Will County Republican Caucus Committee met Dec. 19.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Minority Leader Mike Fricilone called the meeting to order at 9:03 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mike Fricilone | Minority Leader | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Minority Whip | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Late | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Gloria Dollinger | Member | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Tim Kraulidis | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Late | |
| Ray Tuminello | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present |
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mrs. Ogalla led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion of County Board Agenda
Mr. Fricilone stated we will not be voting on the Houbolt Road Tolling Agreement. The City of Joliet is still working out some details and that will probably come forward next month.
Mr. Moustis stated I want to talk about cannabis and the zoning changes for cannabis. The State’s Attorney advised us the 1.5 mile buffer may be unduly restrictive, but I don’t think so. I think the 1.5 mile jurisdiction is in there, like it is for all zoning cases for a reason. You could say it is over-burdensome for any zoning case, because they already have it by state statute. We can try to get the 1.5 mile buffer inserted into the language by motion on the floor. On zoning changes, the municipality can file a legal objection. They can object to a SUP, but they cannot file a legal objection. As a compromise to the 1.5 mile allow them the ability to file a legal objection for SUP for cannabis dispensaries.
Mr. Meyers replied the standard legal objection language comes from the state statute. Basically, you would be creating your own process and I don’t know if it has ever been testing. It is a questionable practice and may open the door to other issues.
Mr. Moustis stated it is something I don’t want to give municipalities for a SUP in any other category, except this one. If we could do it, it would be another compromise. You may be advising us it is too restrictive, but I say give it a shot. If someone challenges and we lose; it will not be the first time we were challenged. I think the buffer is beneficial. Frankfort passed a Resolution asking for the buffer. New Lenox and Mokena did something similar.
Mr. Tuminello stated Mrs. Tatroe said when we were talking about going even bigger than 1.5 miles that would have been unduly restrictive. However, there was already precedence set on the 1.5 mile and it would be something that could be challenged I court. I don’t believe she relayed this was one way or the other; I thought she was very neutral on the 1.5.
Mr. Moustis stated she did not say it is definitely over-burdensome. She said it could be considered over-burdensome, it could be.
Mr. Meyers stated the problem is the way the statute is drafted. It is contradictory and the trailer bill did not clear up a lot of things. There have been no challenges to the law, because it is only a couple of months old. Land Use indicated there would only be 7 non-agricultural places in the entire county.
Mr. Tuminello stated that was based on 1.5 mile around every municipality, including the ones who have opted in.
Mr. Moustis stated it was Land Use staff who felt it was over-burdensome and did not want to bring it forward. It was not the conclusion of the State’s Attorney.
Mr. Meyers stated Mrs. Tatroe and I talked about this last night. It is appropriate to say, it could be challenged, given the limited number of parcels that it could be on and it is more burdensome than the statute allows. The 1.5 mile buffer could be upheld in court.
Mr. Moustis stated the 1.5 mile buffer is in the state statute.
Mr. Tuminello stated on January 1st they know the 1.5 mile area. All they have to do is plug in the address and determine whether it is 1.5. Boundaries change, but we do have a basis on the first of every year. I would craft the Ordinance based on the 1.5 based on the first of the year.
Mr. Meyers stated ten years from now the 1.5 mile buffer will look a lot different and you will have a grandfathering issue.
Mr. Tuminello stated once they are in, they stay.
Mr. Moustis stated there are only going to be 7 dispensaries in the entire county and I would assume the municipalities who have opted in will get some of them.
Mr. Tuminello stated the state plans to issue 75 more licenses in June.
Mr. Meyers stated because the state played both sides of this, the trailer bill did not clear up as much as we would have liked. We don’t know what this will look like in two years. It is not a standard zoning issue, it is new territory.
Mrs. Dollinger asked could we make a change in our Ordinance in two years?
Mr. Meyers replied yes, there is no sunset that says you have to adopt zoning and opt in or opt out by January 1, 2020. The County Board can completely change this in three months.
Mrs. Ogalla stated at the NACo conference there were counties and municipalities who decided initially to opt in and have now decided to opt out.
Mr. Balich arrived at this juncture.
Mr. Fricilone stated a number of places in Colorado are opting out now.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I was approached by a person who wants to be a craft grower. There is a farmer in my area growing vegetables and hemp who is interested in becoming a craft grower. They taught me a lot about it. Craft growers grow a specific plant and it is not at the highest potency level. There are 40 licenses available.
Mr. Moustis indicated he was not as concerned about the craft growing and processing as the dispensing.
Mr. Fricilone stated it is hypocritical to say we are against the sales in our areas, but they can grow it here and take it somewhere else to sell.
Mrs. Parker arrived at this juncture.
Mrs. Ogalla stated it would have been helpful to have had this conversation long before today. All we received was information from the Health Department. The produce produced by a craft grower is a much safer plant, because they are not putting any pesticides or chemicals on it. The big cultivators will be allowed to use chemicals and grow to the maximum quantities.
Mr. Balich indicated he was against taxing recreational cannabis.
Mr. Fricilone stated if the taxes are going to be used for health initiatives, I will be for the tax. If it is just going into a pot to be spend later, I will be against it.
Mr. Fricilone led a discussion on the gas tax, the number of people objecting and the possibility of asking for a referendum.
Mrs. Ogalla stated she had 117 people who signed against the gas tax.
Mr. Weigel stated the first zoning case in Plainfield, the applicant would like to have that remove that from the agenda. He would like to work with Plainfield to get a pre-annexation agreement.
Ms. Jeanne Farrell stated there were a couple of late additions to your packet, which were distributed. The applicant would like to have it tabled until he is able to work with Plainfield on a pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Marcum would like this case to go forward, because the Village is objecting to the zoning and the uses. I submitted a letter from Village Planner and he clarified anyone can submit an application for a pre-annexation agreement, but it is not a guarantee of any approval or Village support for it.
Mr. Moustis stated this gentleman was never honest. He gave the impression he had been working with Plainfield. He brought a former Trustee to talk about how Plainfield supported it, when in fact Plainfield was objecting. I think we should vote. He can work with Plainfield.
Mr. Weigel stated he wants an extension of time to work out the details and come into compliance. We could remove it from the agenda and bring in back in 90 days. He is working on the pre-annexation agreement, but the Village is still a mile away and it could be 10 years before they get there. He would also like to begin storing boats on the property.
Mr. Moustis added 10 years that we would have to live with this. He became aware it was unincorporated when our staff went out there and he just ignored everything the staff asked of him. He was not a cooperative person at all. Even when we told him to stop, he just kept going. I am all for the person trying to do it the right way, but this is a person who does not appear he is trying to do it the right way.
Ms. Farrell stated the applicant was first placed in violation in 2016. We met with him and gave him notes, a copy of which were in the packet which he signed acknowledging that he knew what zoning action would be required to do the uses he wanted to do and he is still currently doing. He also acknowledged what permitting would be required for this. Then between 2018 and 2019 he put down three acres of gravel on the property and added an additional entrance to an IDOT road without permission. He knew what permits were required for those things and what zoning action was required to continue the uses and he never did it. We received a valid complaint in 2019 and he was put in violation for continuing to operate this and also for all the work that had occurred, including building and site development work without a permit.
Mr. Tkac stated I drive by this location every day. The land has turned into a fly dumping site because of the driveway.
Ms. Fritz stated this is in my district and he called me about. I had not seen the pictures when the person called me. I drove by, it is in the country and it looks like the country. I do not think it is going to work out with the Village and he will probably have to come back and come into compliance. He does not want us to vote against him because it will be harder on him. I would be asking also to remove this from the agenda.
Mr. Fricilone indicated he would not support removing this from the agenda. For years he has violated every single thing Land Use tells him to do, he just ignores it. How is giving him more time going to do anything. He has not done anything.
Mr. Moustis added he will continue to do what he is doing.
Ms. Fritz asked why the Board was voting on suspending services in the County Clerk’s Office on Election Day.
Mr. Moustis replied it is done every year.
VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Judicial
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Policy
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 9:33 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Minority Whip
AYES: Fricilone, Ogalla, Balich, Berkowicz, Dollinger, Fritz, Gould, Kraulidis, Moustis, Parker, Tuminello, Weigel
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=3692&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up