Treatment center near Campton Hills gets another final vote
When the Kane County Board rescinded its rejection of a drug and alcohol treatment center earlier this month, it wasn't the simple granting of a do-over. All interested parties will witness a different process this time thanks to a different set of people who will evaluate the project near Campton Hills.
The county's seven-member zoning board of appeals will get the first shot at sifting through evidence and testimony. The zoning petition for the treatment center, brought by Maxxam Partners LLC, was the longest public hearing the zoning board ever experienced. There are thousands of pages of transcripts, evidence and documentation. And it will be an all-new board dissecting those pages as well as any angles that arise through new public hearings.
Kane County Board Chairman Chris Lauzen, development committee Chairman Kurt Kojzarek, county board member Deb Allan and development department Director Mark VanKerkhoff are interviewing seven new members for the zoning board. Kojzarek confirmed Thursday that they already have six candidates. There will be one member from Campton Township, where Maxxam's desired site on the outskirts of Campton Hills is. The zoning board can have only one member per township.
Kojzarek said the committee has asked pending appointees to the zoning board about the Maxxam project.
"We want to make sure the new zoning board has no preconceived ideas about the project," Kojzarek said. "We want Maxxam to get a clean look."
The process already has a bit of a taint in the form of a $68 million civil rights lawsuit threatened by Maxxam after the county board's 15-6 denial of the facility in March. That's an amount beyond what the county's liability insurance would cover.
County board member Barb Wojnicki represents the district where the treatment center would open. She thinks the potential lawsuit has no merit because it hinges on comments made by the public and a former zoning board member expressing disdain for addicts.
"We can't control what the public says, and the zoning board is just an advisory board," Wojnicki said. "They didn't make the final decision. We did. I am deeply disappointed in the decision to rescind the denial vote following the lawsuit threat. When the public looks at the county board, it just looks like a very weak move."
Wojnicki is also part of a group - which also will be somewhat different - that will make a final decision.
The November election ushered in four new faces to the 24-member county board. All four are potential "yes" votes for the Maxxam project. Three of the new faces replaced board members who voted against the Maxxam project in March. One new member replaces a county board representative who voted "present."
There was also one returning county board member who was absent for the 15-6 vote and another returning board member who abstained. That makes six potential swing votes, enough to possibly force a tiebreaker vote by Lauzen.
Like the vote in March, there's also the possibility the next final vote won't be the final say. If the county board approves the Maxxam project, there are other objectors who could tie up the plans in court. Campton Hills and the Fox River & Countryside Fire/Rescue District object to the plan.
Ken Shepro, the attorney for the fire district, said he's hoping for a more transparent and consistent process.
"It would be nice to see full disclosure of all the interested parties this time," Shepro said. "We never even learned who Maxxam Partners were. If it's an LLC, who are the members? If the investors have ties to people in the county, the people should know that, and the county board should know that."
Both Kojzarek and Shepro said they think Maxxam will come forward with some new concessions that may also prove to be game changers.