.

There just haven't we haven't lined those up with uh new development that's you know that's looking for for sites that are scale.

Um, but that is something ultimately that to make it palatable to the three parties to overcome the sewer expense hurdle, we have to be more creative about that because developers are not willing to pay the full freight in getting sewer all the way from Antioch over to the to uh the gateway district, given the price tag.

And so the county can expect that as part of this process in potentially renewing the agreement.

We're gonna have to explore participation in some very creative incentives for uh future development.

Was this sewer issue considered when they originally made this agreement?

At the time the agreement was originally executed, it was um it was envisioned that large-scale development could potentially pay its share of costs to bring development in, and then through some sort of recapture approach, we could see um future development sort of reimbursed the original developer.

But that original in that original vision was just never uh never realized.

Never, you know, it never came to pass.

We have across the border in Wisconsin, you know, the state funding shovel ready sites and you know, funding at the state level, you know, infrastructure to enplace development.

And so this is because it's so close to the border, you know, development, you know, looking in this general area might end up going, you know, into Kenosha County.

And so we have to just be more competitive, competitive about this.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Member Knishnek.

Thank you.

My question was answered.

Thanks.

Oh, all right.

Any other comments?

Any other comments?

Okay.

All in favor.

I motion passes.

Um, Eric, do you have a director's report?

I do.

Okay, great.

Um, I'm happy to uh report back to the committee.

Some of you were at the um the housing summit um recently where we convened um roughly 50% of the county's municipalities as well as uh leaders from the sort of nonprofit um development uh community, as well as uh nonprofit service providers, health care, uh practitioners, uh representatives from real estate industry, a whole panoply of stakeholders within the housing ecosystem to talk about the region's housing crisis.

And this is as we've talked about before, it's not just a regional crisis, it's a national crisis.

One of the great um deliverables at the meeting was a um a panel discussion among experts from different sectors, both from the health care economic development and uh from the state.

And also we had a special guest from Dane County, Wisconsin, um, a planner there who was uh central part of a similar regional housing planning initiative that took place a couple of years ago.

In some ways, Dane County is very similar to Lake County.

It's um a mixture of urbanized communities, including Madison and smaller suburban communities and then rural areas.

And so there's sort of a mix of all of these housing um housing types and densities and and uh and typologies within Dane County.

We were able to learn from the uh the planner from Dane County how they executed their process.

And so that was a real eye-opener for a lot of the participants at the meeting.

Um we did get commitment to move forward with uh, as I said at a previous meeting, a six meeting series of discussions.

The next meeting is happening in September.

At that meeting, we're gonna dig into the data on the housing supply gap in Lake County.

Like the big picture is we're behind by 11,000 market rate units as of 2027.

6,700 uh affordable units for families in that same timeframe.

We have a lot of ground to cover within the next couple of years to try to close that gap.

And so this is an all hands-on-deck exercise across the region to find ways in which we can partner and individually and collectively um approach housing with a mindset shift where we can all collectively contribute to increasing the supply of housing within our communities across the county.

I would encourage board members to continue to stay involved, engaged in this.

Uh, we do have opportunities for board members to participate in the process.

Um, the next meeting is a an opportunity to learn more about the degree of the gap and how that gap plays out in different parts of the county.

Um, but we're going to start to uh really, I think engage the participants in this process with really how it's going to be affecting them and in the respective communities and within their respective spheres of influence and how they can be part of the solution.

So, as I've repeated in my monthly housing bulletins to the committee, I will keep you fully informed about the process.

You can also continue to refer to the resources on uh Housing Lakes website.

That's a great informational resource for the um the schedule, also sort of best practices research and plans on housing.

And we continue to build that material out as time goes by.

Um, I'm gonna be asking board members again to be ambassadors to their respective municipal counterparts to ensure that those folks can continue to actively participate in the process.

We were very excited to see the number of municipal reps that showed up for the first meeting, but we want to keep that momentum going forward.

And so we're gonna be looking to you to help us drive that attendance in the series of meetings.

It could it may feel exhausting to some people, but it's important work.

And so it has to, we have to have as many people in the in the room as possible for that to be successful.

Yeah, I think this is one of the most important initiatives we have been pushing in, you know, the last several years.

And I think we all have to be very engaged in getting this process to move forward.

I've been super engaged with my towns, and it was so impressive to see over 150 people attend that first meeting, and several of us were there.

The female factor was there.

And um so yeah, we were very impressed with the panel.

I thought that was amazing um, you know, knowledge imparted to everyone.

I think um from a lot of the municipal people that I've spoken with, they're all you know, interested in looking at this.

Um, they know it's gonna be, you know, it's an issue.

Lake County Partners has been very vocal about the fact that this is gonna be a pivotal thing in terms of bringing more, you know, large companies to our area, people need a place to live.

And um, so I think this is gonna be, you know, something that we're all laser focused on for the next six months at least, um, with these meetings coming up and getting commitments from our partners to work on this with us.

And I I envision this process is just the beginning.

Yeah.

So the next six months is gonna be where a lot of the heavy lifting occurs in terms of planning and um stakeholder engagement and building the coalition around the issue.

Over the next several years, we're gonna need to continue that momentum going.

We're gonna need to work on individually and collectively our doing our parts to loosen up the regulations on housing to make housing development more cost effective, reducing barriers to development.

And that's gonna be again an all hands on deck exercise for it to be successful to move the needle on the housing gap, which is in the several thousand range at this point, and it's only gonna get worse as time goes by unless we take definitive this decisive action collectively in this area.

Absolutely.

Member Campos.

Thank you, Chair.

I just have a quick question.

You you mentioned somebody from Dane County was um and that he shared, they shared.

I'm not sure um their process.

What was some of the pointers to takeaways from that specific individual?

I'm interested to hear that.

So she talked at a somewhat high level about the the framework of their um of their process.

The most important thing that she felt was the most important ingredient that she felt was part of the success was getting a diversity of stakeholders together who come from different areas in the within the housing universe.

And fortunately, that's the approach that we've taken as well.

We've, as I've said before, we have um folks from all kinds of different what might look like initially disconnected sectors, but to a certain extent, they're all embedded in one way or another, you know, within the housing ecosystem.

For example, educators, you know, that's you know, that is a an a um that's a sector, the educational sector is a sector that's impacted by housing and that impacts housing.

Um, the same thing with health care.

Housing availability is a public health issue, and there are ways in which you have sort of housing related impacts on the healthcare industry.

And so having those stakeholders as part of the discussion is critical because we need to understand what their needs are.

Likewise, having solid representation from for-profit and nonprofit developers, from real estate, from the economic development area is critical because those folks are in the trenches trying to figure out how to develop, how to bring their product to market in a way that pencils out.

And so having those voices in the conversation is going to be an important opportunity for municipalities and county staff and uh officials to sort of think about how they can do their work more cost effectively with fewer barriers to entry to those folks.

And so having all that, all that uh diversity of viewpoints and different sort of angles through or different lenses through which these different stakeholders view housing is gonna be critical to understanding the scope of the fix and who's gonna need to be involved in a fix.

And that's what Dane County really try to focus on with their approach, the regional approach.

And so it's fortunate that we've begun our process in largely the same way that they uh did theirs a couple of years ago.

Um, I would encourage members of the committee to also like you can actually go on the Dane County website and see kind of like they have a really nice executive summary of how they went about their process, but sort of the same approach that we've taken here.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Well, I know we're looking forward to the September meeting and getting more information.

And you know, please reach out to us.

You know, again, we're gonna encourage our municipalities to attend.

I think it's as many people as we can get to these meetings.

Really, really important.

And I think I got very good feedback after our initial meeting.

People thought it was worthwhile being there and are very excited about the process.

Okay.

Any is that your whole report?

Okay.

And we are going to possibly have an executive session, but we're going to just talk quickly about we have some session minutes that we need to approve.

We only need to go into executive session if anybody has questions about those minutes.

Or is everybody satisfied with everybody's satisfied, then I can get a roll call vote.

Actually, do we need a roll call vote?

We're going to have you read on the second page here.

Okay.

For item 11.

Read that statement and then we'll get into the case.

Okay.

The state's attorney has the state's attorney's office has reviewed the executive session minutes for the planning building zoning and environment committee, as well as the inactive planning, building and zoning committee, which this committee has assumed the functions of.

The state's attorney's office has provided recommendations for which executive session minutes to release and which executive session minutes will remain confidential at this time.

Those recommendations are as follows.

For the planning, building, zoning, and environment committee, there are two items, and the state's attorney's office recommends, based on their legal opinion, that all of the items should be released open to the public, and none of the items should remain closed at this time.

For the planning building and zoning committee, there are four items, and the state's attorney's office recommends, based on their legal opinion, that none of the items should be released or open to the public, and all the items should remain closed at this time.

So I need a motion and a second to accept and follow the state's attorney's recommendations pertaining to the periodic review of executive session minutes.

Motion by member campo, second by member Keniznik.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

So thank you everyone for attending today.

I'm adjourning our meeting.

Our next meeting will be August 27th, 2025.

Have a great day.