Loading...
11/16/2020November 16, 2020 The regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield was called to order by Mayor Harriet Rosenthal remotely on November 16, 2020, at 7:30 p.m. The clerk called the roll and announced that the following were: Present: Harriet Rosenthal, Mayor Robert Benton Tom Jester Mary Oppenheim William Seiden Dan Shapiro Barbara Struthers and that a virtual quorum was present and in attendance. Also present via teleconference were Kent Street, Village Manager, at Village Hall, and Steven Elrod, Village Attorney. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Rotary President Jerry Nagaj led those in attendance in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION Mayor Rosenthal read a Proclamation honoring the Rotary Club of Deerfield and commended them for their good work. She congratulated the Rotary Club for 9 decades of service in Deerfield, Lake County and beyond. Trustee Struthers moved to accept the Proclamation. Trustee Benton seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) Mr Nagaj thanked the Mayor and Village for the Proclamation honoring the Club's 90 years of serving the community. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Finance Director Eric Burk presented highlights from the six-month departmental objectives report. Over the past six months, the Finance Department has adjusted to continue operations as normal in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. Since the reopening of Village Hall to the public in July, staff have been encouraged to work from home when possible. The Finance Department has completed required filings, implemented new processes, researched and applied for Covid-19 expense reimbursement via the CARES Act. The Village completed the 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and received a clean opinion by the auditors. The Village received the Government Finance Officers Association Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 2 of 10 certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting award. Mr. Burk received notice that the 2019 budget will also receive the GFOA award. Approximately 6,400 vehicle applications were processed using a third -party vendor. The Department worked with the IT Department to implement the updated enterprise resource planning system. They also implemented financial reporting and policies for the Deerfield Consolidated Joint Emergency Telephone System Board, completed paperwork to receive rebates on Build America Bonds and Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, issued General Obligation Bonds, performed risk management and human resource activities, including organizing flu shots and health screening for Village employees, and performed their ongoing tasks. Mr. Street asked if the Department can handle the requests remotely. Mr. Burk stated they are able to process requests remotely. Mayor Rosenthal thanked Mr. Burk and his staff for their good work. DOCUMENT APPROVAL Trustee Oppenheim moved to accept the minutes from the November 2, 2020, Board of Trustees meeting. Trustee Jester seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) BILLS AND PAYROLL Trustee Benton moved to approve the Bills and Payroll dated November 16, 2020. Trustee Oppenheim seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Rosenthal explained the emails received before the meeting would be read during the first Public Comment. If any emails are received during the meeting, they would be read during the second Public Comment. If someone wants to make a comment via Zoom, they need to raise their hand or press *9. Mr. Street reported there were no Public Comment emails received prior to the meeting on non - agenda items and there was no one present at Village Hall for Public Comment on non -agenda items. Management Analyst David Fitzgerald -Sullivan confirmed there was no one present on Zoom for comment on non -agenda items. REPORTS RECONSIDERATION AND ACTION On November 2, 2020, the Plan Commission Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 3 of 10 ON THE PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE TO PERMIT AN IN -HOME CHILD DAY CARE ESTABLISHMENT FOR UP TO 12 CHILDREN AT 114 PINE STREET recommendation to grant a Special Use and Text Amendment for an in -home day care at 114 Pine Street failed by a vote of 2-4. The petitioners, Amber Grafman and Katie Schultz, submitted a letter to the Board requesting a reconsideration of this matter with two revisions. AND A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 2.04-A,1. FOR AN IN -HOME The day care would now occupy 650 square feet, CHILD DAY CARE TO NOT EXCEED 40 which is less than 25 percent of the home's square PERCENT OF THE TOTAL HABITABLE footage. This would remove the need for a Text FLOOR AREA OF ALL PERMITTED Amendment. In addition, the home day care would STRUCTURES serve no more than six children. Trustee Shapiro moved for reconsideration of the Plan Commissions recommendation. Trustee Struthers seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Oppenheim, Shapiro, Struthers (4) NAYS: Jester, Seiden (2) Trustee Struthers clarified that the Board is reconsidering the recommendation based on the latest proposal that they would have six children and no Text Amendment rather than 12 plus a Text Amendment for larger square footage Trustee Seiden stated the original proposal asked for 12 children including the petitioner's two children. At the last meeting, a Trustee proposed reducing the number of children to eight, but the petitioner commented it would not be feasible. He asked what changed. Ms. Grafman stated they are eager to get this started and believe it is a high need service for families that live and work in Deerfield. Trustee Seiden noted many neighbors were very positive to the petitioner personally but were against the daycare for many reasons. He did not hear from one neighbor in favor of the daycare. Trustee Jester asked Mr. Elrod about the Ordinance. He asked if the petitioner's own children count in the allowed number of children. Mr. Street indicated a Special Use permit is not required if there are not more than four children outside the family. Trustee Jester noted the petitioner is not asking for more than four children outside the family. Trustee Shapiro indicated they would no need a Special Use permit; rather, they would need a business license. Mr. Elrod stated the Trustees can interpret the Ordinance. Trustee Jester suggested interpreting the request as four children plus her own two children, which would not require a Special Use or set a precedent. Mayor Rosenthal explained this is part of licensing for DCFS. Ms. Grafman noted when her kids are over 13, they would no longer be included in the count. Trustee Shapiro suggested the Ordinance read four kids outside the homeowner's family. Trustee Oppenheim believes there is a need for this service in the Village and the neighbors will be surprised how unobtrusive this is on the community. Trustee Benton noted the neighbors were concerned about the number of children and the noise. With four children, there will not be a lot of noise. The Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 4 of 10 kids in cribs and toddlers will not make a lot of noise outside so it will not be a problem for the neighborhood. Trustee Benton believes this will be an asset to the neighborhood and the Village. Zack Raimi lives next to the Grafmans. He asked if it needs to be documented that only four kids would be allowed, without the petitioner's kids. Mr. Street noted more than four kids would be a Zoning Ordinance violation. Mr. Raimi believes six kids is more reasonable, but it would set a precedent and the petitioner could ask for more kids in the future. More people are working from home and may come to the Village asking for more children. He believes six kids will still be noisy and there will still be vehicles with parents taking. A traffic study was not done and Pine Street is very busy. This is a residential neighborhood and adding a business in a residential neighborhood is not fair to the neighbors. No neighbors want this in the neighborhood. It could add a nice service to the community, but there are a number of good daycare centers, including home daycare centers, in Deerfield. This should meet more than the petitioner's needs. Michelle Moreno, 901 Waukegan Road, is not related to the petitioners. She is in favor of the petition. She looked for a daycare in Deerfield on a Facebook Moms group and reached out to some that said they could have more than four families in their home daycares. The commercial daycares are expensive. She wants a more home situation, especially during Covid. Ms. Moreno listened to the qualifications of Ms. Grafman and Ms. Schultz, and they are far above the other home daycares. Craig Katz, 1106 Terrace Court, sent a picture of the cul-de-sac with two Village trucks parked and blocking the ingress and egress. There is a traffic issue in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Katz noted if they would get an approval for six kids, he believes they will look for more kids somewhere down the line. Anything done in regard to six kids would set a precedent for them to come back to the Village. Mr. Katz, a criminal defense lawyer, is unsure if his neighbors would want his criminal clients to come to his house even though he may only have four criminal clients at a time. Mr. Katz noted Ms. Grafman has never talked to him or his wife about this. If they ask for a four -child situation, there is nothing anyone can say as the Ordinance allows it. They put up a fence, but it is not a noise fence; it is only to keep kids in the yard. Kathy Birmingham still opposes approving a Special Use. She agrees with Mr. Katz and Mr. Raimi about the potential issues. Her mom, who lives at 233 Pine Street, agrees as well. Elise Chaglasian believes four children plus Ms. Grafman's two children is much better, but still is not in favor of a home daycare in her backyard. The fence does not provide any noise protection. When the neighbors are opposing the business, why would the Village approve it? Ms. Chaglasian is concerned about parking and safety. She wishes Ms. Grafman would have provided information to the neighbors earlier in the process and is concerned there will be more than six children. Mr. Street and Mr. Lichterman read the emails received prior to the meeting. Meg Anthony had to leave her position due to needing to provide quality childcare to her children. During this time where working parents are struggling, it is crucial to have high quality Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 5 of 10 childcare options. Ms. Anthony knows this would be nice for parents in the Village and has full confidence that Ms. Grafman would do a good job. She is passionate and brings many years of experience. Ms. Anthony does not understand the neighbor's complaints. The joyful noise of small children should not be destructive to a family community. Darren and Erin Hedman, 25 Forestway Drive, wrote in support of the home daycare. They cannot think of anyone more qualified than Ms. Grafman to run this business. Ms. Grafman has previous experience running a daycare. The Hedmans believe she would provide a safe place for children and put an emphasis on education. They noted affordable daycare is not readily available in the Village and the home daycare option would be a great alternative. Michelle Moreno also sent an email reiterating her support of the home daycare. She believes this is in support of the Village as a whole instead of just the concerns of a few neighbors. Ms. Moreno would rather support a local small business, especially during Covid, and believes this would be safer than a large, corporate center. Ms. Grafman noted there have been comments about Pine Street being dangerous. If Pine Street was so dangerous, the children would not be playing in front of their houses every day. The Special Use process does not ban home daycares; instead, there is criteria to meet. Home daycares have been allowed in Deerfield. There is a licensed daycare in Deerfield that serves eight children in the daytime and eight at night. It is 24-hour-a-day business. Ms. Grafman has been asked why she has not talked to her neighbors. She believes some have been belligerent and that is not her priority. Ms. Schultz noted a Special Use for home daycares is separated from other home occupations. She did not appreciate Mr. Katz comparing a criminal lawyer to a home daycare. They have discussed the noise issue and detailed ways they would handle noise. They are cognizant of the potential issues and have made it known to the neighbors. They will also put the traffic issues in the parent handbook. Ms. Grafman and Ms. Schultz are willing to compromise. They hear the concerns and have done what they can to compromise. She hopes the Trustees can see that they are here because they know this is something families want. They are educated, have experience and are asking the Trustees to meet them in the middle. Mr. Elrod noted that since the motion, there was an understanding there would only be four children outside the family. If that is the case, no action by the Village Board is necessary. It may be helpful for Board to acknowledge the two children in the household are not counted in the four, but staff could make the interpretation based on Board comments. If Board is of the opinion that four children A411 be the total aside from children living in the home. Trustee Shapiro withdrew his motion. Trustee Struthers withdrew her second of the motion. The Trustees acknowledged their interpretation of the Code is the home daycare could operate with four children aside from the children living in the home. CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON The Board of Zoning Appeals held a Public Hearing A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION on October 24, 2020, to consider the request for OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS relief from the strict interpretation of the Zoning Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 6 of 10 RE. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM ARTICLE 2.04-H,3,B OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AT 165 E. SAINT ANDREWS LANE TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF AN 88-FOOT SECTION OF FENCE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE 8 FEET IN HEIGHT IN LIEU OF THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 7 FEET in favor of the modification. Ordinance. Petitioner David Gordon would like to install an 88-foot long, 8 foot high fence along the north property line in lieu of the permitted maximum height of 7 feet. The Board of Zoning Appeals concluded the requested modification was based on the unique configuration of the land and elevations within and between the two properties. The requested relief would provide a reasonable use of the land and satisfies the Standards of Modification specified in Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4-2 Trustee Shapiro moved to accept the report and recommendation of the Board of Zoning Appeals and directed the Village Attorney to prepare an Ordinance. Trustee Benton seconded the motion. Trustee Jester noted Mr. Gordon planted trees and hopes they will be a better solution than a fence. Trustee Jester is unsure a fence will make a difference. Trustee Oppenheim questioned why Mr. Gordon would plant arbor vitae on his neighbor's property when the problem is that the neighbor's fence is too close to property line. Code Enforcement Supervisor Clint Case noted the challenge is the deck elevation due to a grade issue. The original deck was built properly and there were no violation notifications. Trustee Struthers is not in favor of setting a precedent allowing an 8-foot fence. The Village has been very strict on allowing fences no higher than 7 feet. Mr. Case noted each petition stands on its own merit, so no precedent would be set. ZBA Chairman Bob Speckmann stated the deck is in conformance to the Zoning Ordinance. When visiting the property, he questioned whether an 8-foot high fence would be adequate. Both families built very nice outdoor spaces. Something higher than an 8-foot fence would be needed to isolate the two spaces. Trustee Jester asked if the modification could be approved without an Ordinance, to avoid further legal expense. Mr. Case stated the Board decided it was best to create Ordinances in the mid-1980s. Trustee Benton stated the 8-foot fence may not be enough for the light and noise pollution. Mr. Gordon's neighbor said she would take down the lights. Trustee Oppenheim stated the plant material would grow higher than the fence. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 7of10 CONSENT AGENDA ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 3 Assistant to the Director of Public Works and OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL Engineering Justin Keenan stated the Village CODE AND THE VILLAGE'S ANNUAL Board accepted a report and recommendation FEE RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A regarding the creation of a water meter replacement WATER METER REPLACEMENT FEE fee that is proposed to be added to commercial and residential water bills at the October 19, 2020, Board of Trustees meeting. The revenue generated will be saved and eventually used to purchase replacement meters in 15 years. The fee varies depending upon the size of the meter. Residential and commercial properties that also have an irrigation system deduct meter will be charged a second fee. This will stand as a First Reading of the Ordinance. RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENT 1 Cook County has appropriated $51 million of the TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL $429 million it received through the CARES Act to AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN local governments based on factors such as the 2019 THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD AND population, immediate need and public health THE COUNTY OF COOK REGARDING statistics. Deerfield's original maximum CARES ACT FUNDING reimbursement was $1,768. Recently, an additional REIMBURSEMENT $12,000 was allocated to the Village. In order to be reimbursed for eligible expenditures due to Covid- 19 in the second allocation, the Village needs to amend the current Intergovernmental Agreement with Lake County. Trustee Jester moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Trustee Oppenheim seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) OLD BUSINESS ORDINANCE 0-20-23 ADOPTING THE An Ordinance adopting the budget of the Village of BUDGET OF THE VILLAGE OF Deerfield for the fiscal year beginning January 1, DEERFIELD FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 and ending December 31, 2021. Second BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2021 AND Reading. ENDING DECEMBER 31.2021 — 2R Trustee Shapiro moved to adopt the Ordinance adopting the budget for the 2021 fiscal year. Trustee Oppenheim seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 8 of 10 ORDINANCE 0-20-24 AMENDING THE An Ordinance amending the Village of Deerfield VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD WAGE AND Wage and Salary plan. Second Reading. SALARY PLAN — 2R Trustee Shapiro moved to adopt the Ordinance amending the Village of Deerfield wage and salary plan. Trustee Oppenheim seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2020 TAX LEVY Trustee Struthers moved to open the Public Hearing. Trustee Benton seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) Mr. Elrod ensured the Public Hearing was properly noticed. Mayor Rosenthal thanked the Deerfield Library Board and Board of Trustees for keeping their tax levies flat. The governing bodies need to be as conservative as possible. Mr. Burk reported the amount of the 2020 Village levy was developed during the 2021 budget process. The total levy, as indicated in the budget, required by bond ordinances, and requested and approved by the Library, is $13,347,143. This is the pre -abatement number. The breakdown of the levy is indicated in the column marked "2020 Levy Proposed" in Exhibit A. Debt service abatements total $359,239 and bring the net levy to $12,987,904. A Truth in Taxation hearing is scheduled prior to approval of the levy. The hearing notice was published in the November 5, 2020 edition of the Deerfield Review. There was no public comment. Trustee Oppenheim moved to close the Public Hearing. Trustee Benton seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR An Ordinance levying taxes for corporate purposes CORPORATE PURPOSES FOR THE for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2021 and FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON ending December 31, 2021. First Reading. Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 9of10 JANUARY 1, 2021 AND ENDING ON DECEMBER 31, 2021 — I ORDINANCE ABATING A PORTION OF THE 2020 TAX LEVY REQUIREMENT FOR SERIES 2011B G.O. BONDS — 1R RESOLUTION R-20-28 ADOPTING A CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 An Ordinance abating a portion of the 2020 tax levy for Series 201113 G.O. Bonds. First Reading. The proposed changes in the fee schedule have been incorporated into the proposed fiscal year 2021 budget. Mayor Rosenthal asked staff to reduce fees for businesses adversely impacted by COVID-19 closures and reduced capacity. The following fees have been reduced to $0 in order to assist local businesses: • Hotel, Restaurant, Private Club and Spa liquor license fees • Restaurant, Dry Cleaner, Bakery, Cafeteria, Massage, and Ice Cream Parlor business license fees As discussed during budget meetings, the 2021 Fee Schedule contains the following changes: • A 2.5 percent increase to the sewer and water rates • Water meter replacement fee • Updated to include Class D-3 liquor license approved earlier in the year Mayor Rosenthal thanked the Trustees for their assistance and understanding on this matter. The business will still need to be licensed. Trustee Oppenheim moved to adopt the Resolution adopting a consolidated fee schedule for the fiscal year 2021. Trustee Benton seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENSION On March 16, 2020, Mayor Rosenthal issued a OF MAYOR ROSENTHAL'S MARCH Declaration of Emergency for the Village of 16, 2020 DECLARATION OF Deerfield related to the COVID-19 emergency. EMERGENCY The Declaration and the Mayor's Supplementary Orders will expire at the end of tonight's Board of Trustees meeting unless the Village Board extends the duration of the Declaration. Trustee Struthers moved to extend the Mayor's March 16, 2020, Declaration of Emergency until the end of the regular meeting of the Village Board on December 21, 2020. Trustee Jester seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: Board of Trustees Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 10 of 10 AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) DISCUSSION COVID-19 Mayor Rosenthal reported the Covid counts are rising and urged residents to wear masks, wash their hands and practice social distancing. CONGRATULATIONS On behalf of the Village, Mayor Rosenthal congratulated Assistant Village Manager Andrew Lichterman for receiving International City and County Management Association Certification. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Street indicated there were no public comments received during the meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business or discussion, Trustee Oppenheim moved to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Benton seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Benton, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Shapiro, Struthers (6) NAYS: None (0) The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. The next regular Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday, December 7, 2020, at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: Village CIA