Will County Land Use and Development Committee met May 8.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
I. Pledge Of Allegiance
Chairman Tom Weigel led the Pledge of Allegiance.
II. Call To Order And Declaration Of Quorum
Chair Tom Weigel called the meeting to order at 10:30 am
Attendee Name; Title; Status; Arrived:
Debbie Militello District 6 (R - Channahon) Present
Tom Weigel Chair Present
Judy Ogalla Vice Chair Present
Steve Balich Member Present
Mark Ferry Member Present
Laurie Summers Member Present
Denise E. Winfrey Member Absent
The roll was called. A quorum was declared.
Also present were:
Brian Radner, Director of Development Review
Colin Duesing, Planner, Administration & Planning
David Dubois, Director of Administration & Planning
Janine Farrell, Planner, Development Review
Matt Guzman, Will County State's Attorney's Office
III. Approval Of Minutes
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Apr 10, 2018 10:30 am
2. Motion to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of the April 10, 2018 Land Use and Development Committee Meeting as presented.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
IV. New Business
1.Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-18-002, Manhattan Farm, LLC; Joyal Akkawi, 100% Interest, Matt Walsh, GreenbergFarrow, Agent, Justin Hardt, Borrego Solar System Inc., Requesting (S- 18-001) Special Use Permit for a Major Public Utility, a Solar Farm Facility, for PIN #14-12-32-300-009-0000, in Manhattan Township, Commonly Known as 27555 S. Gougar Road, Manhattan, IL
(Janine Farrell)
Chairman Weigel announced Zoning Case ZC-18-002.
Janine Farrell from staff stated I'm going to address items 1, 2 and 3 on the agenda; ZC-18-002, ZC-17-071 and ZC-17-072. A memo was provided to Committee members that addresses all three of these cases together. These are the solar farm proposals by Borrego Solar.
These first came before the Committee in March. They were approved and sent to County Board. At that meeting in March the County Board remanded them back to the Land Use Committee. They were tabled to the May meeting to allow research of additional conditions.
Janine read the following two conditions that came as a result of meetings that may be added to the three solar cases should the Committee choose to do so:. Prior to submission of a site development and/building permit application by the owner/operator, a pre-construction meeting shall be held. The agencies/individuals invited to attend shall include Will County staff, elected officials, Will County Farm Bureau staff, and other interested parties as determined by Land use staff and/or the owner/operator.
. The owner/operator shall retain an agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant to serve as part of the development and/or construction team. The agricultural specialist or agricultural consultant shall be retained prior to submission of the site develop-ment and/or building permit application.
Following is the amendment of an existing condition for all three cases:
. Any solar farm that has not produced energy for a continuous period of one (1) year or more must be de-commissioned in accordance with the De-commissioning Plan and Addendum currently on file with the Will County Land Use Department, with updated costs.
This condition would replace condition #9 for Zoning Case ZC-17-071; condition #10 for Zoning Case ZC-17-072 and condition #9 for Zoning Case ZC-18-002.
Janine Farrell noted that each of the Committee members received a copy of the De-commissioning Plan that was submitted by Borrego in the original applications for each of the solar farms along with the Addendum that was worked on by Land Use Staff in conjunction with the State's Attorney and also Borrego so it is functioning as an Addendum to those De-commissioning Plans.
Board Member Ogalla asked Janine if the reference to elected officials could also mean township officials and Janine agreed that it could.
Chairman Weigel asked have the developers agreed to these conditions already?
Janine said they were made aware of this during the meeting they had with Board Member Ogalla and they did not object to those conditions and they also reviewed that Addendum to the Decommissioning Plan. So both of those edits have gone into that document and they have agreed to that document.
Board Member Balich asked what would be the procedure should they want to buy more land and increase the size at the same location of one of these solar farms?
Janine Farrell stated they would have to go through this entire special use process again. The special use area for each of those cases is acreage specific; legal description specific, so they are only limited to that area. If they wanted to add an additional ten acres then they would be getting a special use saying this is for this ten acres in addition to what area. Even though it is connected it would be considered a second special use for this additional ten acres.
There were no objectors to these changes.
2. Motion to add these three conditions to the first case.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Chairman Weigel asked Janine the Manhattan property would sooner have the power lines go over the BP Pipeline?
Janine said correct. Janine said I believe that was -002. Yes. They were requesting to move the power lines over the pipeline instead of what we were stipulating which was going directly underground except when you need to connect overhead to the ones along the road.
Chairman Weigel said I agree with that. I think it's a safety issue to dig under a power line. You could cause a spill or an explosion and I think we should amend that condition. I would entertain a motion to allow the first case in Manhattan Township to allow them to go overhead over the BP Pipeline.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
3. Motion to amend condition #8 to read: On-site power lines and utility connections are permitted above ground in order to cross the (BP) underground pipeline for Zoning Case ZC-18-002.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mark Ferry, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
4. Motion to approve Zoning Case ZC-18-002 as amended.
The motion carried unanimously.
Board Member Ogalla gave the Committee an update on the meeting with staff, Borrego and the Farm Bureau. Staff has looked at the Will County Farm Bureau draft and they are comfortable with that. Updated amount are to be given to Land Use at intervals. Borrego has been very agreeable. The land owner is responsible for making sure this gets done and not the County. Board Member Ogalla complimented staff stating they have been working really hard and have done a fabulous job. It's important to have pre-construction meetings.
Steve Balich expressed concern with density of solar farms in any one particular area.
Janine said the Committee could do a text amendment to set a regulation controlling the number within a certain mile radius. Janine said she would let Sam respond to that but Com Ed will limit how many can actually tap on.
Samantha Bluemer agreed saying yes. Com Ed's infrastructure in a certain area; the developer wants to build a solar farm and he may need to make upgrades for Com Ed to take on that power. That added cost may break the project so that would weed out a lot of projects. Also, the Committee can choose which projects they feel are best suited for this use and deny those that they feel are not best suited.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
5. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-17-071 Chanemcoco LLC; Owner of Property; Charlotte Alyce Andres, 100% Beneficiary, Matt Walsh, GreenbergFarrow, Justin Hardt, Borrego Solar System Inc.; Agents, Requesting a (S-17-015) Special Use Permit for a Major Public Utility, a Solar Farm Facility, for Part of Pin #22-22-14-300-003-0000, in Washington Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on East Indiana Avenue, Beecher, IL
(Jessica Gal)
Chairman Weigel said we need a motion to add the three conditions to the second one.
6. Motion to add the three conditions for Zoning Case ZC-17-071.
The motion was approved unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Seconder: Laurie Summers, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
7. Motion to approve ZC-17-071 with the conditions, as amended.
The motion was approved unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Seconder: Laurie Summers, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
8. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-17-072, Chanemcoco LLC; Owner of Property; Charlotte Alyce Andres, 100% Beneficiary, Matt Walsh, GreenbergFarrow, Justin Hardt, Borrego Solar System Inc.; Agents, Requesting a (S-17-016) Special Use Permit for a Major Public Utility, a Solar Farm Facility, for Part of Pin #22-22-23-100-001-0000, in Washington Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on East Indiana Avenue, Beecher, IL
(Jessica Gal)
9. Motion to add the three conditions for Zoning Case ZC-17-072.
The motion carried unanimously.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Laurie Summers, Member
Seconder: Steve Balich, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
10. Motion to approve Zoning Case ZC-17-072 with the amended conditions.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Board Member Steve Balich thanked Sam for taking the time to explain all this to him because he was a no vote on all three of these things because he thought it was bad. He wasn't aware of a lot of things and he thanked Sam for making him aware of the actual facts.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Laurie Summers, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
11. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-18-013, Dan Sitar, Owner of Record, Samuel Anyan, Agent, Teresa Dollinger, Attorney, Requesting a Special Use Permit (S-18-006) for Operation of a Trucking Terminal, for Pin #03- 17-17-200-012-0000, in Wilmington Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on West Lorenzo Road, Wilmington, IL
(Jessica Gal)
The Chairman announced the next case is a truck terminal.
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case ZC-18-013. It takes place in Wilmington Township. The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a trucking terminal in the I-2 zoning district.
There were no objections at the public hearing. None of the agencies notified had any objections to the request. The Will County Department of Transportation will require a traffic study prior to issuing a driveway entrance permit for the project.
Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with four (4) conditions.
12. Motion to approve a special use permit for operation of a trucking terminal with four (4) conditions for Zoning Case ZC-18-013.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Debbie Militello, District 6 (R - Channahon)
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
13. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-18-021, Mark Chellios, Owner of Record, Requesting Special Use Permit (S-18-009) for an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit and Variance for Maximum Accessory Dwelling Unit Area from 650 square feet to 1,395 square feet, for Pin #14-12-07- 202-006-0000, in Manhattan Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on West Creek Drive, Manhattan, IL
(Janine Farrell)
The Chairman announced the next case is for an attached dwelling unit.
Janine Farrell stated as a reminder, in January of this year, our Zoning Ordinance was updated to include the accessory dwelling unit provisions which is a related living or inlaw suite. This is a situation where it is in an R-4 single family residential dwelling.
The subject site is located in Ranch Oaks Subdivision in Manhattan Township.
No objectors appeared at the public hearing and there were no objections from any of the agencies notified of the request.
Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval.
14. Motion to approve a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit, attached for Zoning Case ZC-18-021.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
15. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-18-022, Walter J. Arnhold Declaration of Trust and Cynthia B. Arnhold Declaration of Trust; Walter J. and Cynthia B. Arnhold, Undivided 50% Interest, Cynthia Arnhold, Agent, Requesting Special Use Permit (S-18-022) for Elderly Cottage Housing Authority (ECHO), for Pin #10-11-10-200-008-0000, in Jackson Township, Commonly Known as 24300 South Rowell Avenue, Elwood, IL
(Jessica Gal)
Chairman Weigel stated the next case is a special use permit for elder cottage.
Janine Farrell stated Zoning Case ZC-18-022 takes place in Jackson Township. It is an 80-acre A-1 parcel and the applicant is requesting a special use permit for ECHO housing.
There were no objections from any of the agencies notified.
No objectors appeared at the public hearing.
Staff recommended approval with one (1) condition which is a standard condition allowing staff to inspect the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval with that one condition.
16. Motion to approve a special use permit for ECHO housing with one (1) condition for Zoning Case ZC-18-022.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Debbie Militello, District 6 (R - Channahon)
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
V. Other Business
1. Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision for Denial of Variances for Tyler Jabaay, Owner of Record, for Zoning Case #ZC-17-031, PIN #22-23-17-100- 031-0000, in Washington Township, Commonly Known as 29822 South State Line Road, Beecher, IL - Added
(Janine Ferrell)
Chairman Weigel said we've got denial of Planning & Zoning Commission for Tyler Jabaay. We were informed by the State's Attorney this should go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than our committee. Do we need a motion to do that or no?
Matt Guzman said it was sent here so I'd say yes.
2. Motion to send Appeal of PZC Decision-APCD-18-001 back to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
3. Text Amendments for Residential Bee Keeping Districts 155-10.10 B. 2. c and d
(Colin Duesing)
The Chairman announced the next item for discussion is beekeeping.
Colin Duesing presented what is currently being done regarding beekeeping in other communities and how it might be implemented for Will County. In adherence to State Regulations there would be no exemption from any fencing requirements. There needs to be a fence. There needs to be a water source for the bees. There are also general maintenance requirements. Under the Sign Category, warning signs would be voluntary and would be exempt from the Sign Ordinance as long as they were under four (4) square feet in area.
The hive could not be any more than five (5) feet tall and could not be more than twenty (20) cubic feet in size. It may not be closer than ten feet from a road, sidewalk or trail. It must be at least five (5) feet away from a property line unless there is an existing solid wall, fence, or hedge already installed.
A flyway barrier is required if it is within twenty (20) feet of a principle building, roadway, sidewalk or trail. The flyway barrier would be a solid six (6) foot or lattice wall, fence or hedge and must face the opening of the hive from five (5) feet away and there must be at least two (2) feet on either side of the hive opening.
Beekeeping is already permitted in the A-1, C-6 but we are also adding that new district we have, the Special-Park and Public Open Space District. We will allow beekeeping by right. There will be no limit on the number of hives. It can be located in all yards. Commercial and incidental sales would be permitted.
In the A-2, E-1, and E-2 districts it would be allowed by right with a limit of two hives for every one half acre or fraction thereof. There would be no minimum lot size but it would be permitted in the rear yard only. Commercial sales would be permitted by special use but incidental sales would not be permitted. The commercial sales would be the honey and beeswax products. Incidental sales would be the beekeeping equipment.
Beekeeping would be allowed in all residential districts except the R-6. The minimum lot size would be 22,000 square feet. Commercial and incidental sales would not be permitted. Beekeeping would be allowed in the industrial districts with special use. Two hives per acre permitted in the rear and side yards. Also, rooftop.
Commercial sales of honey, bee products, beekeeping equipment and bees are permitted by right in all Commercial zoning districts, regardless of beekeeping activities.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Debbie Militello asked Colin where did you come up with the setbacks?
Colin said he started with our own Zoning Ordinance and there needs to be a five (5) foot setback from anything. We want five feet from any structure or property line. Hives are actually a temporary use so the idea of being able to put them immediately adjacent to a property line as long as there is a six foot (6') fence or hedge came from another community.
Debbie said they could go right through a hedge, couldn't they?
Colin said not as long as it is a solid hedge.
Debbie Militello asked Colin did you talk to any beekeepers?
Colin said yes. I went to the Will County Beekeeper's Association for an evening session.
Board Member Judy Ogalla asked Colin if he could get her a copy of his powerpoint presentation. He said that he would. She said not just me but to the Committee, as well.
4. Motion to send the text amendments regarding beekeeping to the Will County Planning & Zoning Commission for public hearing.
The motion carried unanimously.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
5. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Accessory Dwelling Units in Industrial Districts
(Colin Duesing)
Colin Duesing said this was an accidental deletion in our update in January so what they are trying to do is put it back in. Since they made some changes to accessory dwelling units they had to craft some language. From the previous ordinance it must be approved by special use. It must be owner-occupied and be used for security purposes.
The new language; that it is not subject to the same size requirements that the residential districts have unless it is specifically identified within the special use.
Steve Balich asked does that mean that an industrial area can't have somebody living there?
Colin said as of this moment, yes. But that's what we're trying to fix. We had it in the old language. It accidentally got deleted and now we're trying to put it back in.
6. Motion to send proposed text amendments regarding accessory dwelling units in Industrial Districts to the PZC for public hearing.
The motion carried unanimously.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Laurie Summers, Member
Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
7. Proposed Text Amendments Home Occupation Regulations
(Colin Duesing)
Colin Duesing said as a result from discussions regarding home occupations at last month's Committee meeting we have a graduated scale. Starting with general regulations Colin read that all vehicles must be accommodated by off street parking. That may mean housed in a garage or on a driveway. Deliveries will be limited to a U.S. postal carrier, parcel service or passenger vehicle.
Conditional uses that shall not exceed more than three (3) clients at a time may include group counciling or encounter groups, teaching of musical instruments, voice, dance, or other similar instruction. Firearms dealers may be allowed as a home occupation only if approved in accordance with the special use permit procedures. Barber shops and hair and/or nail salons shall not exceed more than 1 chair or client at a time unless approved in accordance with the special use permit procedures.
Dental offices, chiropractic offices, physical and massage therapy, and other similar therapy offices shall not exceed more than 1 chair/client at a time unless approved in accordance with the special use permit procedures.
Debbie Militello talked about a chiropractor that may be working with one patient and another patient may come about ten minutes before his appointment.
Colin said the language states one chair or client at a time but I can add that kind of language that would allow for overlap of clients.
Laurie Summers said what if a dentist has an office attached to the house. He usually has more than one room. So they could have one person waiting in one room while they are working on another. Does that have to be clarified?
Steve Balich agreed with Laurie Summers. You could limit it to three, two in chairs and one waiting.
Colin said the way this was written is there would be one client at a time. If you don't want that we could revise it.
Chairman Weigel said you're talking big business now if you've got three or four people in there at a time. They shouldn't be in their own house. They should be on a commercial property.
David Dubois stated the Chairman hit on the point I wanted to make that is in the draft text we're trying to address the intensity of home occupations. If you exceed certain thresholds maybe it's time they go and look for a store front.
Colin said and they can always ask for a special use permit.
After discussion it was the consensus of the Committee to increase the number of clients at a time from one to three. Colin said he would add language to allow for client overlap.
Language prohibiting electrical contractors, HVAC contractors, plumbing contractors, home building contractors, construction contractors or similar was presented for addition as prohibited home occupations.
Board Member Balich pointed out that a lot of people might have lost their job and had to go into business for themselves. They might need to park their truck in their driveway or store their supplies in their garage and now you're going to tell them they have to rent space to do that. These guys that are blue collar workers; they're struggling.
Chairman Weigel said they might go out but they're not bringing their work home.
After discussion it was decided to delete the text that was suggested to be added.
Storage in accessory structures is permitted as long as the business activity is limited to the dwelling.
One (1) wall sign or one (1) freestanding sign is permitted only if the property has access from a designated federal, state, or county highway. The area would be three (3) square feet maximum per sign.
For the R-1, R-2, and R-2A Districts equipment storage would be permitted in one accessory building up to 50% of the building or 900 square feet. Whichever is less.
Board Member Ogalla was curious as to why we would want to limit the use of the accessory building to 50%.
Colin Duesing explained it's the overflow of storage that generates most of the complaints.
Board Member Ogalla said so they store 50% of their tools and equipment in there and what if they pull their truck in there at night? Would they be over the 50%? Is that not allowed?
Colin said that would not be allowed.
Judy Ogalla said if we allow the accessory building what can they use the other 50% for?
Colin said they could use it for their home stuff.
Chairman Weigel said they could store their truck on the driveway.
Judy Ogalla said why? If you're going to limit what they can use the building for at all; 50% for their equipment I would think it would be good to be able to pull your truck in. You could clean it, you could load it.
Debbie Militello said if you've got an accessory building that big why wouldn't you want to put your truck in it. Out of the weather.
Board Member Balich said the good question is how are you going to enforce this?
Staff said from the discussion last month the attempt was to limit the intensity of use in the accessory building.
David Dubois stated prior to 2012 the Ordinance did not allow storage of materials or goods related to the home occupation in the accessory building. In 2012, it was the intent of the Board to try and accommodate some of the contractors doing business within the home occupation umbrella but there was some unintended consequences of the intensity. Staff is trying to give the Board options to limit that intensity. David said the Committee might want to schedule a workshop just to discuss this topic.
Chairman Weigel said we did reduce the accessory storage in our last revision. Is it like 1500 square feet, now?
Colin said in the R-1, R-2, R-2A it is 1800. In the smaller districts it would be, R-3 is 1500; R-4 and R-5, it is 1200.
Chairman Weigel said maybe we should let that stand as is and not reduce it any more. Is anybody agreeable to that?
Steve Balich said he would be in agreement with that. Mr. Balich pointed out that there was one person in New Lenox that built an accessory building bigger than his house. There was only one person they had a problem with in the whole time he's been on the Board. There might be more but there's only one person we heard of.
The Committee discussed the issue and decided to go back to the old number and leave off the percentage. Staff was instructed to take off the reference to 900 square feet, as well. The Committee was okay with no signs for home occupations permitted in these (R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6) districts.
8. Motion to accept those changes and send them to PZC for public hearing.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
9. Amending Certain Provisions of the Will County Building Ordinance and Codes
(Brian Radner/Owen Needham)
The Committee had directed staff to address three areas for proposed changes which included: (1)Single-family residence roof repairs of 100 square feet or less. (2)Single-family residence exterior door replacement within the same framed opening. (3)Replacement of exterior gutters and leaders.
Staff asked the Committee to make a motion to open the public hearing to address those proposed changes.
10. Motion to open the public hearing to discuss proposed amendments for exemptions to the Will County Building Ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: Ogalla, Balich, Militello, Summers, Ferry and Weigel voted "yes."
The public hearing was opened.
There were no comments from the public concerning the proposed changes.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
11. Motion to close the public hearing.
Roll Call Vote: Ogalla, Balich, Militello, Summers, Ferry and Weigel voted "yes."
The public hearing was closed.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
12. Motion to approve the changes.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Laurie Summers, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
13. Adopting the Illinois Plumbing Code
(Brian Radner)
The next topic presented for public hearing concerned amending the Plumbing Code.
David Dubois stated that Brian and Owen both consulted with the State of Illinois and it was determined that the County has no administrative discretion regarding the Illinois State Plumbing Code. We have to adopt the State Plumbing Code.
The proposed text amendment makes the appropriate modifications within the County's Code to adopt the Illinois Plumbing Code and any reference to 2004 Illinois Plumbing Code are to be replaced with Illinois Plumbing Code.
Will County may adopt more restrictive plumbing codes than the State but may not adopt regulations less restrictive than the State.
14. Motion to open the public hearing regarding the Plumbing Code.
Roll Call Vote: Ogalla, Balich, Militello, Summers, Ferry and Weigel voted "yes."
The public hearing was opened.
There was no public comment.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
15. Motion to close the public hearing.
Roll Call Vote: Ogalla, Balich, Militello, Summers, Ferry and Weigel voted "yes."
The public hearing was closed.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
16. Motion to adopt the Illinois State Plumbing Code.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Laurie Summers, Member
Seconder: Steve Balich, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
17. Building Code - Expired Permits
(Brian Radner)
David Dubois talked about a memo Brian Radner prepared regarding expired building permits and notices of violation as directed by the Land Use and Development Committee. The memo addresses four aspects of expired building permits.
First, the memo identifies County Board adopted regulations pertaining to ordinance violations. Specifically, Chapter 150.011 of the Will County, IL Code of Ordinances. The Department attempts to notify a property owner in writing that the code has been violated.
If the owner of the property has not complied with the requirements in the initial letter the Department may record notice of violation. The purpose of this is to provide legal notice to all people who may have an interest in the property that there are expired permits associated with that property. The Department will release the notice once all items have been corrected.
The memo highlights the number of expired permits. Approximately 3,500 expired building permits were identified for the period 2011-2015. The Chief Building Official directed staff to contact permit holders or current owners in an attempt to reduce that number and close out those building permits. Consequently, the Department was able to close out approximately 850 permits.
The staff attempts to close out old "same day" permits when possible.
The decision was made that permits open prior to the year 2011 would remain open until the owner applied for a new building permit. The owner would be required to close the open permit before a new permit could be issued. No permits have been closed unless an inspection has revealed that the work has been done in compliance with applicable code.
Steps were identified that staff is taking to reduce the current number of open permits not only in Will County but also in surrounding counties.
Alternative options presented were to consider an ordinance change to the Building code that would remove the section pertaining to recording a "notice of violation." Consider "amnesty" for all expired permits for a defined period (this could include removing all "notices of violation"). Consider an ordinance change that would prohibit the issuance of new permits until old permits were closed.
The Department has put the process on pause until this has been resolved.
Six surrounding counties were identified to see how they handle expired permits. In the chart that was prepared by Colin Duesing the initial step taken by most of the counties (DuPage, Grundy, Kankakee, Kendall, McHenry) was by a call or letter. Lake County initially does a cold call inspection. The next step taken varies. DuPage County's intermediate step is administrative adjudication. Kendall County's is certified letters. Lake County calls or sends letters. McHenry County's is reapplication. The final step taken by about half of the surrounding counties is to red tag the property. One of them actually leins the property that is placed in violation.
The current language does not specifically identify the Recorder of Deeds so that would have to be corrected. Staff is seeking direction from the Committee whether or not the Building Codes need to be amended.
Judy Ogalla asked have all the open permits been moved into the new software?
David Dubois said they did do a data migration into SmartGov from the LIPS Program. They did the best that they could. Not all the old fields were in the LIPS Program that are now in the SmartGov Program so they did the best they could to match up the fields. They call the old permits a "legacy" permit.
Board Member Ogalla asked how long is a permit good for?
David said a permit is valid for twelve (12) months. The staff is scheduling the final inspection when the permit is issued now. There is one person that follows up almost daily to identify which ones are about one month out and tries to make contact with the permit holder and see if they need an extension or what's going on with their permit.
Judy Ogalla suggested a letter be sent to the permit holder asking them if the work has been done and suggesting they call for a final inspection so the permit can be closed out.
David said there is contact with the owner. The process was just started about a year and a half ago.
Board Member Steve Balich talked about giving amnesty to people for permits prior to 2011 since property could have changed hands since the permit was taken out. You could have multiple owners who didn't even know a building permit was pulled. His solution would be to make a motion at this time to do amnesty for all the open permits from 2011 and back. That way we eliminate the problem.
Judy Ogalla asked for those that are from 2011 and back is there a specific type of permit issued that might cause a problem? Do we know which of these properties have changed hand?
David didn't have that information off hand but most of these are for remodels, hvac and so forth and not necessarily just for a roof.
Ragan Freitag cautioned them if there was a more serious permit that could result in a safety issue. She would hate for something to come back to the County Board.
Steve Balich said we have sovereign immunity so there's not going to be a legal issue anyway.
Ragan said there's actually a pending case right now. Ragan cautioned them as Chief of Staff and their legal council against doing this. As they have been working on this and through some of their internal meetings there is an equal protection issue. They have taken a group of individuals, the outstanding permits and they have begun working with some of the homeowners and having them go through a certain process. Then they take that other group that hasn't been responding and clear the table on that. We are treating a similar group of people different. I feel that's an equal protection issue. She wanted the State's Attorney to comment on that.
Matt Guzman concurred with Ms. Freitag stating this is potentially a protection issue. He respectfully disagreed with Mr. Balich in regards to that just because since it's 2011 was installed properly. I'm not willing to make that assumption; to say that it was properly installed. Maybe we just got lucky so far in those seven years. I don't know. But I'm not willing to make that assumption.
Mr. Balich said with what Ragan just told me I'm going to withdraw my motion. He now sees there could be a problem with equal protection.
Judy Ogalla asked if any of these open permits are for a door or a gutter?
David Dubois said he couldn't say with 100% certainty but his conversations with Brian indicate that when they get to this point where there's a notice of violation or for example we now have 140 open permits from 2011 through 2015 we could record a notice but we haven't yet. They don't relate to gutters, siding or things of that nature. They're more substantial permits.
Mrs. Ogalla asked so right now somebody has an open permit do we just go ahead and issue them a new permit?
David said no we don't.
Mrs. Ogalla said it makes sense for them to adopt an ordinance that prohibits issuance of new permits until old permits are closed.
18. Motion to adopt an Ordinance change that prohibits the issuance of new permits until the old permits are closed out.
Debbie Militello asked do we take any of these to Administrative Adjudication, now?
David Dubois said but it may be a life/safety issue at that point they may go to the Circuit Clerk if they need to but that's not necessarily our first choice.
Chairman Weigel said his understanding is that adjudication doesn't always solve the problem. It's still an open issue, isn't it? The adjudicator can just fine them. It doesn't solve the problem.
David said there are no leins filed in this process. It's just a notice of violation. A notice placed on the deed informing the individual or subsequent purchasers that there is an open permit. A lein is something where there is more of a monetary consideration. Placing a notice on the deed doesn't prevent the sale of the property or transfer of title.
Judy Ogalla asked how is the new owner responsible for the previous owner's permit? How do we handle that?
David Dubois said they inherit the responsibility with that property.
Judy Ogalla asked do we know which properties these are specifically?
David said he knows Brian worked with the Recorder of Deeds Office. There are some instances where the person being notified wasn't necessarily the person who took out the permit. The property may have changed hands since the permit was initially taken out.
Judy Ogalla mentioned that the wording talks about the Circuit Clerk's Office and this should really be corrected to say the Record of Deeds Office.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Seconder: Laurie Summers, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
19. Motion to correct the language for this type of notice from the Circuit Clerk to the Recorder of Deeds.
The motion carried unanimously 6-0.
David Dubois said they would come back with language regarding these two particular changes.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
Seconder: Laurie Summers, Member
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
VI. Reports, Communications, Correspondence
1. Chairman, 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
Mark Heinle stated he is with the law firm Ancel Glink. He represents Fran and Ken Rewers. He spoke with regard to the Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission for Tyler Jabaay; variances previously denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This body voted to send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Heinle objected for the record to the remand. It is unclear to him what authority the County Board or this Committee would have to make that remand. Mr. Heinle said his reading of the County Code says that once the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a final decision on a variance which in this case was to deny the variance that the County Board is vested with two review powers. They can A) reverse the determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission with a three-quarters super majority vote or they can affirm the decision by any sort of vote that would fall short of the three-quarters super majority.
Mr. Heinle said it is unclear to him if this is supposed to go back to PZC for a new public hearing but they object to it being referred back to the Committee. Mr. Heinle and his clients were unaware this was going back to the PZC and registered their discomfort with that.
Chairman Weigel said I myself didn't know either until I showed up today.
Mr. Heinle pointed out that the applicant constructed structures without asking permission from anyone or getting any permits and some of the structures were constructed as close as three feet from his client's property. Everywhere in the County you must respect a fifty foot setback at least in the A-1 where his property sits at. While this gets continued his clients continue to live next to structures that had no right to be there in the first place.
Matt Guzman stated comments have been heard and noted for the record. Mr. Guzman stated as recommended earlier that this be sent to PZC.
Ken Rewers stated he is the person that lives next to Mr. Jabaays. Mr. Rewers asked who has the responsibility to notify him that this is not going to go. Couldn't I have had the courtesy to have been notified?
Judy Ogalla said she talked to Tyler yesterday and he told her he wasn't coming. That is his choice to come or not come. I can't tell him he needs to come. He should have been here but he chose not to come. When we came to the meeting today we were told this should not have been on our agenda. If I had known in advance I would have let you know. I did not know until today when I came here. It was placed on our agenda and it should not have been. I'm not sure of the particulars on it. Matt is our attorney on this. He has told us that is what we needed to do. If I had known I definitely would have told you.
Mr. Rewers said this is costly for me for something that I didn't do. So procedurally this is going back to the Planning and Zoning? Am I understanding that correctly?
Judy Ogalla said yes.
Chairman Weigel said Judy, you had asked at the County Board to send this back. He said you took it off the County Board Agenda. He asked Judy if she was going to the PZC or does she have any new data or something to resolve this issue?
Laurie Summers asked preferably this should have been tabled and not sent back to Committee because once you send it back to Committee it had to go, too? Correct?
Chairman Weigel said chances are that the PZC will probably deny it again and it will come back here and we'll deny it again and send it to County Board. Apparently there is no new information out there that would change our status.
Mr. Rewers talked about Mr. Jabaay bringing in about three feet of fill and flooding his property and his neighbors.
Chairman Weigel said he could be in violation of our Water Resource Ordinance and he suggested Mr. Rewers talk to his attorney about it.
Byron Sharer Robertson gave a brief presentation regarding the use of shipping containers for home construction. It is his hope the Committee and the Board will consider a text amendment concerning the zoning policy for the restriction of shipping container homes.
In his studies as a PHD student he has spent over 7 years studying shipping homes. He has worked with local high school students over the past 4 years designing out and looking at the pros and cons of such architecture. He wants to build a shipping container home so that his family can have a place to call home. Examples of various structures built using shipping containers were distributed.
Chairman Weigel asked staff to review the information Mr. Robertson left with them and they will consider it in the future.
VII. Executive Session
VIII. Adjournment
1. Motion to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 pm.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Steve Balich, Member
Seconder: Debbie Militello, District 6 (R - Channahon)
Ayes: Militello, Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers
Absent: Winfrey
IX. Next Meeting - June 12, 2018
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2977&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up