Will County Land Use and Development Committee met Sept. 14.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Tom Weigel led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
II. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
The meeting was called to order. A quorum was declared. Chair Tom Weigel called the meeting to order at 10:30 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| 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 | Present | |
| Debbie Militello | District 6 (R - Channahon) | Present |
Four members were present at roll call. A quorum was declared.
Also present were:
Brian Radner, Director of Development Review
Colin Duesing, Planner, Administration & Planning Division
David Dubois, Director of Administration & Planning & Interim Land Use Department Director
Dawn Tomczak, Administrative Assistant & Building Tech Supervisor
Janine Farrell, Planner, Development Review Division
Jessica Gal, Planner, Development Review Division
Margie Kenny, Planner, Development Review Division
Mark Schneidewind, Will County Farm Bureau
Pat Cline, Secretary, Development Review Division
Samantha Blumer, Conservation Specialist, Resource, Recovery & Energy Division
Phil Mock, Assistant State's Attorney
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. New Section
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Jul 10, 2018 10:30 AM
2. Motion to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of the July 10, 2018 Land Use & Development Committee meeting as presented.
The motion carried 4-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Weigel, Balich, Ferry, SummersAWAY: Ogalla, Winfrey, Militello
3. New Business
4. Solar Farm Taxation
(Rhonda Novak)
Rhonda Novak introduced herself. She is the Supervisor of Assessments for Will County. She had been asked to present a quick overview of the taxation portion of solar farms or solar energy. She handed out packets. She stated she received an email stating the Governor had signed it yesterday.
Ms. Novak stated the taxation portion of solar is almost identical to that of wind energy. A couple of things are important to consider and one of those is the value per megawatt we're going to consider. That value is $218,000.00 per mega watt market value.
Rhonda Novak talked about a two mega watt facility for example. So you take $218,000.00 times two; $436,000.00 and there is a trending factor. That is something that comes out every year from the Department of Revenue. Rhonda is using the 2018 Assessment Year trending factor because we don't have the 2019 yet. That is factored and multiplied to come up with your cost basis of $531,920. We're going to depreciate that by one year. They assess everything in Will County at thirty-three and a third (33 & 1/3rd %) percent so we're going to multiply that and come up with an assessed value of $170,000.00. The actual tax rate for whatever code that falls in will then be applied. so it could be anywhere from eight to eleven percent tax rate depending on how the taxing bodies lobby.
That valuation is strictly for the solar energy system and the land that it sits upon. That is not for any buildings. Those would be assessed like they do for any other buildings.
Another thing is the solar energy company has to actually plat the area that the system is going to sit on so it can have its own PIN number and receive
5. its own tax bill. By doing that the solar energy company is responsible for the tax bill but there is a caveat in the legislation that says before it would go to tax sale if the company didn't pay the taxes the owner can jump in and take care of that. So they wouldn't lose that piece of property at a tax sale. That's very important.
It's a thirty-five year on the sunset on the legislation so the legislation is good through 2033.
If the solar energy system is removed the piece of land goes back to farmland assuming that it was farmed before the solar energy system was put there. It does not have to go through the two year waiting period like any other farm would have to if it weren't farmed.
A White Paper from the Illinois Solar Association was attached to the packet that talks about the same things Ms. Novak talked about in her presentation. Rhonda Novak asked are there any questions?
Board Member Summers questioned Ms. Novak's comment regarding the thirty-five year sunset clause.
Ms. Novak corrected herself to say that is actually fifteen years; from 2018 to 2033.
Board Member Ogalla said so typically what would the taxing bodies see if that solar came to fruition? Versus the ag? What would that increase be?
Rhonda said it's going to be pretty significant. Rhonda asked Samantha how much area do they typically use for a solar facility?
Samantha stated that most of what has come to Jane has been 20-25 acres.
Rhonda stated that would be a significant amount.
Judy Ogalla thanked Rhonda Novak for putting this together and Samantha for all the work she has put into it. Judy stated that will be helpful for people in the community to see how they will be benefiting from the solar. She knows change is hard and she gets that. This should help in communities where the tax burden is so high.
5. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-18-048, Village of Peotone, Owners of Record, Michael Marrs, Attorney, Requesting (S-18-019) Special Use Permit for Major Public Utility, a Public Works Facility, for PIN #17-20-25-300-022-0000, in Peotone Township, Commonly Known as 31831 S. Rathje Road, Peotone, IL
Margie Kenny)
The Chairman announced the first case.
Margie Kenny stated Zoning Case ZC-18-048 is a request for a special use permit for a major utility. This case pertains to a 3.36 acre parcel located at 31831 S. Rathje Road, Peotone, Illinois. It is improved with a 6,269 square foot pole barn. The site was previously used as a Vehicle Storage and Towing Yard which the Village intends to modify as an office and storage yard for the Public Works Department.
Staff recommended approval.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval 4-0.
There were no objections at the Plan Commission meeting or from anyone present.
6. Motion to approve a special use permit for a major public utility for Zoning Case ZC-18-048.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Laurie Summers, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
7. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended Zoning Case ZC-18-009, Richard E. McHugh Declaration of Trust, Owner of Record; Richard T. McHugh, Terrence R. McHugh, Brien J. McHugh, and Michael J. McHugh Revocable Trust each 25% Beneficiaries Agent: Michael Borkowski, Community Power Group, LLC, Requesting a (S-18-003) Special Use Permit for a Solar Farm, for Pin #14-12-35-300-002-0000, in Manhattan Township, Commonly Known as Vacant property on S. Kankakee Street, Manhattan, IL
(Janine Farrell)
The Chairman announced the next zoning case is ZC-18-009; a request for a special use permit for a solar farm in Manhattan Township. Janine Farrell from staff opened discussion of the request.
Janine stated she will be addressing the next three zoning cases; ZC-18-009, ZC-18-010 and ZC-18-011. They were addressed together in a memo distributed to Committee Members.
Staff has been working with the State to get clarification on the AIMA legislation (Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement. Staff still has not received clarification from the State so they have drafted Condition #13 be added to these three cases to cover both contingencies.
At this time, staff does not know if the solar farm developer will be required to enter into the AIMA with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. If the solar farm developer is not required to enter into the AIMA with the IDOA, the Land Use and Development Committee expressed at its June 12, 2018 meeting that the developer should be required to enter into an AIMA with the County instead.
If a developer is required to enter into an AIMA with the Illinois Department of Agriculture the Land Use Department would be asking for a copy of that signed agreement. If they are not required to enter into an AIMA with the IDOA then they would be required to enter into a local agreement with the County.
The State's Attorney has reviewed this condition, as well as the community power group and they have agreed to this condition.
Staff also asked that the words "and Addendum" in Condition #9 for Zoning Case ZC-18-009, ZC-18-010 and ZC-18-011 be removed.
Board Member Ogalla asked what's the hold up with the State? Why do we not know that yet?
Janine said we have been working with them and basically the State has told them it's up to our State's Attorney to interpret the legislation. It's been an ongoing process to get a final determination which is why staff has drafted this up to cover both situations.
Judy Ogalla said they've been working on this for about a year and she is glad to see it's covered now either way. She thanked Janine.
8. Motion to amend as requested per staff.
Chairman Weigel said motion to amend as directed by staff for Condition 9, 13 and 14 to be added on Case # 009. Motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
9. Motion to approve Zoning Case ZC-18-009 as amended.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Denise E. Winfrey
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
10. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-18-010, Louis J. Sloan, Owner of Record, Michael Borkowski , Community Power Group, LLC., Agent, requesting (S-18-004) Special use permit for a solar farm, for Pin # part of 21-14-32-400-004-0000 tracts 10, 11, 12, in Monee Township, commonly known as north east corner of IL-50 and West Offner Road
(Janine Farrell)
Board Member Ogalla said so Zoning Case ZC-18-010 is in Monee Township. It's right at the corner of Route 50 and West Offner Road. Board Member Ogalla commented that with solar farm after solar farm coming to us we need to have a conversation to determine what is the maximum we're going to have. Are we going to have all of eastern Will County covered up in solar farms with one open spot for an airport one day or are we going to look at variables? With this one here a lot of the residents in the area were quite upset with it because it's right next to Raccoon Grove. They feel there is lots of deer that would be impacted. So is that a conversation we need to have and is every location the right location to allow this type of thing? We don't approve zoning for everybody who comes forward. We do deny a lot of situations that come forward. It's something to think about.
Board Member Ogalla stated Will-South Cook Soil & Water Conservation District does a LESA on these properties and many of them rate 28 out of 30 for a possible score. Board Member Ogalla said she thinks that is a conversation they need to have to decide where we want to go with this and because of that she stated she is going to be a "no."
Board Member Laurie Summers asked Samantha to make a clarification on how many applications are approved a year? She knows many are submitted; throughout the entire State?
Samantha said it's 156 megawatts (whether it's a 2 megawatt or 4 megawatt facility) that is going to be accepted into the community and it's over 2 gigawatts of applications in ComEd and that was about a month ago. The odds are very low because all these folks have to get; their interconnect has to work out, all their economics has to pan out, they have to have approval from the landowner; they have to have their local permits. It is a lot but it doesn't mean they can't go another incentive route.
Samantha said she can't give an exact percentage because she doesn't know what exactly the interconnect applications are with ComEd. That includes pre-application and final application. The 156 megawatt is not just Will County. It's the entire ComEd Territory. Samantha said she can try and get clarification from ComEd on what percentage or where they're at with their total application.
Denise Winfrey said where you're going with that is that they've heard there is already a cap.
Judy Ogalla said yes, while all that is true I've done more study on this then probably everybody in this room except for our Land Use Staff. Mrs. Ogalla said she does know at a meeting she was at in Beecher they had ComEd come out and speak on that particular issue. At that point it was a month or two ago. They had received 450 interconnection agreements at that time of which you could expect 60 to be chosen for the next lottery. There would be two more lotteries.
Judy Ogalla stated as she understands it every solar proposal that comes before them will not be accepted for various reasons. Some would cost too much to get in. Judy Ogalla said they should ask all the questions that need to be asked so they know they have done the best they could for the residents and citizens of Will County.
Samantha Bluemer said Janine and staff have done quite an extensive job drafting language with regard to solar farms and she asked that be placed on the next meetings agenda for presentation.
Judy Ogalla and Laurie Summers thanked Samantha for all her hard work.
Steve Balich said Mr. Moustis pointed out that we really need to look at the regional effects for all the things we do as far as roads, warehouses and solar falls in that category, too.
Mr. Balich agreed with Judy Ogalla with regard to what the consequences are of these things.
11. Motion to approve amendment of Condition 9, 13 & 14 for Zoning Case ZC-18-010.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
12. Motion to approve a special Use permit for a solar farm for Zoning Case ZC-18-010 as amended.
The motion carried 6-1.
RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, MilitelloNAYS: Ogalla
13. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for zoning case ZC-18-011. First Midwest Bank Trust #16851, Owner of Record; Vickie White and Louis Dodd, each 50% beneficiaries, Michael Borkowski, Community Power Group, LLC., Agent, requesting (S-18-005) Special use permit for a solar farm,for Pin # 22-22-21-400-002-0000 and 22-22-22-300-002-0000, in Washington Township, commonly known as 30913 D. Dixie Highway and vacant property on east Corning Road, Beecher, IL
(Janine Farrell)
Zoning Case ZC-18-011 was announced by the Chairman.
There were no objectors or comments from anyone.
14. Motion to approve amendment of Conditions 9, 13 & 14 for Zoning Case ZC-18-011.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
15. Motion to approve Zoning Case ZC-18-011 as amended.
No objectors were present.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
16. rdinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-18-029, Eugene Jarvis, Owner of Record, Borrego Solar Systems Inc., Jason Bolling, GreenbergFarrow; Agent, Requesting (S-18-012) Special Use Permit for a Major Public Utility, a Solar Farm, for PIN #23-15-34-400-002- 0000, in Crete Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Land on East Goodenow Road, Beecher, IL
(Jessica Gal)
The Chairman announced Zoning Case ZC-18-029.
Jessica Gal from staff opened discussion of the request. Jessica stated that Zoning Case ZC-18-029 and Zoning Case ZC-18-030 are right next to each other but they are separate parcels and will be addressed separately. Both are located on the south side of East Goodenow Road in Beecher, Illinois.
Zoning Case ZC-18-029 is located directly south of a previously approved special use for a solar farm. Approximately 20.6 acres are to be occupied by the solar panels and equipment. The entire parcel is about 80.7 acres.
No objectors appeared at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Staff did receive an email objection and it was discussed at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing and was forwarded to Borrego Solar to address any concerns the objector might have. John Grinsky from the Crete Township Plan Commission felt all their concerns but one were addressed. He states that Mark Schneidewind from the Will County Farm Bureau, County Board Member Ogalla and many others have tried to work together to assure the preservation of prime farmland.
17. Motion to approve a special use permit for a major public utility, a solar farm for Zoning Case ZC-18-029 with eleven (11) conditions.
There were no objectors.
Board Member Ogalla said the previously approved solar farms were tabled for like three months and had several amendments and with these new ones we don't have to have any amendments?
Jessica said yes and condition number 8 addresses those previous amendments and takes into consideration the senate bill in either situation.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
18. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-18-030, Eugene Jarvis, Owner of Record, Borrego Solar Systems Inc., Jason Bolling, GreenbergFarrow; Agent, Requesting (S-18-013) Special Use Permit for a Major Public Utility, a Solar Farm, for PIN #23-15-35-300-001- 0000, in Crete Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Land on East Goodenow Road, Beecher, IL
(Jessica Gal)
The Chairman announced Zoning Case ZC-18-030.
Jessica Gal stated Zoning Case ZC-18-030 is immediately adjacent to ZC-18- 029 to the east. Borrego Solar is the developer for this case as well.
No objectors were present at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing.
There were no objections from anyone.
19. Motion to approve a special use permit for a major public utility, a solar farm for Zoning Case ZC-18-030 with eleven (11) conditions.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
20. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-18-032, Mark Eugenides, Owner of Record, Jason Bolling, GreenbergFarrow, Agent, Requesting (S-18-014) Special Use Permit for a Solar Farm, for PIN #13-19-14-100-005-0000, in Wilton Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on South Elevator Road, Manhattan, IL
(Janine Farrell)
Zoning Case ZC-18-032 was the next case to be heard. It concerns a solar farm in Manhattan.
Janine Farrell stated this solar farm is in Wilton Township and is on a 28.77 acre parcel but the special use area is just 15.90 acres. This is Borrego Solar Systems and Greenberg-Farrow is the consultant who is representing them.
Two people commented at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing.
The Wilton Township Road Commissioner presented a letter to commission members stating his concerns.
The neighbor to the south expressed certain concerns she had.
Staff recommended approval of the request with ten (10) conditions.
The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the request with the ten (10) staff recommended conditions.
Raymond Nugent, Jr. spoke stating he is the Highway Commissioner for Wilton Township. They are not opposed to the solar farm. His concern is that they enter into a road use agreement with the construction people.
Right now his attorney is out of town. They can't get it done until next week.
Mr. Nugent asked the Committee to amend their amendment by saying that they are able to have the condition that they are able to have this road use agreement in place prior to a building permit being issued. Because of the other prior problems they have had in the township they have issued surety bonds and they are absolutely useless. When Explorer Pipeline went through you guys had a letter or credit which gives you a bit of teeth if you have to go back when there is a road use dispute.
Chairman Weigel asked Mr. Nugent would you like them to rebuild your road or something?
Mr. Nugent said no not to rebuild it but if everything goes according to the plans, which doesn't always happen, they are going to have an entrance off Route 52 which should not effect our road. But they have already loaded equipment and used our road as a staging area.
Mr. Nugent said prior history tells him that prior to this entrance being put in they are going to use our roads. It also tells him that they may tell them to use one road but they are going to use five different roads.
Debbie Militello said she would like to table this until they can come back with his specific request.
Mr. Nugent said he doesn't want to hold them up. He thinks they can have something together in about wo weeks. He asked the Committee if they could add the condition that a road use agreement must be in place prior to a building permit being issued.
Board Member Ogalla said she would rather they have that road use agreement in place prior to them going forward with this. So if we table this you guys can come back next month and everything will be done and in place.
Denise Winfrey asked are there any township ordinances governing the use of the township roads?
Mr. Nugent said they have ordinances with regard to like a 12 ton weight limit.
21. Motion to table Zoning Case ZC-18-032 for one month.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Debbie Militello, District 6 (R - Channahon)
SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Amending Sections 155-9.130 (3) and 155-10.10 (11) - (Accessory Uses) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance- Use of Cargo Containers
(Colin Duesing)
The Chairman announced the next topic for discussion is regarding cargo containers.
Colin Duesing stated there was a presentation a few months back regarding the use of cargo containers as residential dwelling units. There are some provisions currently in the zoning ordinance under certain conditions. The idea is to make some of those provisions permanent in certain districts.
Chairman Weigel asked staff to walk them through the memo which was quite long in case they have any questions.
Colin said he did not have cargo container on his agenda so he did not bring it with him.
2. Motion to table cargo container text amendments.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
3. Amending Section 155-7.30 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance- User Table: Auto Salvage
(Colin Duesing)
Colin Duesing stated that during the update this past year of the zoning ordinance they were trying to get the junk yard and salvage up to speed with the current language of the state statutes. They missed a subsection of that which was the auto re-builder not auto body repair. These people take a totaled vehicle and bring it back to a useable vehicle but they can only sell it as a salvaged vehicle.
We do not have that specific use in the zoning ordinance and we are looking to insert that into the use table. The auto re-builder in a completely enclosed building is anticipated to be a permitted use in all the "I" districts. An auto re- builder that has outdoor storage would be a special use in only the "I-3." Colin asked the Committee if they thought this was too strict or not strict enough.
Judy Ogalla said it might be too strict. She asked Colin how big of a process do you thnk this will be?
Colin said this is a business. This would be a full time business.
Debbie Militello asked what's the difference between the I-2 and the I-3?
Colin said the lot size and intensiveness of the use. He believes it's only a difference of a couple acres.
Board Member Ogalla asked what's the reasoning allowing it in only certain "I" districts?
Colin said it would be in keeping with the junk or salvage yard which is allowed in the I-3 only. Because we're dealing with outdoor space and the idea is to keep it in the I-3 only. Similar to the junk yard.
Brian Radner said he thinks the best thing to think about when they think of this use is auto repair. Essentially what this is instead of just fixing somebody's damaged vehicle from whatever occurrence happened is re-building a vehicle. So it's following the same places where an auto repair would be allowed with the exception we don't want to allow people to do this outside. That's why it's a special use if you want to do this outside. You don't want to encourage that in an industrial park or commercial use that was C-4 zoning.
Colin said ultimately there is also the auto sales portion of it, as well.
4. Motion to approve this for public hearing.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
5. Amending Sections 155-10.10 (2) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance- Accessory Uses -Home Occupations
(Colin Duesing)
Colin Duesing stated at the last meeting regarding home occupations there was some discussion with regard to the number of people gathered at any home occupation at one time. Colin asked the Committee to explain what the concerns were.
Chairman Weigel said he thinks Jim Moustis needs to sit down with staff and tell them what he would like to see in that regard.
The committee members talked about situations where you might have eight to ten people coming to do yoga or two or three people coming to a home beauty salon. Putting limitations on these might become an enforcement issue.
Colin said all the discussion on the number of people is new text. That can easily be eliminated by not inserting it at all.
Steve Balich said I would be in favor of eliminating the number of people all together. If we find there is a problem we do have other ordinances such as the nuisance ordinance. Most of the small businesses don't want to have a problem with their neighbors.
Colin said he would come back with the new text deleted. Find out what Mr. Moustis's concerns were. If it is substantially different than what it was before it will have to go back to public hearing.
Chief of Staff Ragan Freitag cautioned them about inserting any language regarding the number of persons that would be there because enforcement-wise you're encroaching on search and seizure. You don't want to have Land Use having to get warrants to go in there and regulate the number of people that are in there. There is language on the number of vehicles and parking and that can be more regulated and visibly seen by an inspector so I would steer clear of regulating the number of persons.
Chairman Weigel said he thinks we should let Mr. Moustis review this further in case he has any comments.
Denise Winfrey asked if we have a list of what kinds of businesses can have a home business?
Colin said we have a list of what is not considered a home occupation. If Mr. Moustis's concerns need additional language then it would have to go back to public hearing.
Ragan Freitag stated it's your committee. It's your decision and whatever you decide will go to the rest of the County Board members. She said she did not recall Mr. Moustis stating any specific concerns.
6. Motion to remove under section N 2, 3 & 4 where it limits the number of people that can come for the various types of businesses from the ordinance.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
7. Motion to approve as amended to go to the Full County Board.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
8. Amending Sections 155-3.30, 155-10.10(B), 155-10.10(C), 155-13.30, and 155- 18.20 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance - Accessory Uses – Apiculture/Beekeeping
(Colin Duesing)
Chairman Weigel announced the next topic is beekeeping.
Colin stated there was some discussion what is and what is not eligible for ag exemptions in Will County since our population is over 400,000 people. Ag exemptions are not applied to any property less than five acres; even if it is an ag use. We can regulate size, setback, bulk and use with regard to beekeeping. If it's an agricultural use greater than five (5) acres than the ag exemption comes into play.
Chairman Weigel asked what is the ag exemption?
Colin said the ag exemption would be that the County cannot enforce the majority of zoning regulations with the exception of setbacks for an agricultural use.
Chairman Weigel asked does this just apply to A-1 and A-2? Colin said correct and agriculture needs to be the primary use.
Chairman Weigel said there was also discussion about retail sales. Is that allowed in just ag?
Colin said yes. Commercial sales of honey, bees and bee products are permitted in A-1, C-6 and the SBPO, which is the special use and public parks. Commercial sales of honey is permitted by special use in the A-2 and E districts. Commercial sales of honey is prohibited in the R districts.
Chairman Weigel said there was discussion to allow it in the R districts. Do any members have any comments on it?
Steve Balich said he was told the hives get no more than five (5) jars of honey. If that's true they should be allowed to sell four (4) of their jars and keep one (1) for themselves. Mr. Balich said if it's such a small quantity why tell them they can't sell it? People that have these small quantities of honey should be able to sell their honey wherever they are.
Denise Winfrey asked if they sell honey would they be covered as a home based business?
Colin asked as a home occupation? Yes.
Chairman Weigel asked should we require a special use for that or permitted use?
Colin said retail sales is prohibited in the home occupations. Colin said other counties under 400,000 population have a $1,000.00 limit in a calendar year.
Steve Balich said when government makes laws that they can't enforce it's ridiculous. So we need to do things we can actually enforce. You should just let the beekeepers sell their honey.
Colin said we're trying to avoid having retail sales in a home based business.
Phil Mock said if you're going to do that are you going to let gardners that have a lot of tomatoes sell out of their house? You've got to be consistent. You have to have equal protection for all the parties. You might allow one because you like honey but you might have somebody that says they have a whole bunch of potatoes they grew in their backyard they want to sell. The neighbors aren't going to know they're selling five jars so why even make it legal or illegal. Just leave it the way it is.
Colin asked the State's Attorney do we have to blank it out for all the districts?
Phil Mock said all I'm saying is that you can't treat honey differently than any other agricultural products in those districts. People sell Mary Kay and Tupperware out of their house. I don't see why we need to address that. Some neighbors get mad because they don't like beehives at their neighbor's house because they don't like the bees buzzing around their yard. It's a policy decision. If you're going to do it you should at least be consistent.
Chairman Weigel said let's just leave it as it is and not talk about retail sales in residential. Are there any comments from the Farm Bureau? He said John, do you have any comments?
There were no further comments.
Colin asked for clarification on the beehive height. Is it measured at the base or from the ground?
Board Member Ogalla said she would really like to hear from our Farm Bureau Representative on that before we can make a decision on height.
John Kieffer, Hoff Road, beekeeper and third generation farmer said according to the Illinois Beekeeper's Association the average honey bee hive produces forty (40) pounds a year. 2012 and this year because bees like it hot, we're probably looking at 80-100 pounds a year. Mr. Kieffer sells in pints and quarts because it makes everybody feel happy to buy honey like they can. They are glass, re-usable jars so they don't have to worry about BPA's. He does invite the public to his house to buy his honey. His father-in-law is going to invite the public to buy his tomatoes next week because he has too many tomatoes.
As a farmer, he has an individual caveat on his homeowner's policy. It means he can board two horses if he wants and sell a few things. It does not cover honey. It covers eggs. You can get salmonella from eggs. John Kieffer said he has to buy a special commercial policy; $2,500.00 a year. That's ten percent (10%) gone right off the top and I think I'm at about $5,000.00 a year.
Mr. Kieffer said the height of the beehive is irrelevant. There is a best management practice that beekeepers will follow. His wife bought stacking tomato cages and they stacked them nine feet (9') high. Is it normal. No. Hopefully, a thunderstorm doesn't come through and knock it all down. We don't need to regulate the height of tomato cages or beehives.
There is one scientific point to make here; the beekeepers research to prevent swarms, colonies from absconding and going into your neighbor's hollow tree or your neighbor's soffit; the best science says to prevent this is to give the bees plenty of room. So when we get this really hot weather and you haven't had time to take the honey off yet, you stack a couple more supers on there. If you limit the height of a hive you're telling somebody maybe I can't put another super on there and my bees might swarm and that's not what we want.
Board Member Ogalla asked John Kieffer to explain the policy you have to get. Not related to honey.
Mr. Kieffer said I have a commercial business policy.
Judy Ogalla said so anybody that has a beehive in their yard and they want to sell it do they have to?
Mr. Kieffer said they should be checking with their homeowners policy. If you have a birthday party and somebody falls and breaks their arm, your homeowners
policy is probably going to cover that. Now let's say you're having a party and you actually invited people and you're making money, you've got to know what's an incidental business pursuit and what your policy is going to cover.
Many people go to a Farmer's Market and they aren't aware they have to have a separate business policy covered under their homeowner's. Mr. Kieffer said he knows a lot of people who just give the honey away because they don't want to get into all that.
Colin said currently there is language for the beehives not to exceed five feet (5') in height. The question that was posed is that distance measured from the ground or from the base of the hive? It's a policy decision because we're dealing mostly with the honey hobbyists so it would be a residential concern.
Chairman Weigel said I don't see that on our agenda. What line item is that?
Colin said it would be on the third page, number 6. So 3, a, 6. Maximum height and size. No single hive shall exceed five feet (5') in height and no single hive shall exceed twenty cubic feet in size.
Debbie Militello and Judy Ogalla said ours doesn't have any height restriction but it also says no hive shall exceed twenty (20) cubic feet in size. So that is a restriction.
Brian Radner said it was either last month or two months ago this committee actually voted to remove the height restriction. So it's not in there anymore.
Debbie Militello said we don't want that twenty cubic feet to become an issue, though.
Chairman Weigel asked is there any public comment concerning the bees?
Rachel Ventura came to the podium and stated I live in Joliet and I just wanted to say thank you to Steve Balich for some very good reasoning and I don't know if you guys had agreed or not agreed to the selling of the residents. But I agree. If you can't enforce a law it probably shouldn't be on the books and many of the homeowners might be selling it to their neighbors for five dollars ($5.00). So I think that's very good to remove that from the bill. I just wanted to say thank you for covering this because I think bees and pollinating fruits and vegetables are very important so this is a good step toward that. Thank-you.
The Chairman said State's Attorney; we now say that it's prohibited; selling of honey. Should we just remove that and not talk about it? Can we do that?
9. Motion to remove the restriction prohibiting bee sales in any district.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
The Chairman called a five (5) minute recess.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS
]MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Debbie Militello, District 6 (R - Channahon)
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
Amending Sections 155-7.30 and 155-8.60(D)(11) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance – Agritourism – Rural Events
(Brian Radner)
The next item discussed concerned Agritourism.
Brian Radner said this Committee discussed this topic at their July meeting and sent it to public hearing. The public hearing was held at the August 7th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. There were no objections or comments from either the public or the commission members.
Brian stated "Rural Events" is a new category in the Agritourism umbrella. The Committee directed staff to identify the use as a special use permit that would be available for people in the A-1 zoning district to apply for and also in the A-2 zoning district.
So the new "Rural Events" category was added and the Use Table was updated to include Rural Events under the Agritourism umbrella. "Rural Events" specifically are events and activities that are operated for profit and not open to the general public. Examples include wedding barns, event barns or use of the property or any portion to host weddings, parties, receptions or other special events.
The Chairman asked are there any questions by the Committee?
Judy Ogalla said earlier we had a wedding barn in Crete Township. She asked for background on that. How it relates to this and what the difference is.
Brian Radner said he knows the name of the people that run that. He believes it's Volyk. It was a use that was in operation in violation of the County's zoning requirements and Brian said he thinks that goes back to 2015. That was before the County had even introduced the agritourism category which appeared in January of 2018. Because that property was a use operating in violation applied under a special events category like events of public interest, entertainment and they applied for that special use permit. It was approved by the Board and had two extensions. The Building Permit has been issued but they still have not completed the work so we're still working with them to bring that property to closure to close out that permit and issue the CO. So that facility is still not operating but is allowed to operate as they were approved as it existed prior to the new language that's been proposed in the Ordinance today.
Laurie Summers asked Brian, what township is that in?
Brian said it's on Bruns Road. I know it's in the eastern part of the County.
Laurie said Washington Township, not Crete.
Judy said so he was operating that wedding barn and he had no special use permit, at all. So what we're looking at is similar, the exact same thing, isn't it?
Brian said the Volyk Family came into the department as said hey, I'm interested in doing this type of use. We would steer them toward this is a rural event category. This would be the special use that would be available to apply for. It's a use that existed before the homeowner was in violation or the landowner to find a way to make it fit in the zoning ordinance. It was a stretch to make it a perfect fit because it wasn't exactly what it is but it was all we had available at the time.
It is uses like that property and other ones that drove the change in the zoning code to add agritourism and now the rural events category because before 2018 we didn't have an agritourism category at all that would take in uses like we're proposing today or uses that fall in that category.
Judy Ogalla asked what is the cost of the special use permit for that?
Brian said it's a commercial/industrial permit. It's not a residential use so it's commercial in nature so all it's going to come down to is how big do you want to make it. The special use permit cost which is approved by the County Board Fee Schedule is $2500.00 for five (5) acres and it increases per acre as you keep going up. It's $85.00 per acre as you go up. Once you reach other thresholds it comes down to like $45.00 an acre. It keeps getting smaller the more property it is. A lot of people could probably fit their whole operation within five acres but it does go up from that.
Chairman Weigel asked is this special use good forever or does it expire?
Brian said if it is the intent of the owner and it is identified in the application, then yes it does. Unless the Committee and the Board decide to place a condition on it that it's only good for this owner or for this period of time.
Paul Siegel,Lockport Township said I fit in this category pretty closely. His only real concern today is under the agritourism that is very new, there are ten (10) sub- categories. He believes seven (7) or eight (8) of the ten (10) are right of use, do not require a special use. Since this would more define a use that he would have he would prefer it to be a right of use under the agritourism versus having the additional $2500.00 or more special use permit cost to operate under the agritourism. For him to fully use this he would have to apply for a special use for ancillary liquor which has its own special use cost. Combining the two special uses he would request that they don't have that level of expense for this new category if he were to operate under the category that allows him to serve food; sit down food, produced on the farm that is a right of use. He would contend that weddings and other special events that he could operate there if he has less than fifty percent grown on the farm he may have to get a variance which is a much lesser expense that he was directed to go for. Then, this category came up which seems to better address what I am doing. He asked that the two be treated the same as a right of use and incur one expense with the timeliness of the special use.
Debbie Militello asked Mr. Siegel what is the cost of the liquor license and can we combine the two?
Mr. Siegel said there is a special use cost which is a $2500.00 fee and then there is a liquor license that is an annual fee. The special use is a one time fee.
Steve Balich talked about the reasoning behind why you have people go for a special use. It's so we have some control over where this stuff goes. We don't want to put something in a neighborhood where there is going to be 150 cars every time there's an event. There's a lot of things that can go wrong. He asked am I correct or am I wrong?
Brian Radner said yes Mr. Balich. To be responsive to your question the County Board has determined through passage of the Zoning Code that these are the uses that we feel are acceptable, permitted by right. Agri-entertainment is one of those. Typically, for example, the pumpkin patch. Maybe you're going to have a Christmas Tree Farm. It's going to occur from September 1st and it's going to be over by November 1st so the County Board said okay. We can allow that as permitted by right. When you get to another category like Rural Events, we have to look at what could happen. You could have events where they are having weddings or other events four or five times a week because they could be corporate events. They could be political events. They could be organizational events. Now you've introduced a use that might be much more intense than just a limited pumpkin patch.
Brian said you've got A-1 property in just about every township in the County. Let's say it's a five (5) acre property and it's zoned A-1 and it's completely surrounded by the Village of Plainfield. Now they say we're going to have weddings here. You've got homes surrounding that and all of a sudden they're subject to late night noise, lots of traffic other things that maybe would could have dealt with though a special use permit process. We could say that's just not appropriate there or we can live with that there but we want to put these controls on it. But just to permit it by right; now the entitlement is given and they can operate in any way that's permitted under the code.
Judy Ogalla thanked Brian for his explanation. She asked Brian this special use permit is a one time charge? Correct?
Brian said that's correct.
Board Member Ogalla said so it is a one time charge and it does protect the neighbors in the surrounding area. She thinks it's great that we allow these things on farms but she thinks a special use permit is required.
Steve Balich said he remembers that at the last meeting they had said that any business that was already in existence was grandfathered in.
Brian said so if a business was legally established, a legally established use which means that you met the code, then you would be grandfathered. So legally established and non-conforming means that you were doing it right when the code was adopted and the code changed. Now you are still legal under the code but you're in a non-conforming state. If you're illegally established you don't have any rights.
11. Motion to approve the proposed text amendments regarding Sections 155-7.30 and 155-8.60(D)(11) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance-Agritourism-Rural Events.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
12. Amending Sections 155-7.30, 155-9.280(B) and 155-18.20(C) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance – Wineries, Craft Brewing and Distilling
(Brian Radner)
Chairman Weigel announced the next topic concerning text amendments for wineries, craft brewing and distilling.
Brian Radner stated a public hearing was held on August 7th to discuss the update to the tasting room requirement which was discussed by this Committee back in July.
Tasting rooms were considered a permitted use provided you were taking a tour of the facility or distillery.
The Department received correspondence from the operator of a distillery who believed that part of the Ordinance was putting their business at a disadvantage because other jurisdictions don't require a tour in order to sample beverages.
The Committee decided we should go to public hearing and remove that provision that required a tour and also open up wineries as a permitted use and we're talking industrial zoning here; I-1, I-2, I-3; that they can have a tasting room permitted by right instead of requiring a special use permit. Why would you require a special use for a winery and not for a brewery or distillery. So it's uniform across the board now as the draft is proposed.
In I-1, I-2 and I-3 you can have a tasting room. You do not require a tour to sample beverages. This is for products that are produced on sight. You're not approving a bar. This is not ancillary liquor. If somebody wants to operate a brew pub or a winery with a restaurant you still need the ancillary liquor. This is only a tasting room for products produced on sight and merchandise affiliated with that business. If "Black Dog Distillery" wants to sell T-shirts that say "Black Dog Distillery" in their tasting room; that's okay.
There was a modification to the Use Table to show this would be a permitted use. The winery, craft brewing and distilling section was updated to remove the tour requirement and then to make it clear on what a tasting room was a definition was added saying it was a designated area within a craft brewery, distillery or winery which guests may sample, purchase alcoholic beverages and where retail sales of merchandise related to the product being tasted are sold.
13. Motion to approve the proposed text amendments regarding Sections 155-7.30, 155-9.280(B) and 155-18.20(C) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance-Wineries, Craft Brewing and Distilling.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Member
SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
14. Amending Sections 150.002(D) and 150.011(D)(1) of the Will County Building Code – Expired Permits
(Brian Radner)
Chairman Weigel announced the next item; expired permits.
Brian Radner stated this is the last of the text amendments we have for today. A public hearing was also held August 7th at the Planning & Zoning Commission.
No one showed up to comment. The Commission said what we were doing looks good. It's good that we're trying to close out the old permits. This is a topic that seems like the Committee has been deliberating over for about a year. There were two areas the Department has tried to focus on. The first one is to decrease the number of open permits that had not been closed out.
Also, there were a number of notices of violation recorded that referred to the clerk of the circuit court as the recording location. This was not correct. The proposed text amendment would correct that to state the recorder of deeds as the location for recording such notices.
That is something that is done after all attempts have been made to contact the property owner to close out the old permit. If all attempts to contact the current property owner have failed the department records a notice at the Recorder's Office. That notice being recorded generates a letter stating a notice of violation has been recorded on your property. In order to correct it you need to do these things. So it's a notice for future buyers. It's a notice to the current landowner saying you need to correct this permit.
Brian Radner said for example we had seventy-five (75) pools that were in these old notices of violation, 2011 through 2015. We've been able to close out fifty (50) of those this year working with the homeowner. We're still working through the other twenty-five (25).
We have already completed the 2011 through 2015 recordings. Now we're working on the 2016 notices of violation and closing out any expired permits. This is an ongoing process. We've instituted a new policy so we don't get in this position again where we have a backlog of expired permits. The new SmartGov System allows it to generate daily reports that allow us to contact landowners to say your permit is about to expire. What do you want to do? Are you going to extend it? Was the work done? Do we need to arrange an inspection so we don't have to record a notice? We are working with inspection staff. When they are in an area, the SmartGov System has a map on it that allows you to see where there are open permits. They go to that property and contact the owner and say I see you have a roofing permit that wasn't inspected. Can I do an inspection and close out this permit for you?
Brian said the notices that are recorded do not stop a real estate transaction from happening. It's important to point out that it is only a notice. It may make a buyer not want to buy the property until the matter is resolved but it does not stop the process of a transaction. It's not a lein that has to be satisfied.
The second part of this says that the department is not going to give you any new permits until you've closed out your old permits that have notices of violation.
There were no comments at the Planning & Zoning Commission. This was the language that this Committee approved. Judy Ogalla asked is there a fee to close out the old permit?
Brian said for the 2011 to 2015 permits there were no fees to close out those permits. The current practice is if you need a re-inspection then it's $75.00. That's the standard fee in the Ordinance that the department is following. If you apply for a new permit to fix the old permit there is going to be a fee for the old permit(s) that weren't addressed.
One person is reviewing a daily report and working with permit holders to close out these permits. The old system had no reporting tools.
Judy Ogalla asked when did we get SmartGov?
Brian stated it went into use at the very end of June 2016. Policy changes were instituted in January of 2017. Brian said any of the permits from 2011 through 2015 can be inspected without a fee.
Judy asked what about the ones from January through June of 2016 when you did have it in place?
Brian said those would still have been active and would have been in the system and wouldn't expire until 2017.
Steve Balich cited a scenario where a previous owner took out a permit to change out a door, never closed out the permit and now it's two years later and there's a new owner. Would the new owner have to pay a $75.00 inspection fee?
Brian said building permits go with the owner. For the 2011 through 2015 period a decision was made there was no re-inspection fees. The department goal was to get these permits closed. We can't have this many open permits out there. Brian said I believe the direction you're going is that the Ordinance was changed earlier this year in the Building Code not to require a permit for a door. Brian said you're going to get one to two of those a year. Tops.
Brian said this situation does happen. It is still the responsibility of the homeowner to clean up the property. If a final inspection was never done you would still want to get it inspected to make sure the work was done correctly. Re- inspections are required for work that was not done correctly and steps have been taken to correct the situation and now you would want it re-inspected to make sure the work was done right and the permit can be closed out.
15. Motion to approve the proposed text amending Sections 150.002(D) and 150.011(D)(1) of the Will County Building Code-Expired Permits.
The motion carried unanimously 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
16. Will County Building Plumbing Code vs State Plumbing Code
(Brian Radner)
Chairman Weigel said the next item is Plumbing Code versus State Code.
Brian said this is a discussion topic. I don't have any new information to present. In speaking with council and I know this was something Board Member Balich was interested in; the recommendation is for Mr. Balich to submit a list of items he wants to discuss and we will review them with the State Plumbing Inspector.
Mr. Balich said they could probably say as long as it's a repair and maintenance item and not a structural change, just replacing a part, that it should be allowed without a permit. For example a shut off valve or the wax around their toilet.
Chairman Weigel asked Phil Mock do you have a comment?
Phil Mock said the problem we have is that we have a State Plumbing Code that we have to mirror. The State Plumbing Code has that requirement. You're right. Yes. It's an enforcement issue. But we don't have the ability to put in our code exceptions that the State doesn't authorize.
Mr. Balich said he had a letter that he submitted that the State said they do not require a permit for repair and maintenance items and they also gave him a statement that we are sovereignly immune from a lawsuit of any kind. Mr. Balich said he submitted that about four (4) months ago.
Phil Mock said we don't have anything in the State Plumbing Code that says we can change these. If what is in their letter in not in their code we don't have the ability to put in our code what is not in their code.
Mr. Balich talked about other localities that exempt maintenance items.
Mr. Mock said just because other units of government don't follow the code doesn't mean we shouldn't follow it either.
Mr. Balich and Mr. Mock continued to discuss the issue.
Brian Radner interjected saying the State Plumbing Code says that minor repairs are exempt and the definition of what is a minor repair is very weak. It's not easily determined. It took some time to get where we are with the list for building and it's going to take some time where we get with the plumbing.
If you can get a list of what you want us to look at we'll take it to the Department of Public Health and we'll say is replacing a water heater a minor repair or not? Is replacing a flipper valve or whatever it's called a minor repair or not? Then we can say these are considered minor repairs and we're not requiring a permit for them. Brian thinks that's where we need to get to.
Chairman Weigel told Brian Steve will get you another list.
Steve told them they can stick with the list we got.
Chairman Weigel said then, okay.
V. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE
1. Chairman, Will County Land Use and Development
2. Committee Committee Members, Will County Land Use and 3. Development Committee Director, Will County Land Use Department
4. Other
rian Radner said he believes everyone on this Board received a copy of a letter from the John Lane Historic Farm Board. Several months ago they applied for a temporary use permit; one that is authorized by staff and doesn't have to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission for approval.
There were a series of conditions on that temporary use permit that needed to be met.
As they were getting down to the wire for the event there were still three (3) outstanding items. They were that a building inspection had to be completed, insurance had to be provided and because they have amusement park rides it had to be inspected by the Illinois Department of Labor. We got to the point where the inspection for building was requested in the week leading up to the event.
Our inspector went out there on Friday and approved it. The code was good. They get back to the building. Insurance was provided but the Department of Labor didn't show up until the very last minute. They arrived on the scene about 2:00 PM and did whatever inspections were necessary and by 3:00 PM had the homeowner sign off and Brian said he guesses the permit was issued. But between 3:00 and 4:30 PM when our office closed the person that applied for the temporary use permit never provided that information to the department. They never gave us the approval from the Department of Labor saying that it's good.
So with that being said the department wasn't able to issue the temporary use because we didn't have everything we needed. So in that letter they cited they didn't have enough time to get it to us. The County doesn't have Saturday hours so they just went ahead and operated. Brian said I think they believe they are in violation of the code. Technically, they were in violation but the County has not placed them in violation. What we did is send them a letter saying you conducted this event and you didn't give us all the documents you were supposed to.
Brian said and as the Zoning Administrator you were required to do that so we could revoke your permit. This person applies for this event almost every year for about the past three or four years. We're telling them that they need to do these things before they hold the event. That's the purpose of the letter. They're not in violation and we're not going to revoke their temporary use permit. It turns out they did everything they were supposed to they just didn't give us the documents.
Brian said if they haven't gotten a copy of the letter they will probably be getting one and that's what it is about and all this information has been entered into the system and we have it.
5. Public Comment
Tricia Maas stated she is a concerned resident of Elwood. If and when a Northpoint application is completed and comes to this Committee for review she would highly recommend that they listen to the residents stance and study Northpoint's plan with a fine toothed comb. Analyze the application and implement the "Friendly Framability Plans Checklist" to see if the project passes to be a successful freight development. When Northpoint submitted their plan to Elwood's Planning & Zoning Committee the proposed project did not mark all the boxes. It had a failing grade. I also want to provide you a little reminder because the cart was put before the horse we now have infrastructure disaster on our hands which effects the entire region.
Tricia Maas went on to say although we tried to come up with a safe plan for Centerpoint trucks to stay off 53 and use I-55 Arsenal Road instead we now know our interstates are overcrowded and are crumbling making trucks go on Laraway and 53 roads. Also, building warehouses outside of Centerpoint is causing chaos everywhere. The residents have been saying this for over ten (10) years now. The taxpayers will be paying for their profitability. She said we do not need to add Northpoint's Plan into Will County. It is too much. It does not only effect adults. Their children are arriving later to school due to traffic delays. More and more people will be dieing because of them. The objector closed in saying Northpoint's lawyer is right. We do need change. We need to see residents come first before profits. For example, roads being ready for expected traffic, stricter clean air policies, fertile, productive farmland stop being replaced with cement buildings, properly contained litter from warehouses distribution centers. We need all these items and more without using taxpayer dollars. We need a plan and we need warehouses and developers to pay their fair share to fix our infrastructure.
Tricia Maas highly encouraged each of the Committee members to vote no to Northpoint's application.
Chairman Weigel asked Phil Mock do you have a comment concerning the relevance of these comments since this is not before us today? We can't vote on this at all?
Phil Mock said no. There's nothing you can do. You shouldn't even address one way or another. You haven't seen the plan. Until you see the plan after the public hearing until it gets before you for your full consideration. That's when it's time for you to make your determination. You do allow public comment on anything but you can't really act on it. You can't do anything. You can't make any judgment because you can't prejudice yourself until you see what's in front of you. It may be a different plan. It may be the same plan but you don't know what it is because it's not before you. So my council to you and my council to the PZC and to the entire County Board and I'm probably going to generate some correspondence is that you cannot commit; you cannot say I'm in favor or I'm against because you don't know what you're in favor or against because you haven't seen the plan yet and until you see it don't act. Because you're like a judge. You don't want to decide the case before you get any of the evidence and right now you have zero evidence. That's all.
Chairman Weigel said thank-you.
Amy Walsh, also a concerned resident of Elwood, stated she was there to oppose the re-zoning from agriculture to industrial specific to warehousing anymore farmland in Jackson Township or really anywhere in Will County. She said she realizes the Northpoint application is not before them but she asked if and when that application is placed on any Will County Committee, Board or hearing agenda that the meetings are schedule in a time and venue appropriate to accommodate the residents of the area most effected. That would be specifically after 5:00 PM and a space larger than this Board Room. Thank-you.
Ann Baskerville stated she is a conservation organizer for the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club. They agree with the people that have already spoken. They are very concerned about the environmental impacts of adding more warehouses to our area. They have started a petition calling for a comprehensive land use and transportation plan and until that plan is done and they want that plan to be done with input from all the communities. Not just Elwood or Manhattan. This is our entire region. Some of the issues they feel are really important are diesel particulate matter pollution. The Sierra Club and several of their volunteers have been doing air monitoring along Laraway and Route 53 and the levels are high.
For example, out in Manhattan Township where Ann Baskerville lives there might be a six. Diesel pollution is measured in microns-cubic centimeter. That's very bad for health. If you start getting by the intermodals and Laraway and Route 53 it can spike up to 20, 30, 40. One thing that does happen is a lot of times you see older trucks just spewing out the diesel and that's very bad for human health. She says she knows Laraway School is moving but when that pollution was concentrated by that school that was not right. So we need to make sure that does not happen again.
Amy Baskerville said the conversation they had about solar was interesting. The Sierra Club supports the transition to re-newable energy one-hundred percent (100%). Clean energy. So we have the opportunity now to leaders. We are the global free hub so the decisions we make are going to effect the entire country.
Amy Baskerville stated they are a member of Will County Jobs for Justice Coalition. An issue they have continually seen and been advocated for is like Warehouse Workers for Justice. We have to ask what kind of jobs are being created in these warehouses. They have concerns about how many of those jobs are temporary. This is not people hiring more for the holiday season. As you drive around you see signs advertising jobs, Elite Staffing, for $11.00 to $13.00 an hour. We have to ask ourselves how permanent are these jobs? It doesn't make sense to have taxpayers paying for all these infrastructure impacts if the jobs cannot support a family.
Ms. Baskerville distributed flyers. The Peoples Climate is going to be coming to Elwood on September 8th to raise a discussion about these impacts; air pollution, the quality of jobs in the warehouses and finally the bigger issue of some of the larger corporations are asking for tax breaks. They want to have a discussion asking does it make sense for them to get tax breaks and if they do get tax breaks shouldn't they be providing a living wage?
VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
VII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to adjourn the meeting.
The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 PM.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Weigel, Ogalla, Balich, Ferry, Summers, Winfrey, Militello
VIII. NEXT MEETING WILL TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3060&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up