Will County Land Use & Development Committee met Sept. 13.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
A quorum was declared.
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:31 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | 11:40 AM |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present | |
| Saud Gazanfer | Member | Present |
Land Use Staff present Adrian Diaz, Brian Radner, Marguerite Kenny, Dawn Tomczak, Susan McDavid and David DuBois.
Matt Guzman present for Will County State's Attorney Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Tyler Marcum Led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Jul 12, 2022 10:30 AM
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTE FOR JULY 12, 2022 MEETING
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye.
Voice Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved Minutes for July 12, 2022, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
2. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Aug 9, 2022 10:30 AM
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 9, 2022 MEETING
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye.
Voice Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved Minutes for August 9, 2022, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-22-015, Lorrayne, Ltd., Owner of Record (Christina Rowinski, 50% Interest; Peter Zeman, 50% Interest), Peter Katowicz and Amy Katowicz, Agents, Requesting (M-22-006) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1/C-2 to I-1, (S-22-012) Special Use Permit for Self-Service Storage Facility, (S-22-013) Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, (V-22-009) Variance for Maximum Self-Service Storage Building Height from 12 ft. to 28 ft. , (V-22-010) Variance for Maximum Self-Service Storage Unit Floor Area from 600 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft., for PIN #16-05-17-400-023-0000; 16-05-17- 400-024-0000; 16-05-17-400-025-0000 (Consolidated per Petition #2022-18) Commonly Known as Vacant Property on 159th Street, Homer Glen, IL, County Board District #7
(Margguerite Kenny)
Tyler Marcum: ZC-22-015 Map Amendment A-1/C-2 to I-1, ZC-22-015, (S-22-013) Special Use permit for self-storage facility. Was sent back from County Board. They made a request that we push this one more month.
MOTION TO POST PONE TO OCTOBER 11, 2022 MEETING
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
2. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-22-022, William C. Kirwan and Lorrie Lindley Kirwan Joint Tenancy Trust dated February 16, 2018, Owner of Record; (William Kirwan, 50% Interest; Lorrie Kirwan, 50% Interest) Mark Kawinski of Fabrizio, Hanson, Peyla and Kawinski, P.C., Owners Attorney Mary Tobiason of Triathlon Labs LLC (d/b/a AMP (Athletic Movement Perfected)); Agent Michael J. Martin of Dunn, Martin & Miller, Ltd.; Agent’s Attorney, Requesting ( S-22-018) Special Use Permit for Sports and Recreation Participant, for PIN #07-01-27-303-012-0000 in Wheatland Township, Commonly Known as 23852 West Industrial Dr., Unit 3, Plainfield, IL, County Board District #13
(Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny presented Staff Report.
Special Use Permit for sports and recreation, participant.
To operate a personal athletic training business on the premises.
Of the agencies notified only Wheatland Township had parking concerns. No other objectors were present. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the applicant did get the (4) fourth condition stricken from the request.
Planning Zoning Commision Recommended approval w/(3) three conditions. 1. Upon fourteen (14) days of written notice to the owner of record and/or operator at their last known address, Will County Land Use Department and Will County Sheriff’s Department employees are hereby granted the right of entry in and upon the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises and uses thereon for compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use permit.
2. Within six months of County Board approval, a commercial remodel building permit shall be applied for the interior improvements to the proposed gym facility. 3. Off-street parking must be provided for the proposed use on the lot in accordance with Section 155-11.30.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SPORTS AND RECREATION PARTICIPANT
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
3. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-22-039, Stefan Radosavljevic, Owner of Record, and Michael R. Martin of Dunn, Martin & Miller Ltd.; Attorney, Requesting (M-22-015) Zoning Map Amendment from R-1 to C-1, for PIN #16-05-06-201-006-0000, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as 13761 South Archer Avenue, Lemont, IL, County Board Dstrict #7
(Adrian Diaz)
Adrian Diaz presented the case.
Map amendment from R-1 to C-1.
To bring property into compliance with Zoning Code
Owner: Stefan Radosavljevic
Attorney: Michael R. Martin of Dunn, Martin & Miller Ltd. (PRIMARY CONTACT) The subject property is improved with a single-family residence that per the Homer Township Assessor was built in 1971, and a 49-square-foot shed. The home has an attached garage. If rezoned, the lots and buildings would conform to the building and lot standards outlined in the Will County Zoning Ordinance for the C-1 (Local Commercial) district. The C-1 district requires that lots be at least 12,000 square feet and have at least 80 feet of frontage. It also requires that any structure on the site be setback at least 30 feet from the right-of-way, 10 feet from the side lot line, and 20 feet from the rear lot line.
On November 8, 2021, the applicant was placed in violation (#21LU00798) for a prohibited use for operating a trucking logistics office from a residential property. The applicant met with Land Use Staff in a pre-application meeting to discuss remedies to the cited violation on December 10, 2021. As the applicant operates a trucking company but only the administrative office duties are performed on the subject site, no semi-trucks are coming or using this site, Staff classified this use as an office. Offices are not permitted uses in the R-1 zoning district. Offices are permitted by right in the commercial districts. Staff reviewed the commercial districts in the area being C-1 and C-2 (local commercial).
Per the Application submitted by the applicant, there will be eight (8) to ten (10) employees at the subject property. Per the conceptual site and grading plan submitted by the applicant, there will be a total of 11 parking spaces included on site. Parking will be reviewed when the applicants submit an application for a site development permit.
Two (2) concerned citizens were present at the Planning and Zoning Meeting. They have houses in the subdivision that backs up to the property. They both had concerns for their family. Safety concerns with traffic problems and lose their privacy on their property. Agencies notified and no objections brought forth.
Steve Balich: Our Planning Commission at Homer Township looked at it and we didn't see any problems with it at all. The City of Lockport doesn't have any problems because we haven't heard from them.
Adrian Diaz: We haven't received any comments from any municipalities opposing the map amendment.
MOTION TO AMENDMENT R-1 TO C-1
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
4. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-22-042, Witte Properties LLC, Owner of Record, (Jeffrey Witte 100% Owner) Cynthia Payne, Agent, and Joe Klein of Klein, Daday, Aretos, and O’Donohue, Attorney, Requesting (M-22-017) Map Amendment from E-1 to C-1, for PIN #07-01-27-300- 009-0000, in Wheatland Township, Commonly Known as 23610 West 127th Street, Plainfield, IL, County Board District #13
(Adrian Diaz)
Adrian Diaz presented Staff report.
Map Amendment from E-1 to C-1.
Owners: Witte Properties LLC (Jeff Witte 100% interest)
Agent: Cynthia Payne (Primary Contact)
Attorney: Joseph Klein of Klein, Daday, Aretos and O’Donohue
The applicant would like to operate a retail store specializing in home decor products. The business will be open from Wednesday to Sunday from 10:00 AM to 7:30 PM and serve approximately 30 customers per day. The applicant expects three to four customers at any one time. The applicant intends to live on the second floor of the house. The Zoning Code states that for retail, four (4) parking spaces are required for every 1,000 square feet devoted for that use.
Agencies notified and no objections brought forth.
There were Two (2) concerned citizens were present at the meeting. They have houses in the subdivision that backs up to the property. They both had concerns for their family. Safety concerns with traffic problems and lose their privacy on their property. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend Approval for the map amendment.
MOTION TO APPROVE MAP AMENDMENT FROM E-1 TO C-1
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Request for Refund of Fees, REF- 22-003, Brenda and Josue Zaragoza Requesting a Refund for Building Permit 2103036, Single Family Residence
(Brian Radner)
Brian Radner presented a refund request.
The applicant applied for a building permit towards the 2021 year. It is for a single-family home. It went through the review process of our Planning Zoning and Engineering Staff. All those groups did approve the permit and were ready to issue it. However, the owner discovered the water table in the area was too high and in order to build the home they wanted to build. They would have to elevate it above that and the cost of that was too much in their opinion. So, they requested a refund of building permit fees paid to the department. All these requests have to come before this body because this Committee and the County Board has a policy of not refunding building permit fees and engineering fees. The only fees that can be refunded are on a case-by-case basis. Or we have an existing policy that the Board approved for Governmental entities related to Zoning requests.
Tom Weigel: You say it went through the process. Did you get to the point that you had issued the permit? Was there official work you needed to do beyond that? That would be covered by this permit or not?
Brian Radner: To build the home they initially proposed, all of our groups have approved the permit. It is ready to be issued and picked up and start construction. However, it is because of the applicant’s desire to not deal with the issue of the high-water table, that they are choosing not to go forward on the project.
Tom Weigel: Would this fee also cover the inspections that you do later?
Brian Radner: It does cover the inspections provided all inspections are complete and accurate the first time. Re-inspection's have a $75.00 Fee.
Tyler Marcum: I will say that typically we only refund if it is an error on our part.
Judy Ogalla: I was wondering how does someone find out what the water table is and when would you find that out?
Brain Radner: I am not sure how they discovered it, in this situation that information wasn't shared with me. (5) acres
Judy Ogalla: So, there is nowhere else on the property they could build a house then? Brian Radner: I don't know if that is true or not true. That is their statement. They are telling us that is the reason they can't do it.
Saud Gazanfer: Has the County already started working on it? Due process of issuing a permit?
Brian Radner: The County has done everything but the inspections. All the reviews are complete. Through every division. The Applicant also paid fees to the third-party reviewer who reviews single family residential. So, they have paid presumably a few thousand dollars to the review authority to. It has gotten all the way to the point where everything is done except issuing the permit and getting the construction underway and inspections. The inspection costs are covered in the permit.
Mike Fricilone, Board Member: I think you guys put that policy in effect because we are doing work. That is what they are paying for, not paying for just a written permit. They are paying for us to do the work to write the permit. Sounds like the work has been done and they didn't even bring in any evidence in that you have a high-water table and use it as an excuse. I wouldn't be inclined to give this money back.
Judy Ogalla: I know that they had to have some work done to determine where the well and septic would go. Maybe at that point they determined that. I guess it is hard to determine when you are purchasing land Planning on building here and there. It would have been nice to have more information. It would be nice to have information we could maybe back up the reasoning why we might want to go ahead and refund it.
MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR REFUND OF FEES
Saud Gazanfer voted Yes/Aye. The result is 1-5 denial. Not as generated in the above boxed vote count.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Deny Request, with Vote of 1-5, Thereby denying request.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [0 TO 5]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair NAYS: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
2. Amending Sections 155-7.30, 155-8.30, 155-9.245 and 155-16.40 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance, Allowed Uses, Public & Civic Use Category, Solar Farms & Special Use Permits
(Brian Radner)
Amending Sections 155-7.30, 155-8.30 155-9.245 and 155-16.40 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.
Brian Radner presented report.
We sent this back at our last committee meeting I know I have people who want to speak on this. I am going to do something we usually don't do. I am going to allow the public to speak
before we have discussion just so we are informed. Anyone who wishes to speak? State your Name.
Lyn Nitz-Mercaeant My name is Lyn Nitz-Mercaeant I am the Research Conservationist for Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District. You should have received the packet with additional information the district has with regard to some changes and additions we would like to see become part of ordinance 155-9.245. We offer these Suggestions as the District feels that it is to include Will South Cook Soil & Water Conservation District. Uniquely qualified to assist in the development of a comprehensive conservation plan that identifies and offers insight for the protection of the fertile and agricultural soils within will county. Specifically, what we would like to see included in the ordinance is the addition of a conservation plan that addresses the following issues. A schedule of practice of implementation establishment and maintenance. That would include the solar area the setback area and other unused portions of the parcel. The plan would include vegetation that would reduce soil lose and effectively crowd out any invasive and noxious weeds with proper management. Solar Farms would be required to obtain and sign a standard AIMA or agricultural impact mitigation agreement based on the standard set by the Illinois Department of Agriculture. In addition to the ordinance 155-9.245 we would like to see the following be additionally addressed within that ordinance. Under soil and ground cover, perennial vegetative ground cover must be maintained or established in all areas. Please indicate where this vegetation will be located and the type. Under soils and ground cover a preliminary maintenance plan shall be approved By the County Board. This plan would be included in and in compliance with a qualified conservation plan. Under pre-construction meeting please include a representative for the Will South Cook Soil and water Conservation in this meeting as these meetings are usually technical in nature. In addition noxious and invasive weeds will be mowed at the time when plants are flowering or most susceptible stage of growth to ensure control. If herbicide's are used the farmers must be notified prior to spraying to avoid any drift damage to the crop. If damage occurs then the responsible solar farm representative will be contacted, crop damage is paid. A reasonable time frame would need to be established. Tile drainage will be maintained within the solar farm area.
If repairs need to be made these will be done within (2) two weeks of being notified by the affected landowner. Existing surface drainage must be maintained within the solar farm and any offsite repairs made due to lack of maintenance will be paid by the responsible party associated with the solar farm. We have also included the McHenry County Solar Farm Ordinance that is already in use which address many of the conservation plan issues. The Will South Cook Conservation Soil and Water Conservation District would like to offer its services to help do it right and have a voice in the preservation of the soils and waters within Will County. Thank you.
Tyler Marcum: Thank You. Anyone else?
Mark Kawinski, with the Farm Bureau: First I would like to thank the Land Use Staff for always reaching out and asking us for input in agriculture as well as the Land Use Committee. Thank you very much. We would concur with what Soil and Water is asking for as well, we did not see a problem with that. You did receive our letter in regards to some of the concerns we had to review the storage of the batteries. We still have a few concerns indemnification clause is in place we don't see any problem with allowing the storage of A-1 batteries out into the rural areas. The Farm
Specialist we would definitely like to see kept in place. Although the State does not require it in their AIMA agreement for a farm specialist they do for pipelines and the also do for wind. We don't see why the County couldn't continue to have the farm specialist. We came up with the farm specialist several years ago based on problems that the county had experienced with some of these projects. This has help to omit some of those problems. That is why we are is favor of keeping the farm specialist in place. Thank you.
Tyler Marcum: Under the wind how does the State define Farm Specialist.
Mark Kawinski; They have a definition for it at the state level it is not specifically going toward Solar projects based on because there is not digging that is done, but there are the piles that go into the ground because we have had some farmers say over a year ago there was water issues. What we found out was the farm specialist was not contacted and they had done the work and hit the tiles and created that problem. We don't have any specifics it can be (1) one (2) two (3) three or (4) four people. We know there are four different people out there that can actually do this Mr. Chairman. We just want to see everything work smoothly in the process. The way it is proposed they can inspect their own work, that is a concern for us.
Chris Specia: Chris Specia on behalf of Acciona Energy. Acciona has a proposed Solar project in Will County so we have been following the progress of this ordinance closely. I would like to respond to the comments that were made by Will South Cook. The current Solar draft that has been in process for several months we feel address the primary concern that a plan be in place regarding implementation and maintenance of the Solar Farm Property and restoration of the property upon deconstruction. Your current ordinance also allows the county to include Will South Cook in the pre-construction meeting as an interested party. You already incorporate the AIMA in the current ordinance and under the AIMA any disputes between the landowner and the facility owner would be resolved by Will South Cook as specifically called out it is the general definition of the conservation organization, would come in and facilitate those disputes. I will just point out in a couple locations where I think all this is addresses. So, in your submittal requirements line 356 the applicant must submit a preliminary operation maintenance plan including measures for maintaining storm water controls, landscape maintenance as well as general procedures for maintenance. The requirements for monitoring and maintenance of the grounds are included in lines 247-257. It includes specific requirements for mowing re-seeding, and it's even got down to the specifics to the mowing to occur a minimum of five times for when ground cover exceeds 13 inches in height. Seed mix selections, that is one that came up for both temporary and long term mixes shall be determined at the time of the pre-construction meeting. This is in lines 111-113, and as I mentioned the pre-construction meeting is attended by the Farm bureau staff and other interested parties as determined by Land Use Staff. So, Land Use Staff can include Will South Cook in that pre-construction meeting. If that is an additional language you want to add. Acciona would be fine with that, but we think it is covered already. In line 175-178 the is language that requires the facility owner to demonstrate in writing that the soil planning and drainage and maintenance in the design is compatible with agricultural uses. This is language that was added before the ordinance went to the county board and the Land Use meeting prior. One comment I would have, in order to make this language less suggestive. This language could be revised to require compatibility or conformance with the AIMA. The AIMA has much more specific and objective provision about soils, planting and maintenance. AIMA also address if there is a dispute with the landowner about drainage or crop damage. AIMA provides the landowner significant protections. It addresses many of the concerns Will Cook has including crop damage, soil restoration repair of agricultural drain tiles, wheat damages. AIMA also contains multiple provisions that expressly require the facility owner to consider Will South Cooks opinion if there is a dispute between the landowner and the facility owner about the condition of the property. The deconstruction plan has to include provisions for restoration of soils stabilization revegetation and minimalization of erosion. This all demonstrates there is no need for further revisions. The current draft address all these concerns. We respectfully request on behalf of Axiona who has a project and we a have been waiting patiently that the ordinance can be advanced and we can proceed with our project. Thank you. Tyler Marcum: Let's start with the farm specialist. The issue that we had, was there was no certification anywhere for a farm specialist. It is really a definition problem. Mr. Guzman can go into more detail about how it is an issue to require something that doesn't technically exist. Open to thoughts. While Mark was speaking, it occurred to me, the farm specialist referring to the States definition under the other wind and such. I don't know if that is possible. Does anyone else have thoughts?
Judy Ogalla: I think we need to be as cautious as we can be, with these Solar Farms. We started out with a few communities Solar Farms, and it has grown to more than just some community Solar. Now we are looking at (2) two proposed commercial Solar Farms. It is growing and growing and growing. We are at risk of losing a lot of farmlands, because people who rent the farms cannot compete with the rent that the Solar companies pay. So, because of that local farms who rent will be losing income due to that. That is the market, that is what it is. I then think the Solar companies should be held to a high standard. Solar companies are supposedly green energy and in green energy we should definitely make sure we follow conservation practices. That makes the most sense to me. We don't know the whole outcome. It is 20 to 30 years before these are no longer being used, maybe technology changes. I think being the most stringent we can be up front to be the most case, so it protects the landowner and it protects the surrounding land owners and any future owner of the property makes sense. If the State of Illinois has a definition for Farm Specialist for both the pipelines and Wind Farms. I would like to have us adopt that definition in our Solar Ordinance because it is already at the State level. It makes sense that we apply this to another utility which would be Solar. I would support that change.
Amanda Koch: I agree with what Staff told us. The Farm specialist we really can't define what that is. I did feel really good about this ordinance. I saw a lot of the comments that we heard from folks. It is kind of redundant, it is things we already have in the ordinance. I felt good about bring it to County Board last month. We can't sort out this Farm Specialist thing I think we move it forward as is, basically try again. I do appreciate the time to review that, see if there is an alternate solution. It just doesn't seem like there is a really great on today. I am going to ask if Staff has any suggestions what to do with that?
Brian Radner: The history here is there were cases that we approved for Special Use permits over the last couple years had the language that referenced the Farm Specialist, that was a condition. As the staff tried to prepare wordage changes based on what this committee wanted, we added that condition and put it in the ordinance. As we progressed through the process, we learned that section needed to be retooled a little bit. It wasn't worded very well at least in the eyes of a couple different parties. We tried to do that. It sounds like based on the feedback we got maybe the Staff missed the mark on that. As we went to County Board there was concerns about Farm Specialist and who was going to be involved in this project to verify that everything, they say they are going to do, they are going to do. That was our recommendation before but was at the Board. Since that time, I did meet with Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District, they indicated they could be that group that verifies that whatever is in the AIMA is done. They could prepare a conservation plan and verify during different phases of development that whatever was in the AIMA and what was approved is being completed. They have that expertise. I don't know that they the Farm Specialist, but they have the expertise in drainage and soil and things of that nature and crops. Today coming in here what the Committee, might want to do to see if they wanted to involve Will South Cook beyond just the initial construction meeting. See if Committee wanted to involve that group. I see Will South Cook as an entity that isn't like a private company. You have to go hire this specialist to do that. They are another agency that Staff consults with regularly on Zoning related requests. I defer to Matt Guzman on that The States Attorney's Office. I think is this Committee wanted to use someone who has expertise in that area this entity could possibly fill that role. If that is the direction the Committee then that maybe something you want to consider. It sounds like as I heard from Mr. Specia back here, they are trying to comply with the AIMA and a lot of these things are being done. This group would verify that these things are being done and would be part of the process.
Steve Balich: When Mark spoke, he said there was (4) four people who could do the work. Then Will Cook could do the work. Then Judy and Tyler also said the State has a definition for specialist in other areas. So, I think we should move forward with doing the Specialist. Why not include the Farm Bureau and Will Cook and whatever else is a specialist by definition of the State. There is (3) sources where you can get a specialist. Why not take them all? Why be specific with just one? To me it would be logical to include everybody.
Amanda Koch: Steve is on the same path as I am. I was thinking we could put something like independent or independent third-party review. We can put to include but not limited to, and we can list some of these folks that could participate. Or that we verify can participate. It would also be up to us to say we want to limit it to those groups of people. Or if we want to let it be any independent third-party review.
Tyler Marcum: I will defer to Mr. Guzman to answer. My concern was that broad language is...we are back at square one with what is independent review and what makes that person qualified. That would be my concern.
Matt Guzman: I think that is a very legitimate concern. We are getting back to who is qualified. There is a lot of choices you have here. Making a list probably is a good idea. One caveat is not an entity that is going to be making money off of it. We don't want to be sending business on behalf of the County to an organization that will be making money off of it. I like the idea of a list but not limited to those individually. Keep in mind the chairman has pointed out, that you don't know who this third party may be. At least these entities meet the criteria to verify what is being done or not. You have to be consent of the fact we don't know that if you say it is another entity that is going to do this do they have the credentials to in fact verify it is being done. There is a lot to decide here.
Judy Ogalla: So, listening to all this conversation we have to remember the facts that the Will South Cook Soils and Water Conservation District currently looks at bodies that Land Use Department does. It provides feedback, you have it in your packet all the time. They are an independent governmental agency that is tasked with soil and water conservation. So, it makes sense they have the skill set. People are hired there; work there they work also with NRC. They Have the skill sets that would be needed to do this. They would be unbiased they are just looking to make sure that the soil and the water is in a good state, and it does have any impacts on all the things that it could. I think it makes sense to go ahead and use Soil and Water Conservation who has the skill set that a farm specialist would have to do that. We already use them today. I respect Chris Spesia, I know him from other projects I have worked on in my County. Remember the fact he is working for the Solar Company; he is advocating for them. We need to advocate for our residence who live around these Solar Farms. For our residence who own the land and they be out of state owner. We need to make sure what is done is correct. If we truly want to be doing the best and looking at solar energy as another source of energy for all of us. Then it only makes sense that we follow the best practices that we can to ensure that the best ordinance that we put in place. I make the recommendation that we use Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District to do the duties that we may have charged the farm specialist with in the past. I make that Motion.
Jacqueline Trayner Seconded.
Steve Balich: I do agree with what Judy said. If we do take the path, I was referring to and Amanda expanded on, of using anybody else. If we end up doing that somewhere in the future. It cannot have someone who works for the company being the inspector because that is biased. The other end is if you are going to do it you should open it up to all of those independent places and if there is a disagreement, they would have to bring it to our committee, and we hear it. But we don't know what we are doing. I guess what Judy just said is the best answer. So, I concur with Judy.
Amanda Koch: I am very comfortable putting Will South Cook on there. The only reason I said including and not limited to, I am thinking could we add a word instead that says like qualified? Because our Staff does know who is qualified to speak on this. We know we have some folks here who are qualified to speak on it. We talked about it we don't want to encourage someone to do it for profit but there are people out there that can do this for profit. Would it be fair to say qualified and allow our Staff to say if they are qualified or not to speak on this just because they know they are actually going through the whole process.
Matt Guzman: My concern if we say qualified it is a very subjective term. It would be different if we had a laundry list of items that says they've got this certification, they've got a PHD in whatever the case may be.
Amanda Koch: Is that the problem though, that we don't have that laundry list. Matt Guzman: That is exactly right. We don't have the list then you say qualified then there is going to be a lot of debate going on. I think I am qualified; Brain and other think you are not . That is the issue that I think may arise if you use that type of term. Normally I would agree a term like that is good. We can try to fit them in if they need to be. In this instance if you say that you might have a lot of debate. Then they may be coming back here. That is my concern.
Brain Radner: I think I forgot to mention this, I don't think Lynn said it either from Will South Cook. The language that she is talking about is in place in McHenry County and DeKalb County already. Lynn has indicated she has talked to people there and it is working well in those communities. If it is already happening in parts of the State, granted a little more rural that Will County, we still have a lot of rural areas. I fit is working there maybe it will be a good fit for Will County too. Maybe we just tailor it a little bit to fit our area.
Tyler Marcum: Does anyone have any further thoughts before we vote on Judy's Motion to include instead of farm specialist Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation. Any Last questions?
Motion to include Will South Cook Soil & Water Conservation District. Unanimous
Judy Ogalla: Brian I need to clarify by putting the Will South Cook Storm Water Conservation District in place of the farm specialist, does that also include suggested changes that they put for us as well.
Brain Radner: It sounds like using them to verify that things that were identified in the AIMA are actually being complied with and having it part of the pre construction meeting. Just inserting their name may not be enough. My preference is that we see the exact language that will be put in. Then this Committee reacted to it. Right now, it is very general. There may be some other things in here that maybe you are not comfortable with. I don't know that yet. I hate to delay this anymore, but I would be happy to insert some language and bring it back to the Committee for review. If they wanted to. If that is not the desire of the committee then we would move forward with striking everything that was there before and referencing Will South Cook.
Judy Ogalla: I would like to have us put the suggested changes Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District put forward to us today in the document that is attached. Incorporate those. That way we are going to make sure that we have the best conservation plan in place for a Solar Farm. A Solar Farm is supposed to be green energy. I think we should look at it as a process we are going to do the very best. Here the Solar Farm is to be giving us energy that is green energy. So, I would like to see it be as green as possible and make them follow conservation practices. They have the ability to pay for this to get this done. We have the ability to make our Solar Ordinance as robust as it possible can to be the best for the environment with these practices in place. So, I would like to have Brian look at these making the wording changes. By letting it go another month it doesn't do anything bad. We want to pass something that is good, a good ordinance. We don't want to pass something that is going to come back again. Which we did the first time, because we learned things. Now we are looking at the Solar Ordinance again. I would like to recommend that Brian does go and give us the changes and give us a red line copy of something, so we can look at for next month.
Amanda Koch: I am a little unclear and obviously that would be to Judy's point to bring this back red line. I am not sure why we are making more changes when we only have one small issue to bring this back from the County Board. So in interest they have a project ready to go forward now I feel like we passed it forward before and felt pretty good about it. We were a little unsure about this language. It came back we fixed this language that we talked about today with that Amendment you put forth Judy. We send this forward to County Board and get this passed. Not because we haven't done our due diligence. We have been talking about this for months. I feel we have done the work. I am in favor of codifying things and moving this forward.
Judy Ogalla: It is our job as a County Board Member to do the best we can. Brian, I know you have met with Will South Cook Soil & Water Conservation District. Do you believe that the additional suggestion that they have made changes would strengthen our ordinance, so it takes things more clear than currently have it today?
Brain Radner: I think it helps clarify a lot of things that were open ended. In that initial language that was 175-178. It sounds like the Committee desires to use that group, because they voted to move forward with that group to do that review. We are trying to throw together wording right now, where I don't have that wording yet. It sounds like it is the desired of this Committee to use Will South Cook Soil & Water Conservation District to verify that things that are in the AIMA are completed. Then doing some monitoring and maintenance. I do not have that language prepared to insert for you to approve like this second. I don't have it prepared. When I put something in the code it has to be what this Committee wants.
Judy Ogalla: I would like to make a Motion to postpone until next month, so Brian has the opportunity the suggested language changes as amended. Second.
Mike Fricilone: If (2) days was enough time to get the resolution clean. At least you can bring it forward in (2) days if it still wasn't clean, you still can remand it back. You already agreed that Will South Cook Soil & Water Conservation District to be involved. I think Brian gets the Jest of it; I am sure Matt can take a look. If you could bring it forward in (2) two days, why not. If it still isn't right, you can always push it back.
Tyler Marcum: I tend to agree with that. There has been a Motion to Post Pone and a second. Any final thoughts on Postponing.
MOTION TO INCLUDE WILL SOUTH COOK SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Traynere |
MOTION TO POST PONE
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee voted to Deny, 2-4.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [2 TO 4]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla NAYS: Marcum, Koch, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Traynere |
MOTION TO MOVE SOLAR ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO THE COUNTY BOARD Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, 5-1.
| RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair SECONDER: Saud Gazanfer, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Weigel, Gazanfer NAYS: Ogalla ABSENT: Traynere |
3. Amending Sections of the Will County Zoning Ordinance-Solar Farms, Battery Energy Storage for Sections 155-7.30 Use Table, 155-8.30 Public and Civic Use Category and 155-9.220 Reserved Battery Energy Facilities
(Brian Radner)
Brain Radner presented Solar Farm Battery Energy Storage.
Brian Radner: We had the Public Hearing last week. Nobody showed up in person and testified and offered comment on the text amendment. We did receive written comment from a couple different groups. From the Clean Gris Alliance we received comment that the County should consider the co-location of battery energy storage facilities and solar farms; meaning that the County in their ordinance they should be planning for battery storage at solar farm facilities. They said that facilities classified as major should be permitted in every zoning classification. Currently in our draft code we have some of those listed as special use and not permitted, it is permitted in I-3 but with special use in i-1 and 1-2. The comment there was that the County should consider that the Major facilities, those are facilities we were defining as greater than 10 acres. Would be permitted by right in any industrial zoning classification. They also recommended that the County require a copy of the memorandum of lease and not the lease itself. In case of the special use permit for a major facility. The we received a comment from a representative from NRG. Their comment pertains to fencing; their concerned if they had a facility that had existing fencing that met minimum fence height to keep people out of the battery storage facility would the need to install another fence within the perimeter of the fencing. I understand their perspective, if it is already fenced off appropriately then why do they need to install another fence within the property line. These are the comments that we received. In the phone conversation I was meeting with some industry representative in August, and they suggested that the County instead of using 10 Acres to differentiate between major and minor. The County look at using megawatt hours to differentiate between major and minor facility. When I asked for an exact megawatt hour one wasn't provided. I never did receive that, and I asked them to provide it. It was never submitted. At this point I do not have that information. Some of the facilities that I showed you were like (20) twenty megawatt in the past and they are on much less than (10) acres. They are on barely an acre for a (20) megawatt hour facility. In the future there is no guarantee maybe you can accomplish placing more megawatt hours within a smaller site. I am just throwing it out there the County may want to consider instead of using acreage, using megawatt hour. One number that was going through my head was 100 megawatt hours. That was judging on what was a (10) ten-acre facility in another location. It was about a 100, (10) ten acres was about a 100-acre facility. I never got that comment so maybe we just stick where we are at. I did want to bring it up because they did mention it to me during a discussion. Those are the comment I received. If you want to direct Staff to make any changes based on these comments. Then I can do that. I understand there is a request to continue this for a month. If you are interested, I can insert them into the code and bring to back for the Committee in October and you could vote up or down on those changes.
Amanda Koch: Can you go back to the on that talked about a memorandum for lease.
Brian Radner: So, a memorandum for lease it wouldn't be the entire lease with the property owner. It would just be what is recorded that there is a lese with the property owner. I am not very familiar with that term.
Amanda Koch: I thought it was a memorandum of intent to lease. Brian Radner: This is the exact language that they gave me, memorandum of the lease. They say that when they do a lease with a property owner that is how it is recorded. They do a memorandum of lease. I am not very familiar with that. When we had a copy of the lease that was something that was something that was in the County requirements for Solar Farms. So, we just used that language and inserted it here.
Amanda Koch: So is it unduly burdensome to bring in the whole lease. What is your opinion.
Brian Radner: That is their opinion. Maybe you’re asking for this to be disclosed that they don't want to disclose. I don't know I wasn't given any more background. Matt Guzman: I think Brian hit it right on the head. There might be more information within the lease itself that they don't want disclosed. So rather than disclose the actual lease. I am guessing, that would be my thoughts. Rather than disclose all the nitty gritty and specifics of a lese they are simply saying there is a lease out there.
Amanda Koch: I am comfortable with that, with the memorandum of lease but I wanted to talk it out before I said that's a great idea. I appreciate you guys. Steve Balich: I would like to make a Motion to Postpone for a month so we can hear from the Fire Department. This is something all new to us. I don't have a problem with the thing, but maybe I am going o learn something from the Fire Department. I would rather wait a month.
Tyler Marcum: I am going to ask you to hold on one second just so we can circle back to the Memorandum of lese that way they can work on it before. That way we give Staff direction. Then we can come back to that. Does anyone have any thought on memorandum of lease. I think everyone is OK on Memorandum of lease instead of the whole lese. Go ahead Amanda.
Amanda Koch: The kilo watt hours, since we are going to Post Pone this for now and hear from the Fire Department and look at the Memorandum language as well. Perhaps the kilo watt hours and what that thresh hold is. Maybe that is more specific or more of an industry standard. So I would also be comfortable making that change as well.
Tyler Marcum: I also think when you go by megawatt's hour, go about the lotage, with how technology changes. I feel like it gives us more coverage for the future because things get smaller, they don't get bigger.
Amanda Koch: If you could come back with some choices that would be great. Judy Ogalla: So, talking like megawatt's we obviously don't know because technology does change. Computers were large and now they are very small. It is possible that solar energy could be much smaller equipment than what we are using today. So, then my question comes into play because this is something you need to consider or talk about. Right now, the Farm has a separate pin, and it has a solar farm on it is taxed at a different rate. Would there be a difference in commercial solar farm verse a community solar farm as far as what is being taxed. We have (2) two different things we are talking about when we started, we were only talking community solar which was small. Now we are looking at commercial zoning of (3) three thousand acres which I don't know what the megawatt's coming out of that. How do we distinguish between that. Then the question is would we be assessing those properties correctly for taxation. Obviously, the more energy you produce the more money the solar company is going to make. We look at doing our energy taxation different with our energy companies verse a business. I am concerned with that.
Steve Balich: I would like to make a Motion to Postpone for a month.
MOTION TO POST PONE TO OCTOBER 11, 2022 MEETING
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, Unanimously 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Traynere |
4. Amending Sections 155-7.30, 155-9.240 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance - Self- Service Storage Facilities
(Tyler Marcum)
Colin Duesing presenting.
Colin Duesing: The language regarding self storage facilities went to Public Hearing last week and there were no comments. What you approved last month is what is being forwarded to you today.
Tyler Marcum: Questions and comments.
No response.
Steve Balich: By changing this here. Does this change the thing going on between Homer Glenn and the self-storage unit?
Tyler Marcum: It won't affect anything that is in the works now. It is in the future we can't change something that's already been applied for and that we might vote on. So, this doesn't affect any cases in front of us.
Steve Balich: That is why we asked. It doesn't look like it on this.
Tyler Marcum: This came about because every time we have had this, we've had different issues with municipalities with requesting different things and it was a common occurrence. Common enough for us consider it. So, this alleviates some of the municipal concerns.
Steve Balich: When we change zoning's you run into a problem when various Cities have different zoning classifications. If we pass something that is in the works for zoning. If we pass changes all of a sudden now that is considered a commercial type of a zone and the city says no, we consider that still industrial. When we pass that it's commercial and unincorporated and industrial in the city. The city is stuck with all the stuff that happens by setting the precedence going forward. I am a little bit nervous about changing, doing things to change zoning's when cities have conflicting zoning.
Colin Duesing: When we are dealing with this specific use It is the use, the district does not matter. We are putting in both the commercial and the industrial districts. The use is being discussed.
Jacqueline Traynere: Tyler I want to go back to where you said this would not affect the cases that have currently been applied for. I am thinking specifically of the project in Homer Glenn. Would they have to then cancel their request for special use and for a variance and then reapply again.
Tyler Marcum: Yes. They would have to go the whole process all over again. Jacqueline Traynere: And pay again.
Tyler Marcum: Yes. We can't change things just for one.
Mike Fricilone; I understand when the applicant applied, they changed the zoning to I-1 so they can put a 48ft high open storage unit for boats. We say we are going to deny. Then all of a sudden there is a text amendment to change the zoning that they are already in. Sounds like a play to me. Even if commercial C-3 I don't see that we need an open48ft high storage unit for boats.
Amanda Koch: I do agree that we shouldn't be reactive just because there is something here. I do think that allowing a lot of the uses as a special use. The purpose and intent was just so we could review it and get hose legal objections. Bring everyone in and to decide if this is right or not. I am a big fan of allowing for a little bit more flexibility and looking at this as human beings with other human beings. As it doesn't affect anything that is in the process now, I am whole heartedly for this.
Tom Weigel: One of the big objections in the past with industrial and storage facilities was that they may change their minds. We are getting away from that by changing to separate facilities and allowing outdoor storage and commercial if they get approval of the special use.
Tyler Marcum: Anybody else?
No response.
MOTION TO APPROVE STORAGE FACILITY UNDER HIGH COMMERCIAL ZONING Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, 5-2.
| RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 2]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Saud Gazanfer, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer NAYS: Balich, Ogalla |
5. Amending Section 155-7.30 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance- Warehousing, Wholesaling and Freight Movement and Grain Storage in Industrial Districts (Tyler Marcum)
Colin Duesing presented The Review Designation of Warehousing under 1-Z Zoning.
Colin Duesing: This went to Public Hearing Last week. Only on comment and that was from the village of Homer Glenn. That request was to have you post pone voting on this until next month so they can have their meeting tomorrow night so they can file whatever paperwork they need to file either in this court, so it is not a rush on Thursday, getting everything done.
Steve Balich makes a Motion to move it to next month.
Tyler Marcum: Amanda then Jackie then I will come back to Steve.
Amanda Koch: I am not sure why we are waiting on their meeting? I would encourage to submit if they don't like it. I do think this is actually making things less permissive. I thought when we talked about it that almost all this stuff was going to be S. Special use for I-1, because we wanted to make sure we wouldn't have these large warehouses in I-1. We talked about the bait and switch. Well, we are going to put this small thing in I-1, and it ends up being this huge thing. So, it is always a special use so people can't do that bait and switch type of stuff. As far as I am concerned, we are making this more prohibitive and making it a longer p=process and giving us more review. I can't see how anybody would say that is a bad idea and to look at this harder and to make this more difficult to put warehousing in. I am in favor of moving it forward, I would also be willing to vote to hold it for now. My question was why is beverage warehouse distribution and storage warehouse just not permitted at all. I thought they would have been special use and I am not saying they have to be. I am just curious what's happening.
Colin Duesing: That is what I though the Committee was asking for. Jacqueline Traynere: We crossed out the P but didn't put in the S, and I didn't think we were trying to eliminate permission entirely. It is a warehouse. It should be an S or we should leave the P alone, under the beverage warehouse and storage warehouse wholesaling indoor. Those (2) two. It even took out the P entirely on the overall and didn't put anything into replace it.
Jacqueline Traynere: We are making it restrictive.
Jacqueline Traynere: So, they have to apply for a special use permit then? To store beverages?
Tyler Marcum: The only thing that would be allowed under is a parcel package delivery service and grain storage.
Jacqueline Traynere: Then outdoor storage yard and truck or bus terminal are still a special use.
Tyler Marcum: The storage warehousing and wholesale indoor will no longer be allowed under I-1. Beverage warehouse and distribution will not be allowed under I-1, and warehousing wholesaling and freight movement will not be allowable. Steve Balich: I understand why the Village of Homer Glenn wants to Table it for a month. Their meeting is tomorrow, and you have to have a resolution to do your legal objection. There is not very much time, they have their meeting at night. That means they have to have a legal objection before the meeting at 9:30 am on Thursday. It is an overburden o the Village of Homer Glenn. They would have to have someone here at 8:30 in the morning then we have to somehow get it to the County Board before our meeting at 9:30 which give it one hour. I think in the spirit of let's be far about it that is not enough time. We know they want to have a legal objection. Let's be fair about it.
Tyler Marcum: Do they want to legally object to our changes under self-storage or industrial. Because Industrial we are making more restrictive. Most municipalities those are their objections are around industrial uses.
Steve Balich: They want to make sure that certain industrial uses now aren't all of a sudden commercial. Then that fits into what we are talking about because if you change current industrial use to commercial that goes against what they want. That is why they want to object. I see you are making it more restrictive on some stuff but other stuff not necessarily. They want to do a legal objection, so they need (20) twenty votes. We handicap them by making them have (1) hour to do the legal objection. It is not fair. If you want to do it like that, we are setting the president that any other city or township that puts in an legal objection. We can do the same thing to them.
MOTION TO WAREHOUSING, WHOLESALEING WHOLESIALING FREIGHT MOVEMENT, GRIN STORAGE IN I-1 DISTRICT TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNTY BOARD
Roll Call Vote was taken. Land Use Development Committee Approved, 5-2.
| RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 2]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer NAYS: Balich, Ogalla |
VI. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE
1. Chair, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee 3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
4. Other
5. Public Comment
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Motion to Adjourn. Land Use Development Committee Approved , 7-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer |
Alerts Sign-up