Long Grove Plan Commission

November 1, 2005 Meeting Minutes

                                                                                                                            

 

Chairman Present:  Fred Phillips.

 

Commissioners Present:  Eduardo L. Acuna, Tobin Fraley, Charles Cohn, Michael A. Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, and Robert Jenkins

 

Commissioners Absent:  Joseph Di Iorio, Shelly Rubin, and Lisa Schultz Phillips

 

Also Present:  Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf, Plan Commission Secretary Wendy Parr, Village Planner James Hogue

 

 

1.                Call to Order - Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m.

 

 

2.                  Public Hearing:  Consideration of proposed amendment(s) to Le Savanne of Long Grove Planned Unit Development Subdivision, existing special use permits and/or additional relief necessary and/or appropriate under the zoning code that may be necessary to allow an addition to and expansion of the Arlington Rehabilitation and Living Center.

 

Chairman Phillips swore in all those attending the hearing, who planned to give testimony during the hearing.

 

Village Planner Hogue provided a brief history of the PUD and a summary of the proposal per the Memorandum to the Long Grove Plan Commission dated October 24, 2005.  The Arlington is located on lot 44 of Le Savanne of Long Grove PUD at the Northwest corner of Checker and Arlington Heights Road.  In June of 2004 an application for Special Use, submitted by The Arlington Nursing Home to amend the PUD, to construct an addition of approximately 14,000 square feet, was heard by the Village Plan Commission.  This application received approval from the Plan Commission at their meeting of August 4, 2004.  However the construction / remodeling never took place and revisions to what was previously approved is now being submitted for additional consideration.  These revisions are being treated as a new application for zoning relief.  The application proposes that two major additions: one two-story and one single-story, be attached to the existing structure.  One addition would extend the west end of the existing structure to the south and contain one story.  The second, slightly smaller addition would extend the east wall north to accommodate the two story addition.  A new parking area is proposed to the east of the southwest addition and a new access drive is proposed to link the existing access driveway to the existing parking area on the east side of the property.  The proposed zoning is an amendment of the existing special use/PUD.  To the north there is residential/agricultural land designated R-2.  To the south is the Hope Lutheran Church also designated R-2.  To the East is vacant land; the property of the Village of Buffalo Grove.  To the west is the Temple Chai, designated R-2.  The Arlington property is situated on 5.63 acres and does not contain flood plan/flood hazard area, nor does the property contain wetlands.  Nursing homes are permitted as a Special Use in the R-2 districts.  Based upon the petitioner’s submittal, the number of parking spaces would be reduced from 82 to 75.  There is a discussion of the setback in the memorandum.  There is no formal landscaping plan at this time.

 

The petitioner, Sig Lefkovitz, provided an explanation of the proposal.  He stated that the intent of the project is that the addition will be basically transparent as it will be of the same building style as the existing structure.  The facility is currently 100% full yet still not meeting the needs of the community.  Therefore, they need to expand.  They are also starting to provide additional care such as physical therapy and other therapies previously performed off-site, such as dialysis.  He stated that it is much safer to perform these services without taking patients off-site. 

 

Chairman Phillips asked the petitioner to clarify the building changes which he did.  The petitioner stated that the changes will meet all existing building codes.

 

Chairman Phillips opened the floor to comments from hearing attendees.

 

William R. Blackburn of 1647 Berney Lane stated that he has a concern with waste management, litter, noise and other issues outlined in a copy of a letter dated October 28, 2005 to Sig Lefkovitz, which was distributed to Commissioners.  He stated that after previous communication attempts, he followed up with the petitioner and was told his concerns had been delegated.  However, the concerns were not addressed.  He stated that he re-sent his concerns to the petitioner in the October 28th letter and the petitioner stated that he would take care of all concerns.

 

Mr. Blackburn reviewed the main points in the letter:

1.  Waste management.  There were old beds and other furniture lying around outside and an open top dumpster.  Trees had died and needed to be removed.

2.  Building material and repair.  Fascia along the gable on the west side of the garage was in disrepair.  There were a number of bricks lost from the wall on the west side of the building.  He requested there be a routine inspection of the building to identify necessary repairs.

3.  Noise control.  The air-handling unit is very noisy.

He is mainly interested in a process to keep the building in good repair and in keeping with the neighborhood.  He suggested a periodic review with the facility manager, accountable for maintenance.  He also suggested that trees and a berm be installed to shield the facility from residents.

 

The petitioner stated that he is responsible for the administrator and from now on, the communication will be better.

 

Jason Neiman of 1645 Bernay agreed with his neighbor and would like the facility to be invisible since it is so close and will be even closer than before, with the addition.  He wants to know the construction hours and days and is concerned with the impact that the construction will have on the children in the neighborhood.  Mr. Blackburn stated that he would like construction to be set up so that the easement is left open for people to use.

 

The petitioner stated that the construction should not take more than 120 days; depending on weather, between 90-120 days.  No journeyman need to be further than five feet from the building footprint during construction.

 

Mr. Blackburn would like to see the building plans.  The petitioner stated that he will see to it that he gets a copy of the plans.

 

Chairman Phillips opened questioning to the commissioners.

 

Commissioner Dvorak observed that the proposed building size is less than what was approved last summer.  However, the setback is less.  Village Attorney Tappendorf explained that they still need 100ft relief from the setback even though the building is smaller.

 

Commissioner Cohn asked to see the old plan.  Village Attorney Tappendorf showed the commissioner that the previous plan called for an ‘L’ shape but there were engineering issues with drainage.  Commissioner Cohn asked if there were any feasible alternatives for the additions to order to avoid violating the setback lines.

 

The petitioner stated that the alternative would make the outward appearance of the structure much more noticeable from the street.  The plan he has come up with is the best for the neighborhood because the building will not be very noticeable and will be architecturally pleasing.  He offered to put the trees on the neighbors’ property or wherever they want, in order to shield their view.

 

Mr. Blackburn stated that they had this issue before but the trees planted were very small so if this is done, they would want more mature trees.

 

Chairman Phillips stated that the petitioner still needs to come up with a landscape plan and can work with homeowners to come up with something workable. 

 

Commissioner Fasano noted that changing setbacks relative to residential property is very serious and should not be compromised. Chairman Phillips noted that two of those residents were present at the meeting tonight.

 

Commissioner Acuna agreed with Commissioner Fasano.  The petitioner suggested that he can put that portion of the addition in the front of the existing structure but it won’t look as good.

Commissioner Dvorak agreed with Commissioners Fasano and Acuna, however, understands that landscaping can be done in such a way that the compromised set-back will not be as noticeable.  He thought the neighbors really need to decide.

 

Commissioner Acuna stated that it has been noted that landscaping has not been maintained and that there are some dead trees.

 

Commissioner Fraley agrees that this is difficult because the neighbors are not happy with past performance.

 

Commissioner Cohn stated that based on his experience this can’t fly because of the encroachment on the set-back and the objections of the residents therefore, an alternative must be found.

 

Commissioner Jenkins stated that the Village has a history of trying to accommodate residents who live near proposed construction projects. 

 

Commissioner Acuna requested a motion to either accept or reject the petition. 

 

Mr. Blackburn stated that he favors the idea to move the addition to the front but would still like environmental issues addressed.  Commissioner Jenkins does not think these issues are related to the petition.  Mr. Blackburn stated that they are part of the issue because the facility will be larger.  The petitioner stated that the waste issue is really insignificant as waste is currently compacted.  However, if the board wants the addition in the front of the building, he will put it in the front.  Mr. Blackburn noted that there is an open top construction dumpster there now and wanted to know what is going to happen with that.  Chairman Phillips recommended that he contact the Village Superintendent for resolution.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the petition could be recommended for approval, denial or continued to the next meeting. 

 

Commissioner Fasano moved to continue the hearing for the proposed amendment to Le Savanne of Long Grove Planned Unit Development Subdivision, existing special use permits and/or additional relief necessary and/or appropriate under the zoning code that may be necessary to allow an addition to and expansion of the Arlington Rehabilitation and Living Center to the December 6th meeting to allow the petitioner to amend the plan per the discussion regarding the setbacks to the North.  Commissioner Acuna seconded the motion.  All Ayes.  No Nays.  The motion carried.

 

 

2.                  Public Hearing:  Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Village of Long Grove 1999 Comprehensive Plan relating to affordable housing in accordance with the Village of Long Grove Affordable Housing Plan. 

 

Chairman Phillips asked if there were any comments from the audience.  There were none.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf provided background on the subject.  The Affordable Housing Plan was approved March 2005.  The first goal of the plan is for the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing within six months of approval of the plan, to determine if amendments are necessary.  Village Attorney Tappendorf drafted a proposed paragraph to add to the plan which was in the Commissioner’s handouts.  The Village is required to adopt a plan and should not prohibit all affordable housing.

 

Commissioner Acuna asked if it is the Plan Commission or the Board’s responsibility to take tactical steps to meet the goal of affordable housing?  Village Tappendorf stated that certainly the Board may take action but is not obligated to and if the Village is going to encourage affordable housing, there will need to be changes in the zoning code.

 

Commissioner Acuna stated that while he doesn’t want to do anything prematurely, we do need to consider this when making zoning decisions.

 

Commissioner Fasano thinks the Board needs to provide the Plan Commission with direction on this issue.  Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the current comprehensive plan does not do anything to prevent affordable housing.

 

Commissioner Dvorak moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Long Grove Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jenkins.  5 Ayes.  No Nayes. Commissioner Acuna abstained.  The motion Carried.

 

 

3.                  Approval of the September 6th & September 20th Meeting Minutes.

 

Commissioner Dvorak read requested changes to the September 6th meeting minutes in the absence of Commissioner Lisa Phillips.  There were a number of requested changes from several commissioners.

 

Commissioner Cohn moved that the meeting minutes be revised and to postpone approval of the minutes until the December 6th  meeting.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dvorak.  All Ayes.  No Nayes.  The motion Carried

 

Commissioner Dvorak read requested changes to the September 20th meeting minutes in the absence of Commissioner Lisa Phillips.  There were a number of requested changes from several commissioners and the Village Attorney.

 

Commissioner Jenkins moved that the meeting minutes be revised and to postpone approval of the minutes until the December 6th  meeting.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cohn.  All Ayes.  No Nayes.  The motion Carried

 

 

4.                  Other Business:

 

Consideration of “Rules of Procedure” as drafted 9/15/05.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf provided some background on the subject.  A couple of years ago, the public hearing rules were drafted because it was thought that the Plan Commission could benefit from a consistent hearing protocol that would comply with state law, particularly the Klaeren case..  Village Planner Hogue added that once the protocol is used, the meetings will run smoother.

 

Commissioner Dvorak read Commissioner Lisa Phillips’ written comments regarding the Rules of Procedure, in her absence (also attached).  The comments are summarized as follows: 

 

•              Section 3a – Packets need to be delivered by Wednesday evening if Commissioners are to read and fully investigate a given property and petition to have time to contact the Village staff with questions.

•              Section 3d – Disagree with “non-repetitive”.  Repetition is valuable for understanding of position.

•              Section 3e – Add that the Village makes note of Commissioners who do report their absence in advance.

•              Section 4a – Consider adding “The Chairperson of the Commission shall be respectful and tolerant of Commissioners expressing an opposing position to his/her own and allow that individual fair time to express such opinions”.

•              Section 4b – Item is too broad

•              Section 4c – Add sentence defining how the Chair Pro-tem shall be selected.

•              Section 5c – Disagrees with this section.  Each Commissioner agreed to serve the community one Tuesday per month and did not agree to special meetings.  Therefore, meetings should go late, if necessary.

•              Section 6b – Consider adding a point of order regarding procedure for correcting staff summary if it should be in error.

•              Section 6d – Repetition should be acceptable.

•              Section 6c – Should be reworded toward fairness as to not give the Chair carte blanch to determine relevancy of cross-examination

•              Also would like added: 

1 – No prearranged motions

2 – Code of ethics and recusing guidelines.

 

Commissioner Dvorak stated that he disagreed with item 5-c.

 

In response to Commissioner Lisa Phillips’ comments, Village Attorney Tappendorf provided general guidelines as to what is considered a conflict of interest and when commissioners should consider recusing themselves.  There was a general discussion regarding the guidelines with the resulting conclusion of:  When one does recuse themselves, they can remain in the room but should not participate in the discussion and should not vote.  The Village Attorney offered to provide the commissioners additional information on the topic, if there is further interest.  She also suggested that the topic be addressed at the Board level as it is applicable to both the Board and Plan Commission. 

 

Commissioner Fasano commented on item 3 – regarding obtaining background information during the meeting as opposed to prior to the meeting.  Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that it is acceptable to request background data and history prior to a meeting to be better prepared for meetings.  Commissioner Fraley observed that one benefit of approaching staff in advance of the meeting is to get an expert to attend the meeting, if necessary.

 

Commissioner Fasano, regarding item 3-e, questioned the need to specify 48 hours.  There was a general discussion on this point and the consensus was that 48 hours was a good guideline. 

 

Regarding item 5-c, Commissioner Fasano liked the time limit but specifying a time limit of 11:00 PM is too restrictive.  Commissioner Cohn stated that a time limit could create an awkward situation.  There was a general discussion about a meeting time limit.  The commissioners seemed to like the time limit but had reservations about the ability to adhere to an established time.  There was also a general discussion about starting the meetings at 7:30 PM which was not unanimously approved.

 

There was a general discussion about the special meeting issue and the guidelines as to when to permit special meetings.  Nothing was decided. 

 

There was a general discussion about item 3-e.  Email notification of attendance was suggested. 

 

There was a general discussion about section 3-d regarding repetitive comments.  It was suggested that wording be changed to ‘concise’ to avoid repetition.

 

Regarding earlier delivery of packets, Village Planner Hogue stated that staff is working toward earlier delivery.   There was a general discussion about how to speed up delivery. Village Planner Hogue stated that, in the future, he will email everyone that the packets will be mailed on a certain date and the commissioners could then pick them up in order to obtain them faster.

 

There was a general discussion regarding item 4-a and the respect of commissioners.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf commented that item 4-b is the law. 

 

There was a discussion about section 4-c – Chair Pro-tem selection.  Chairman Phillips stated that in the past, the selection process was based on seniority but he preferred to rotate the responsibility. 

 

Regarding section 6-c, there was a general discussion about the relevancy of cross-examination and Village Attorney Tappendorf explained that the Chairman, with the guidance of the attorney, does determine relevancy.

 

There was a general discussion about Commissioner Lisa Phillips’ comment on pre-arranged motions.  Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that while green sheets were previously provided, these were not to be considered pre-arranged motions. 

 

Commissioner Acuna stated that he would like the wording in section 3-c to be clarified / edited and that, relative to item 2-a, he suggests that the powers and duties be sent to all commissioners.  Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that this will be sent out with the revised draft procedures.  Commissioner Acuna stated that the document does not seem complete enough.  Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that these are the Plan Commission’s rules which can be changed at any time.

 

Commissioner Fasano moved to make the corrections discussed and discuss the rules again at the next meeting.  Commissioner Fraley seconded the motions.  All Ayes.  No Nayes. The motion carried.

 

Zoning Changes:

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that the zoning changes should be completed by January.

 

Petition Updates:

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf reported that the Village is awaiting architectural committee approval regarding the Hilligoss petition.

 

 

5.                  Adjournment

 

Commissioner Fraley moved to adjourn the meeting.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jenkins. All ayes, no nays.  The motion carried.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

 

The next meeting is December 6, 2005.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Wendy Parr

Plan Commission Secretary

 

Attachment – Memo dated 11/1/05 from Commissioner Lisa Phillips to the Long Grove Plan Commission

Lisa Schultz Phillips

3316 Country Lane

Long Grove, IL  60047

 

To:       Long Grove Plan Commission

From:  Commissioner Lisa Phillips

Date:    November 1, 2005

Re:       Tuesday, November 01, 2005 Plan Commission Meeting

 

 

Due to illness, I regret that I cannot be in attendance at this evening’s meeting.  Via this memo I am submitting comments on several issues which I feel critical.

 

September 6 & September 20 Meeting Minutes

 

Please note the following inaccuracies in the draft minutes of the September 6 meeting:

 

Page 1 of 10, second paragraph from the bottom indicates that “A complete petition and related items (were) delivered to Village Staff on August 2, 2005.”  Per several conversations with Village Staff and council, the petition was never fully completed by this petitioner.  It is important that the minutes be corrected to reflect that fact.

 

Page 1 of 10, last paragraph, third to last word:  “supplier” should be “supplied”.

 

Page 2 of 10, first paragraph, first word:   should be “A” versus “At”.

 

Page 2 of 10, second paragraph suggests petitioner “can build today per the permit granted in 1995.”  This needs to be clarified or deleted so that readers would understand that the petitioner could build a 100 seat restaurant and not the 306 seat restaurant being requested in this petition.  The line is misleading as submitted.

 

Page 2 of 10, paragraph five is inaccurate.  The petitioner’s proposal is not for a “100 seat restaurant”… his 1995 proposal was for that, but not the current petition.  I’m not sure to what this paragraph refers.  Should it be stricken?

 

Page 3 of 10, second paragraph from the bottom needs to have a line added that the petitioner was advised at this point that he was to have no amplified sound of any kind on the outdoor patio and agreed to same.

 

Page 4 of 10, paragraph 2 is inaccurate in that the comment from Engineer Chiczenski suggests that the restaurant would be on a different aquifer than residents.   I believe there was resident conversation around this point and it was determined that the currently proposed 2 well would be in the residential aquifer.

 

Page 4 of 10, paragraph 6 should read “problems in the future” versus “later on.” 

 

Page 5 of 10, paragraph 2:  discussion ensued in which the Commission and the Petitioner were told that the petitioner had not included signage in this petition and would have to return if he wanted to add signage.

 

Page 5 of 10, paragraph 3:  Commissioner L. Phillips also noted for the record that the well “consultant” was not a consultant, but a contractor and that a hydrologist needed to be consulted regarding the aquifer status.  Also, Commissioner Phillips asked that accurate numbers for water usage by restaurants needed to be attained from a restaurant association or other knowledgeable source.

 

Page 5 of 10, paragraph 6:  last line should be specific as to who suggested that “restrictions such as that should not be specified.”   … Or the line should be stricken.  I have no recollection of “several commissioners” providing that input.

 

Page 5 of 10, last paragraph:  Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that residents park on Old McHenry as necessary and have not been ticketed to date for that use of temporary on street parking.

 

Page 6 of 10, paragraph 3:  Please change as follows to more accurately reflect proceedings.  Sentence one should read “Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that the petition indicates 306 seats, yet the petitioner repeatedly referred to 100 seats and asked for clarification.”  Second to last sentence should read “She indicated it would make sense to create a new zoning district for this petition.” (…instead of “a new code” line.)

 

Page 6 of 10, paragraph 4:  Last sentence should have added to it “and are not to scale, but indicate older growth.”

 

Page 6 of 10, paragraph 5:  please add “… in response to Commissioner Phillips concerns over the financial viability of the project Mr. Hilligoss responded that all the money backing this project was his and his alone.”  Note that later in the minutes a reference is made to Mr. Hilligoss not having any financial partners… I would like the specific wording above to be used as it is what was said and could be construed as different.

 

Page 7 of 10, paragraph 3:  additional information on restaurant water usage was also requested in addition to information on the aquifers.

 

Page 7 of 10, paragraph 8:  After “Chair Phillips stated that the BDI…” sentence, please add:  Commissioner Phillips responded that the BDI report was commissioned and is therefore not necessarily to be considered an unbiased source.

 

 

Please note the following inaccuracies in the September 20, 2005 draft minutes:

 

 

Page 2 of 7, second paragraph from the bottom:  the third sentence should have “zone code” changed to “zoning code”. 

 

Page 2 of 7, paragraph 6 bullets should read:

 

  • Building size has been indicated by numbers ranging from 9,000 up to 11,000+ square feet.  Commissioner Phillips requested an architect stamped affidavit of actual building size per staff recommendation.
  • How the 78 required, but nonexistent, parking spaces are to be addressed,
  • The nonexistent signage and marketing plans which would address the BDI report with conditions of success.  That report suggested the only way this restaurant will be financially viable is through off-site signage and marketing,
  • Water issues including the numbers for restaurant water usage which were requested and not provided and the aquifer questions which need to be addressed by a hydrologist (versus a well digger).

 

 

Page 2 of 7, paragraph third from bottom:  Second sentence should read “Commissioner L. Phillips explained that the detail of square footage for a petition is simply required and not optional.  She also explained that the Plan Commission would be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing the size increase and by allowing a petitioner to present a petition without the required data provided. 

 

Page 4 of 7, paragraph four:  Please check this paragraph with Commissioner Fasano for accuracy.

 

Page 4 of 7, last paragraph:  Please clarify that Chair Phillips noted that the petitioner could build today with the existing well, but only the 100 seat restaurant approved, not the 306 seat project currently before the commission.

 

Page 5 of 7, last paragraph:  Why is the sentence above the vote in italics?

 

Page 6 of 7, third paragraph:  This vote was not recorded accurately.  I think it was all nays, no ayes.  I voted to require the petitioner to pave the 33 space lot immediately, as I believe other Commissioners did.

 

 

Rules of Procedure and Protocol for the Long Grove Plan Commission:

 

At a time when our Village is more divided than ever on our forward progress I think we would all be well advised to move into approving a this document with much caution and many changes.  As we want to keep Long Grove government a democracy, we need to protect the rights of both the public and individual Plan Commissioners to express their opinions on matters which impact the entire Village.

 

That said, I have the following comments:

 

Page 1, Section 3a:  Packets need to be delivered by Wednesday evening if Commissioners are to read and fully investigate a given property and petition and then to have time to call the Village for help and wait for a call back.  This week I got my packet on a Saturday before a busy holiday day (Monday), leaving only Tuesday for attempting to reach staff.  Although this Monday was a working holiday for staff, Commissioners schedules should also be respected, and it was not a day in which I could call the Village.  I would recommend that we should have two business days for investigation and two for calling in questions as staff are not typically available on a same day call back.

 

Page 1, Section 3d:  Disagree with “non-repetitive”.  Often repetition is required for understanding by fellow commissioners, petitioners, or the public.  It is also valuable to know that 5 Commissioners feel a particular way or just one.  Same goes for public comment referred to in 6D.  I want to know if a large portion of the public feels a particular way or just one resident.  It is relevant.  Please strike the “non-repetitive” phrase and replace with something requesting concise comments

 

Page 1, Section 3e:  Please add that the Village will please make a note of Commissioners who do report their absence in advance.  I have repeatedly found myself out of town responding to calls from the Village asking about my attendance when I had reported it months in advance.

 

Page 2, Section 4a:  Please consider adding that “The Chairperson of the Commission shall be respectful and tolerant of Commissioners expressing an opposing position to his/her own and allow that individual fair time to express such opinions.”

 

Page 2, Section 4b, fourth bullet:  This item is way to broad allowing the Chair to “take whatever steps deemed reasonable….”  Please consider a rewording.

 

Page 2, Section 4c:  Please add a sentence defining how the Chair Pro-tem shall be selected.  As I noted that the Village is so divided currently, the Chair Pro-tem should be selected based on a procedure and not based  on the petition at hand and who might lean one way of another.  Please consider using seniority, a revolving system, whatever will make it less arbitrary.

 

Page 2, Section 5c:  With this item, I must completely disagree. Each Commissioner agreed to serve the community one Tuesday per month.  We need to complete our work during that time.  We never agreed to special meetings and if we are to cut meetings short only to reconvene for special meetings, we are not following the spirit of what we all agreed to do.  If we are going to agree to end meetings at 11:00 pm, then we need to agree that there will be NO special meetings whatsoever so that Commissioners are not cut out of proceedings as happened with the Hilligoss petition.  Every petition should be heard by all Commissioners during our regular 1st Tuesday meetings, even if they go late. 

 

Page 3, Section 6 b:  Please consider adding a point of order regarding procedure for correcting staff summary if it should be in error.  Is there a procedure for this?

 

Page 3, Section 6d:   To address again the repetition issue (with no pun intended!), how will we know how prevalent a particular viewpoint might be if the public is not allowed to repeat opinions.  I think it is important that we hear them.

 

Page 3, Section 6e:  The second sentence giving the Chair carte blanch to determine relevancy of cross-examination is too Chicagoan for me.  What if the chair disagrees with a particular point of relevancy but others feel it is relevant.  It needs to be reworded toward fairness.

 

Other notes I would like to see added to this document: 

 

1.  No prearranged motions should be organized by the Chair or any other Commissioner through ex-facto communications between Board, Chair or Staff with any Commissioner.

 

2.  Lastly, I think it is hugely important that we add some Code of Ethics by which we behave.  Included in that Code, should be language which denotes the responsibility of a Commissioner to recuse oneself from any proceedings which in ANY WAY benefit that Commissioner.  This should be detailed to include ethical situations and not simply the letter of the law.  It will help preserve the type of government with which I would hope we all want to be involved.

 

Thanks for considering my input.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Lisa Schultz Phillips

Long Grove Plan Commissioner