Good morning.

Today is Wednesday, November 5th, 2025.

I called order the Lake County Board's planning, building, zoning, and environment committee.

Our meeting is being held through Zoom per County Board Rules and the Open Meetings Act, attendance via remote means is permitted for qualifying reasons.

As long as a majority of committee members are physically present.

We've been noticed, notified in advance by members Campos, Member Campos that he was to participate electronically due to qualifying reason, which is due to work, and member Kenishnik due to qualifying reason, which is due to illness.

As a reminder, members attending remotely, please ensure your committee uh cameras on at all times.

Also wish to note that Vice Chair Peterson has been delayed.

She intends to be here, but we're going to start without her.

And that's why you have me speaking.

Member Schlick.

Thank you.

I would like to nominate uh Member Paul Frank as chair pro tem for this committee, please.

Second.

Second by member Wasek.

Any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Chair Altenberg, absent.

Member Campos.

Member Frank?

Here.

Member Kniesnik.

Vice Chair Peterson.

Member Schlick?

Here.

Member Wasick?

And ex official member Hart.

Here.

Thank you, Chair.

We will proceed.

We have any public comment?

No public comment.

No chair's remarks.

Any unfinished business?

No unfinished business.

New business consent agenda item 8.1.

I apologize.

We neglected to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Let's do that.

Please rise.

And public.

Yes.

For all.

Okay.

Now we're moving on to 8.1 committee action approving PBZ and E committee minutes from October 8th, 2025.

Motion by Member Wasick, second by Member Schlick.

Any edits, comments, or questions?

None.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

8.1 is approved.

8.2 is committee action to amend an agreement extending the final plan approval date for the Wanish Park Planned Unit Development.

Motion on this item by member Schlick, second by Member Wasick.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Christa Brown, Deputy Director for Planning Building and Development.

We do have a slide presentation.

I think they're getting that pulled up.

So I'm here today to present a request to extend the agreement for the Wanish Park Planned Unit Development.

I'll start off by going through a brief history of the project and then I will go through the details of the agreement and the latest request.

So some of you may have seen this presentation before.

Two or three years, excuse me.

And that is for the guarantee of the construction of public improvements, including roads, stormwater management systems, and other infrastructure.

Um it was not feasible at that time for the developer to begin construction of all of the uh related infrastructure of the subdivision improvements um with little chance or hope that they could actually sell the units and the lots.

So in 2010, the counter entered the county entered into an agreement with the property owner to formally suspend the project while preserving the development approval.

Um and in exchange, we the county released the performance assurances and um entered into this agreement format, um, which has been extended several times since 2010.

So specifically, these extensions have granted time um for the market conditions to become more favorable for the development.

Um while the agreement is in effect, uh the developer is not allowed to sell or construct any of the lots.

Development standards that were approved as part of the PUD's final plat are also preserved with the stormwater management design being the one exception.

So in 2017, when the agreement was up for um extension, a provision was added that stipulates that the design of the project must be updated to accommodate current rainfall data and drainage regulations that are in effect whenever um at whatever time the project would be reinitiated.

So this includes updating existing and proposed base flood elevations and the sizing of stormwater detention basins if needed.

Additionally, the developer will need to post new financial assurances using updated engineering and construction cost estimates.

So this current agreement is set to expire um at the end of next month.

Uh this agreement, the request to extend it would uh extend the agreement term to December 31st, 2027.

So it'd be for another two years.

Staff is recommending approval of this request since the project would be a source of new housing, which everyone knows is in critical need right now.

Additionally, the agreement requires that the project will has to be brought into compliance with current stormwater management standards of the UDO and WDO.

And as stated in the request from the petitioner, they have had interest in the project.

Um, they just haven't been able to secure uh a developer and buyer yet.

So this extension would allow them additional time for that to occur.

So with that, I will take any questions.

Morning, Krista.

Good morning.

I am not familiar with this project, but I just want to drill down on the sum of the things we're still negotiating.

So how far along are they with SMC on the stormwater update?

So they they had everything worked out in 2008.

Um they went through all the approvals, all the engineering plans, um, everything was compliant at that time.

Um, all the the design details that they had worked out.

Um, what was in 2017, though, it was recognized that they were starting to get um, you know, 10 years past that date, things were starting to get a little um behind in terms of the the calculations and the the data that they were using.

And so that's why that provision was added in 2017, was just you know, moving forward at whatever point that the project is reinitiated, they're gonna have to go through their engineering team, whoever picks it up, will have to go through and and recalculate um and and possibly redesign, you know, tweak the design to to meet to be compliant with current standards at whatever point that is.

Well, I suppose the better question is how far along are they with SMC on seeing if they comply with the UDO and WDO.

I I know they're they're kind of thinly staffed right now and they have a bunch of other things in their plate.

I mean, is that extension?

So there's not been any like in-depth review of the project um right now.

Um so again, it was it was reviewed and approved by staff in 2008.

It's sort of been just literally sitting on the shelf since then.

Um at whatever time the the developer wants is ready to move forward, they're going to have to resubmit plans and staff will review it for compliance uh at that time.

Yeah, I'm assuming that since this is an over 55 committee, it won't have any impact on the school district.

Or do we even ask that question?

That it's an interesting question.

It hasn't come up.

Um, you know, I'd I'd have to dig back into, you know, what the what the PUD allowed for in terms of if there were school MPEC fees or anything like that.

Um, but presumably because it is uh a 55 years plus, it would not.

That would be my guess, but I'm just wondering if we are required to uh ask the developer that question um if it is a PUD.

So I uh I have uh Eric Wagner is is uh my phone a friend this morning, he did text me that they did work out a modification to the fees the developer did at the time of approval.

Um but presumably because it is uh a 55 years plus it would not that that would be my guess but I'm just wondering if we are required to uh ask the developer that question um if it is a PUD so I uh I have uh Eric Wagner is is uh my phone a friend this morning he he did text me that they did work out a modification to the fees the developer did at the time of approval so it was a reduced fees for impact for school impact okay and assuming that they come to terms with um SMC and what they need to do on floodwater retention how much does that um really integrate with our our watershed development plans so that that watershed is definitely part of the Dust Plains river watershed I mean did the new regs say hey you have to like send this water this way or I'm just just curious.

To be honest I I don't have the answer for that I could we could we could confer with with SMC and get back to you on that but um you know I presumably I would think it would all I mean it's all going to need to be worked out at whatever point they're ready to pick up the the project again and so it's it's sort of a a to be determined um what the level of impact would actually be just giving them more time in this correct extension is open ended or no this this extension would be for another two years as we've done okay yeah the every every time since 2019 which I was when I picked up my involvement with the project but they've they've requested additional two years.

So yeah.

Thank you member Wasick I have similar questions as you thank you for asking those member campos.

Thank you chair uh pro top um in the letter from Eric Wagner it says here I mean since 2010 going on for 15 years there was multiple third party proposals developing the properly but so far none have moved past due diligence investigations as the issues or the concerns with the property from the third party um proposal uh buyers um has that been communicated do we do we know why they choose not to go forward so so that was um actually what was put in um by the the owner's representative that was the information we received that they have had been working with some potential buyers but not made it past the due diligence I don't know the specific reasons um whether it was cost concerns or project feasibility concerns I I don't know um would that be pertinent information to know since I mean would we be able to get that information because if we're going to be holding on to this for the next I I know we're not holding on to it but we're gonna keep getting this extension I mean it's going on for 15 years I'm sure they understand what they're what they're trying to sell and what they can't.

So I'd be interested to know the issues with the property.

Well like I said it could be for any number of reasons.

You know it's you know people look at it's kind of like when you're when you're buying or selling a house right people um may walk away from a sale for any number of reasons that may or may not have to do with the property.

Maybe it's just not right for them at that time.

I mean we could we could certainly reach out to the developer um and and see if they would be willing to provide more details um excuse me the developer owner but um you know it's really the I think the matter in front of the committee today is whether or not we want to um allow the developer additional time to to seek uh a a buyer so um at whatever point um you know hopefully within the they'll be successful with this next um this next go round and they can find somebody and then and then the project would move forward and and they would be re-engaging with staff to go over all of the the engineering um plans and other things.

No absolutely I mean they're gonna get they're gonna get their extension I'm just curious as to how they're not why it's going on for 15 years.

That's my question.

So um I you know I think you know looking back I I'm speculating but I would say you know there's been there's been hiccups right we we had COVID um more recently and so you know there's there's always there's been market fluctuations things have uh outside external forces have caused projects to stall or or to stop and then get picked up again and they just not have they just haven't been successful thus far in finding a in finding a buyer.

They can move member schleck thanks I've run into issues with PUDs you know when they've carried over obviously I was I served on a board you know right after financial downturn.

So we had some PUDs that started there and carried over and we always kind of ran into arguments about building codes and zoning now some of these had started temp you know there was progress made and stopped where this one there's been no progress right obviously so that's I just want your assurance that since nothing has been done everything they do going forward will still be standard building codes I ran into it with the sprinkler system got it where they said hey you put that in a your codes and this year our PUDs from this year we don't really let to do that.

We don't really like to do that.

And so just wanted to make sure that our current codes and everything will be up to standards when this hopefully gets developed.

And it's my understanding.

So this is this is the agreement for the final plat and plan.

Um it's it's basically the site design.

Um the building, um, the building details specifically, no permits were applied for.

Um, and so at whatever point they're ready to, you know, they get through that um re-review of their of their engineering and their site plan, they're gonna have to come back to our uh our department and and apply and obtain building permits.

And so at whatever time those building permits they apply for, those are the codes that they'll be held to at that time.

Excellent.

Thank you.

So related to same line of questioning as member Wassex about some specifics, and maybe it doesn't apply to this POD, you could just answer generally.

But does the developer do an inventory of like trees that are on the property?

The photo you showed makes it look like it's pretty wooded.

Do we require them to inventory trees and provide to us a list of trees that would be taken down or protected?

They did.

Yes.

They would have to, that's part of their site capacity site plan review to do the tree inventory.

Identify whatever uh natural resources exist.

So they might have a young woodland or mature woodland or groves or significant trees, whatever applies, and then there is protection requirements that are applied to that.

So and do you know when the last time we've updated our requirements on species and size of protection of trees?

So the that part of the UDO hasn't been, we it's been pretty constant.

Um we haven't made many changes to that specifically in terms of what is how do we define what a mature woodland is versus a young woodland and and what those preservation requirements are?

So it's it's they're pretty high already, typically require 70% if there is an identified natural resource that they have to protect.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

All in favor, please say aye.

All right.

Any opposed?

8.2 is approved.

That is our main action item for today.

I'm looking at, did I miss something?

Do you have a county administrators report for us?

No county administrators reports.

Okay, we have no executive session.

No executive session.

Any member remarks or comments?

Member Wasick.

Just a question for uh Ruitan.

Can you report any progress on the um Avon Fremont Drainage District manor?

Yes, I can.

Um we are working with all of the municipalities that are part of the Avon Fremont drainage district, and each one of them are passing resolutions.

We've gotten two passed so far.

Um, one pending coming up with uh Libertyville.

Grays Lake has asked that they be the last one to pass the resolution.

I have all my fingers and toes crossed that we're gonna have that to you in the month of December, but just waiting on each one of the municipalities to complete that.

And um, we've also received something from the drainage district, which is supporting the dissolution as well.

So after all, assuming all that happens, then what's the next step for us that comes to this committee or the board?

Would go to FNA for the um passing of the resolution for the drainage district, and then it goes to the court.

So the court would go through their actions.

Okay.

Thank you.

You welcome great.

Seeing no others, we are adjourned.

This committee will meet again on December 3rd.

Thank you, Braun.