Will County Land Use & Development Committee met Dec. 10.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:31 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Mark Ferry | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present |
Matt Guzman and Chris Wise were present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Steve Balich led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Nov 12, 2019 10:30 AM
Approved with no corrections or additions.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-19-060; Resource Bank Trust No. 36010000626, Owner of Record, (Thomas Michael Putz, 100% Interest), Tom Putz, Agent, Requesting a (M-19-016) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1 and (S-19-020) Special Use Permit for an Outdoor Storage Yard for PIN #06-03-18-100-004-0000, in Plainfield Township, Commonly Known as 26049 W. Lockport Street, Plainfield, IL, County Board District #5
(Janine Farrell)
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case ZC-19-060, which takes place in Plainfield Township.
The applicant is requesting both a Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1 and a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage yard.
The applicant was placed into violation back in 2016 for operating a landscape business, a pallet making business, and an outdoor storage yard. At that time, the applicant did meet with Land Use Staff and was provided guidance on how to rectify this situation to come into compliance with these uses and any building permit and site permit that would be required. The Code Enforcement Staff did close that case because they believed that the applicant was annexing into Plainfield at that time. Plainfield is not contiguous and at this time, annexation is not possible.
The applicant continued to operated these illegal, un-permitted uses on the property and even expanded them.
Between 2018 to 2019, the applicant installed a 3 acre gravel storage yard on the property. He had also placed an additional entrance from Route 126/Lockport Street without an IDOT entrance permit. The applicant was then placed in violation again and is currently here to request the zoning action to bring that property into compliance to continue to operate the landscape business, pallet making business, and the outdoor storage yard for the boats.
Of the agencies that were notified of this request, the Village of Plainfield Plan Commission and subsequently the Village of Plainfield Board, voted to object to these requests.
Staff has also recommended denial for both of these requests. The full assessment is within your packet there, but this is what we would term "spot zoning", so to have Industrial in the middle of Agricultural land, predominantly Agricultural Zoning.
The Comprehensive Plans for the Village of Plainfield see this area turning into suburban residential development. So, continuing the westward expansion toward the County line from the Village center. Kendall County also sees this area along Lockport Street on their side of the County as being residential suburban developments and some commercial developments to support that.
It's also not in compliance with our long range plan. We do see free-standing office and industry as a permitted concept within the Suburban Form, however, as long as it's not going to have a negative impact to the surrounding properties. Staff believes that this development could negatively impact those surrounding properties and the future development of them.
We have also received, which is at the top of your packet, a legal objection or a protest petition to this request. That was received after the Plan Commission meeting. That is from a neighboring property owner that shares 50% of the perimeter property line with the subject parcel. That will require a 3/4 majority of full County Board approval in order for the Map Amendment request to be approved.
Planning & Zoning Commission did recommend approval to the requests with a 4- 2 vote and there were 3 conditions added to that Special Use for the outdoor storage yard.
I can take any questions that you might have. Chairman Marcum asked questions?
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm just kind of wondering why Planning & Zoning approved it.
Janine Farrell said I cannot really speak for what each of the Commissioners believed at the time. At the time, I think that they felt the trend could go towards Industrial perhaps, but I really cant speak to more than that.
Jacqueline Traynere said any area that's totally Agricultural today, at some point it starts to change. And, it starts with one plot. Anyways, it seems like that is this one. I understand that the Village of Plainfield, where they're not annexed to, might want this to be houses. There's no guarantee that Plainfield will ever annex this land, I don't think. Correct me, because I'm new on Land Use. It could get annexed by some town to the north or some town to the west.
Janine Farrell said I would disagree with that. The Village of Plainfield, their limits, is right at the gas station, which is on the corner. It is about a half mile away from this property.
Jacqueline Traynere said I don't see that on my map.
Janine Farrell said right on the southwest corner of Lockport Street. I think it's Drauden.
Jacqueline Traynere is that Drauden, the next road over?
Janine Farrell said yes, the next major road over. This parcel of land and all of the surrounding property is called out in their long range plan, in their Comprehensive Plan for future development so they absolutely would annex in the future if it comes to that. This would be a likely candidate for annexation.
Jacqueline Traynere said let's say it's a given to get annexed into Plainfield, is there some written or unwritten rule that says they can't change from suburban housing to industrial? Their plan.
Janine Farrell said that would take updating their plan. I think the last time it was updated was in 2013, so they would have to re-evaluate and update their plan to see where the trend is going to go in this area.
Jacqueline Traynere said I wasn't privy to plans in Will County from 30 years ago, but I'm guessing they didn't necessarily plan for us to have the largest intermodal in the country outside of Elwood. So, I don't know, it just made me wonder. That was it. Thanks.
Chairman Marcum asked questions?
Amanda Koch said I'm actually just going to speak on this. I did get an email from one of the County Board members representing District 5 saying that we should not vote for this. Then when I look at the Staff analysis it seemed that over the last 5 years or so, Land Use Staff has been saying stop doing this, you need to slow down, you're not getting permits and willfully not listening to our Staff. I think maybe we should consider voting this down just because they've been in contact for 5 years. They haven't listened or tried to be in compliance until now. Then, what kicked off this re-zoning at this point? What has changed? Just help me understand the flip from doing whatever he wants to now wanting to make it official.
Janine Farrell said back in 2016 was the violation for these un-permitted uses. Like I mentioned, at that time, Code Enforcement did close the case because they thought that the property was being annexed in. We did receive a new complaint from a different complaintant just recently in 2019. Then contact was made with the applicant again to discuss the uses that still had continued for the past 3 years. In order to come into compliance, this would be an option to re-zone to Industrial which would allow those uses and then that Special Use for that outdoor storage yard. So, instead of ceasing the un-permitted uses, the applicant is making the request for this proposal to allow for those uses.
Amanda Koch said just one other quick question. If we deny this and ceasing this activity, what does that look like on the ground? What is this person going to have to do?
Janine Farrell said that person would have to restore the property back to the A-1 uses that are permitted. There is a residence on the property so residential uses are permitted and then of course Agricultural uses. The gravel would have to be scraped up and removed. The landscape business and the pallet business would have to be stopped. The applicant would be working with our Code Enforcement Department on certain timelines to meet as a result of that. He would be given time to bring the property back to A-1.
Chairman Marcum asked any other questions from the Committee Members? No response.
Chairman Marcum asked have we heard from IDOT yet regarding the access to 126 that was just thrown in? Can you walk me through how that gets resolved?
Janine Farrell said we do notify IDOT about the zoning action. I have not heard from them specifically regarding this entrance permit. The applicant said that he did meet with them as part of this zoning action to talk about this entrance permit. IDOT approval would be required for the site development permits for that outdoor gravel storage yard. So, whatever requirements they may have, that would be part of it.
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm looking at this map, the pretty yellow one. I can see why somebody thought they were going to be annexed into Plainfield. Unless I'm misunderstanding this map, it looks like a complete circle around this guys property is Plainfield.
Janine Farrell said correct.
Jacqueline Traynere asked at what point does it make this Plainfield? They are surrounded.
Janine Farrell said they have to continue to get property's and parcels and annex them in. Right now, I want to say they are 2 parcels away, I believe.
Tom Weigel asked can we hear from the applicant?
Chairman Marcum said yes, he has signed up. Tom Putz, if you can step down to the podium.
Tom Putz introduced himself. What I'm doing right now is coming into compliance and working with Will County to go ahead and get the compliance and the property in line with what needs to be done for the change of the amendment and the use that I have used for the last 3 or 4 years. I'm a small business owner and the property means a lot to me. It's a big property to help me with what I do and the storage of boats. I do store boats from the surrounding lakes in Plainfield.
Presently, I drive close to 45 minutes or an hour to get to the property where I store them at now. This property would be within 10 minutes which would be a tremendous help to me and to help my business. That purpose has been there for the last 3 or 4 years. I did talk to IDOT and they have been looking at the property and doing an evaluation to see what was necessary for it.
Steve Balich asked when you bought the property, did you known what it was zoned for?
Tom Putz said it was zoned as Agricultural, but at the time, the City of Plainfield and their planning map said for mixed use.
Steve Balich said my problem is that when you bought the property, you knew the zoning and you bought it anyway. Then you turn around and they read off a list of stuff that you have been in violation for. If you would have had it fixed right away, we wouldn't be here right now. That's why I'm asking, why did you just kind of ignore this stuff? Believe me, I'm usually on a different side of this thing. It's kind of frustrating when you hear you did something wrong and you blew it off. You did something wrong and you blew it off and you did something wrong and you blew it off. Now, you're here to say I want all the stuff I blew off back. I get you own the property and you should be able to do something you want to but at the same time it's frustrating to hear all the things you blew off.
Tom Putz said what I did is, I went to the Village of Plainfield not knowing the process. I apologize for the oversights on my behalf and the kind of ignorance. I take responsibility for it this time, that's why I'm here, to correct it and make it right. I did visit with the Village of Plainfield. The gentleman there, Jonathon, I spoke with him the minute the violation in 2016 took place. I told him my interest and he had verbally given me the support. Not knowing enough on my behalf, which again I take full responsibility on, he gave me the verbal that I was ok with the use and what I was doing with it. I had told him I was going to be putting in the stone for the parking and he gave me a verbal on it. I did not take any further action on that which I do take full responsibility and I should have. I went to him, the Village, and kind of took him as my lead in regards to the direction I was going. At that time he gave me the okay that I was fine doing what I was doing at that time. I had asked him about the parameter around the property for the fencing and where it needs to be. He told me that. He told me the size of sign if I were to put one up there and then I told him about the stone that I was putting in. He didn't say anything like stop, don't do this.
Steve Balich said they're saying that you have been in violation how many times? 4 times?
Janine Farrell said again, the applicant's property is not in the Village of Plainfield. The applicant did meet with us in 2016 and I even included a copy of the notes that he received as part of that meeting telling him what he needed to do in order to come into compliance to have these uses on the property. What zoning action was required. Site Development Permit would be required. Building Permits would be required. None of that was done.
Steve Balich said I'm one of those people that believe you own the land so you should be able to do stuff. But at the same time, Land Use is telling you, a long time ago, that you have to be in compliance. That's what I have a problem with. I'm like up in the air. I really have to think about this.
Tom Putz said I was told what to do by the Village of Plainfield about the annexing in, that's why I informed them, the Village, what I was doing to anticipate the annex. That's where Jonathon from the Village of Plainfield had given me the direction what I was doing didn't put a blotch to it. I was assuming the annex would take place in the near future. That's what I was hoping for, to work with the Village on what I was doing. Everything seemed verbally okay.
Rachel Ventura said I just wanted to ask why you didn’t go and get the permits. You were aware that you were living in unincorporated Plainfield at the time. Are you aware that permits are needed for things like this? Have you served on Boards similar to this that would give you some indication that you needed to at least ask the County and not the City of Plainfield that this was needed? After you put the stone in, you didn't get a permit for the next project that you wanted to do?
Tom Putz said the only project that I did was the stone. Rachel Ventura said what about the pallets?
Tom Putz said that has been there for 10 years plus. They've been there on the property over 10 years.
Rachel Ventura said so you didn't think to ask anybody if you needed a permit for this?
Tom Putz said nobody brought it to my attention and I didn't think of it either. The only reason I say that is because I was working with the Village of Plainfield then I learned it is under Will County afterwards. I kind of went by direction from the Village of Plainfield because I thought the property would be annexed in.
Rachel Ventura asked is there a chance they'll annex in with the neighbors next to you?
Tom Putz said I hope so. I have a gentleman here, Bill Lamb, who has served on the Committee and so forth. He could speak about that, he would have more knowledge than I do on that part. He can certainly answer questions about that.
Rachel Ventura asked if we don't pass this today, what is your plans moving forward?
Tom Putz said it would change in a big way and financially hurt my business. It would put a real big strain on it. It would take a tremendous amount to do the necessary things to change the property. The gravel alone would cost me dearly for that. It would hurt me financially.
Rachel Ventura said so it seems like that was a huge risk when asking for a permit at Will County would have a more prudent way to go initially.
Tom Putz said absolutely. That's why I stand here today saying I want to work with bringing this into compliance. I take responsibility for my ignorance. From that dialogue that I had with the Village of Plainfield, I assumed that the annex would be in the near future and this would be allowed. They didn't say no to it.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said I just wanted to make a comment. On behalf of all of us in unincorporated Will County, which I am one of the few on the Board that actually lives in unincorporated, this is what I have with my residents all the time. I find that here in Will County, we are more restrictive than many other County's that surround us on what you can do on your own property. I find it really kind of crazy that this man owns a property in unincorporated Will County and he's hoping to get annexed into the Village of Plainfield so that he can do what he wants to do within his business on his own land. To me, why should we be more restrictive in unincorporated Will County where people chose to live because there are less rules than going there? He's been notified of the situation and a lot of people are not aware of what they can't do. I had a guy in Crete Township who had something stored and he didn't have it on stone or concrete. He got a violation because his neighbor didn't like him. That has a lot to do with it too, if your neighbor gets ticked off. If I get mad at Joe and I don't want him to have the coffee cup up there, I will complain. If he's my friend, I never complain about the coffee cup. That's the problem that a lot of people have. Joe doesn't realize that he can't have the coffee cup. He can't have it but he assumes he can. I find that he has come forward now and will have to pay fines and permit fees and everything else to be in compliance. I don't understand why we wouldn't say, it makes sense for us to do this. We keep him in unincorporated Will County. That's another one of our residents that hasn't gone to a municipality. It makes more sense to me. I don't know why we want to be more restrictive than a municipality.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I have one question for Staff and also a comment. If somebody puts gravel down, what's the problem with that? Why do we have these restrictions on it? What is the reason for that? Then the second thing is, this is a large parcel, 5 acres. Looking at the map, I don’t see any immediate need or a lot of residential over there in that area. If the property owner has been working with Plainfield to hopefully become annexed, with the multi-layers of government that we have, it can be very confusing for our homeowners. So, based on what has happened in the past, it doesn’t look good. However, he is standing here today and we have the opportunity to get this straightened out and I’m assuming the property owner will pay whatever fees and whatever costs to come into compliance. Right now, I think we need to also consider that this is the property owner’s livelihood. This is a property owner who pays taxes. We all expect, and sometimes there is some ignorance, that we can do certain things on our property. My take on this is that we have an opportunity here to correct some wrongs and get everybody on the right path and hopefully not take away the livelihood or the rights of our property owners. I also would like to find out, what is the problem with the gravel? Do you expect him to remove it now? That would really help me. Thank you.
Janine Farrell said I can speak to the gravel and the site development related issues. When the applicant was first put into violation back in 2016 and met with Staff, that gravel yard was not there. The applicant was advised if he put down over 25,000 square feet of impervious, or the gravel, a Site Development Permit is required. The applicant a couple years later went and put 3 acres of gravel down without a Site Development Permit. This is part of the StormWater Resource Ordinance. We require detention if there’s that amount of impervious put on a property. The property itself is only 5 acres and 3 acres of it is now a gravel yard, then you still have buildings on the property as well. There are also structures that are built without permits so those would need to be brought into compliance with Commercial Building Codes. They’re currently made with tarp and plywood, so they would have to meet commercial standards. I just do want to clarify too, even if the applicant was annexed into the Village of Plainfield, the Village of Plainfield still has Building Codes, site development requirements that may be even more stringent than what we have. It is not as if we’re asking the applicant to do that the Village of Plainfield wouldn’t also require him to do.
Jacqueline Traynere said wow. My first question I guess would be, can we approve the Special Use without changing the zoning?
Chairman Marcum said no.
Jacqueline Traynere said so we have to change the zoning. My second question is, if we don’t approve the Special Use and we don’t approve the zoning, can we still let him leave the dang gravel? It’s bad enough to cut off somebody’s livelihood but it’s worse yet to cause them to financially put out for obviously poor choice.
Chairman Marcum said they’re saying no.
Tom Weigel said looking at that property, I don’t see any housing being developed there in the next 10 years. There’s no development in that area. We could be tying him up and putting him out of business for something that’s not even going to happen. In Lockport, we approved some Industrial across from proposed residential and that was about 10 years ago. At this point, nothing is developed there. Housing isn’t really hot right now. I think we should let him do what he’s doing for now and come into compliance.
Rachel Ventura said this is kind of to Julie’s point. I would love to have chickens where I live. I live in Joliet. I knew before I bought my property that I could not have chickens in Joliet. I would have to buy in unincorporated Joliet. I made the choice to buy there anyway. Now if I suddenly start buying a bunch of chickens because I wanted them anyway and I built a business on it and started selling eggs and it became my livelihood, could I then blame Joliet for saying you can’t have your chickens there? That’s why we have permitting. It sounds like he did have access to Will County and to Land Use and went through the process before the gravel was put down and before the buildings were built. If you know beforehand about the process and you say I will ask for forgiveness instead of permission, there may be some financial consequences to that. We don’t want to set a precedence that you can do whatever you want whenever you want just because you want it, especially if you knew beforehand what the land was used for. As Judy knows, I am an advocate for keeping our farmland our farmland. So, if you own agriculture, you should do agriculture there. If you no longer want to do agriculture, my advice is to sell the property and buy in an area that allows for commercial use where you could build a boat lot or a pallet building business. It would have been more appropriate in a commercial zoned area. This was agriculture. I suggest chickens.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I’m not as sympathetic. First, we are not more restrictive than municipalities. Municipalities don’t have A-1 Zoning in their Villages generally. It seems to me that the applicant continued to ignore the Land Use Department. Saying he was talking to Plainfield, he was well aware because he was notified by the Land Use Department that it was in unincorporated Will County and he continued to develop even after knowing he was no longer in Plainfield. When you know you’re not in Plainfield, I don’t know why you’d be taking directions from somebody in Plainfield. And, directions from who in Plainfield? It’s certainly not the Plainfield official government, they’re objecting to this. Any hardships that are there were created by the applicant. It’s not something that was out of his control. I agree with Rachel. When somebody ignores the law and creates a hardship then says have sympathy for me, I’m not as sympathetic. You have built buildings. You have put down impervious surfaces all the while knowing that you are in unincorporated Will County. You created your own hardship. I’d be hard pressed to vote for this, me personally. I’ll get my chance to vote next week. I do think there’s a legal objection on this.
Chairman Marcum said there is.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I think that will require three fourths majority. We haven’t heard from the County Board Members who are from that District and what they might like. I know Amanda says she has a letter from one of the representatives in 5. I would be cautious on approving this. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
County Board Member Mike Fricilone said I agree with Jim and Rachel. I asked the State’s Attorney, what kind of box are we putting ourselves in if we allow somebody to do something that they were told they can’t do and they come back and say that this is my livelihood so now turn it around. So every case that comes before us like this then, we’ll be in a box won’t we Matt?
Matt Guzman said Rachel I think you said it concisely and correctly. You’re highlighting it. If you have an individual who knows clearly that he has to follow County rules, he’s been advised well in advance yet goes and does it anyway, I think it’s a dangerous precedent.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said can I ask a question? The conversation that we have had amongst the Board Members the last few minutes has been with the assumption that the property owner purchased the property and engaged in this activity knowing that it was illegal and inappropriate. This can be very confusing so I would like the property owner to confirm. Did you start a pallet making business knowing that it was not allowed? Did you start your storage business knowing that it was not allowed? Because that’s the conversation that I have been hearing.
Tom Putz said the property that I have had for 18 years, when I purchased it, it was Agricultural but then the Village said in the future it could be used for mixed use. The house that is standing there is residential. The gentleman that was renting had done the pallet business. He was there for I guess over 10 years now, if not longer. Him renting and just doing the business with the pallets, I thought was fine. I didn’t know there was any legal issues or any compliance to be involved in, in regards to him doing what he was doing. That just continued on and then he moved into the back of the property to where he made a little make shift building just to keep some of his tools in there to put the pallets together. He’s a Hispanic gentleman and he knew some people that were looking to park their trailers and he knew I had the space. I thought it was okay based off the thought of it being for mixed use that the Village had planned for. I hope that answers your question.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said at what point did you hear from the County?
Tom Putz said in 2016 there was an accident on the property. A gentleman had fallen asleep who worked in the medical field and unfortunately he was deceased from the accident. That’s what turned the attention to the property. Then what happened is the annexing took place. I was going with my understanding as a homeowner and that was to go to the Village of Plainfield to anticipate the annexation of this property. That’s where I kept my communication. Again, I apologize for my ignorance and oversight, not knowing that Will County was the direction I should have been going to.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said one quick question. When you purchased the property, did the prior owner, at any time, indicate that he had correspondence or conversations with the County that what he was doing on the property was inappropriate and not allowed?
Tom Putz said no. There has never been any agricultural activity on the property since I purchased it. It was always used for kind of a mixed use. He had all kinds of stuff on the property himself. That's what interested me in the property with the kind of business that I have and this definitely would have been a huge plus for me. That's why I went with that intention.
Bill Lamb introduced himself. I am a member of the StormWater Committee as well as a former Trustee of Plainfield for quite a long time. Mr. Putz has been in touch with the Village Planner for at least 3 years on this particular property and trying to annex it. Now he's discovered that it's not contiguous so they can't annex it yet, but he would still like to. The other thing that I would like to comment on is the Comprehensive Plan. I was in charge of the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, that was approved by the Village Board in 2013. To answer your question, we do make changes. The gas station and the commercial properties were zoned residential and we changed that. I think it made sense. And, I think it makes sense to continue. One of the things we discovered when we did the Plan was that we don't have enough industrial areas in Plainfield. 143rd Street is mainly our industrial corridor. 126 could be now that we have the gas station and some other things starting to go towards this property. It may make some sense to make 126 an industrial area. Like somebody said, you start it and things happen. I think we'd like to see that. The Village Board did vote against it as Ms. Farrell said. It was 4-2 though and that could have easily changed. One Trustee was questioning the other uses on the I-1 and it could be a very large and open one. One of the things about annexation is that you can control what goes into a property in annexation. If he annexed into the Village, we would make sure that the outdoor storage is what was approved and not a lot of other industrial applications. So, there is some control. If Will County approves it, I'm not sure that you have that control. He has no intentions of doing anything other than the storage. He is storing boats now for the winter about an hour away. This is a lot closer to where most of his boats are coming from. From a business point of view, this starts to bring it closer to where his business is. It's a real business asset to him. It's an excellent Staff Report, it outlines all of the deficiencies and the rules that he has to follow. He's got an engineering firm working with him. IDOT has been out taking pictures of the entrance way and he should be getting some input from IDOT pretty soon. He fully intends to meet the criteria of I-1. He could be an asset to Plainfield and to Will County.
Chairman Marcum said thank you very much.
Matt Guzman said can I ask this individual a question? I heard him say a couple times "we". You're not currently on the Village Board, correct?
Bill Lamb said not currently, no.
Matt Guzman said so you're not speaking on behalf of the Village Board?
Bill Lamb said no. I'm speaking as a resident. I have know Mr. Putz for probably 18 years.
Matt Guzman said I just wanted to clarify you're not speaking on behalf of the Village Board.
Bill Lamb said no. Matt Guzman said ok.
Chairman Marcum said ok, thank you. Does anybody else from the public want to speak on this?
County Board Member Jim Moustis said this will be real quick. He could said he is going to own the property for the next 100 years and he could just own it for 10 minutes. Once the zoning is granted, there's no guarantee this is going to Plainfield. There's no pre-annexation agreement which he could have done. So, there's absolutely no guarantee that this would go into Plainfield unless Plainfield is surrounded on 3 sides and force annexed it in. So, I just want to point out, that's no guarantee. If that was the intent, why was there no pre-annexation agreement done?
Chairman Marcum said thank you.
Jacqueline Traynere made a motion to approve the Map Amendment. Tom Weigel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 1-6. Tom Weigel was the only Yes.
Jacqueline Traynere made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit with 3 conditions. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 1-6. Tom Weigel was the only Yes.
Chairman Marcum said both of those will go forward with a recommendation not to approve. Just a reminder, you will need a 3/4 approval from the Board.
RESULT: FAILED [1 TO 6]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member
AYES: Weigel
NAYS: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura
2. Chairman Marcum said both of those will go forward with a recommendation not to approve. Just a reminder, you will need a 3/4 approval from the Board.
Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, Zoning Case ZC-19-063; Pura Vida WBN Holdings, LLC – Series 20929, Owner of Record, Pura Vida, LTD (Corporation of Ownership); Nadina Shehaiber, Bassam Shehayber, and Wiel Shehayber each 33% Interest, Thomas Osterberger of Kavanagh, Grumley & Gorbold LLC, Attorney, Requesting (M-19-015) a Zoning Map Amendment from R-2 to R-3, (V-19-064) Variance for Lot Frontage from 90 feet to 32.57 feet for Lot 2, and Variance for Side Yard Setback (South) from 10 feet to 6.2 feet for Lot 2, for Pin #19-09-24-111-001-1001, 19-09-24-111-001-1002, & 19-09-24-111-002- 0000, in Frankfort Township, Commonly Known as 20929 and 20931 S. 80th Avenue, Frankfort, IL, County Board District #2
(Marguerite Kenny)
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-063, which takes place in Frankfort Township and concerns 3 separate parcels.
This is what we call a horizontal condo. It was a way for the developer to basically skirt the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is now looking to correct and rectify that situation.
Basically, we will be undoing this subdivision. The next case we will sort of be redoing the subdivision properly and in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations.
The applicant is requesting to re-zone the parcels from R-2 to R-3. This R-3 Zoning District is smaller so it better suits the size of the parcel and the setbacks of the structures. The applicant had also requested 2 Variances in relation to that in order to bring everything into compliance. Those Variances were approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their last meeting.
The Map Amendment is also in compliance with our long range plan and it is in conformance with our trend in development as a residential area.
Staff recommended approval of the Map Amendment request.
The Planning & Zoning Commission also recommended unanimous approval of the request.
Of the agencies that were notified, there were no objections. There were no objectors present regarding this.
I can take any questions that you might have.
Chairman Marcum said does anyone have any questions?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said we did have one person sign up to speak. Dave. I'm sorry but I'm going to butcher your last name.
Dave Zientek said I am actually for the next part, the subdivision.
Chairman Marcum said ok.
Jacqueline Traynere said I do have a question. It says Unit 1 and Unit 2 on here. Am I to assume, because it's kind of hard to tell from the picture, that these are going to be 2 different buildings? On the Unit 2 you have dashed lines around it so it kind of gives you a footprint where a building would go. I'm a little confused.
Janine Farrell said currently the situation is that there are 3 parcels. One parcel has one house. One parcel has another house and one parcel is the driveway, the roadway access. The applicant is looking to undo this and just have 2 parcels. One parcel will have the one house and one parcel will have that other house.
Jacqueline Traynere said ok. How are they going to get in?
Janine Farrell said there is an existing driveway and I believe the applicant is going to be proposing to put in a new driveway for that other parcel.
Jacqueline Traynere asked is it the common area?
Janine Farrell said yes.
Jacqueline Traynere said ok. I thought maybe that was water.
Janine Farrell said right now the driveway is called the common area. Chairman Marcum asked are there any other questions?
No response.
Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
Final Plat of WBN Subdivision (ZC-19-063) in Frankfort Township, Commonly known as 20929 and 20931 S. 80th Avenue, Frankfort, IL , County Board District #2
(Brian Radner)
Brian Radner said this is a 2 lot subdivision based on the proposal that just went before you with the zoning change and the Variances.
This minor subdivision has been reviewed by our Chief Subdivision Engineer, Scott Killinger, and by our Zoning Staff for compliance with all applicable codes.
The Variances that were granted by the Planning & Zoning Commission will help define the actual lot sizes. Because of this unique situation of this pre-existing condo, the lots didn't meat the exact size required in the Ordinance so they got the Variances. Now that they'll have the R-3 Zoning, the lots will be zoning compliant once they're approved through County Board.
This final plat here will help correct the entire situation.
I don't really have any other comments on it. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Chariman Marcum asked do you want to speak now Mr. Zientek? Dave Zientek said if there are any questions, I can answer them. Chairman Marcum asked are there any questions or comments? No response.
Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
4. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-19-075, Wingren DG, LLC, Owner of Record (Jeffrey Wingren 100% Interest); Edward Kalina of Engineering Solutions Team, Agent; Requesting (M-19-019) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2, for PIN #16-05-08-300-031-0000, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on South Gougar Road, Homer Glen, IL, County Board District #7
(Marguerite Kenny)
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-075, which takes place in Homer Township.
This is a Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2.
This parcel may be familiar to you. Back in June of this year, the applicant was approved for a Special Use Permit to operate a landscaping and lawn maintenance business. The parcel is currently under development for that proposed use but the applicant is now requesting to re-zone the parcel to I-2, which the applicant believes is in better line with their future development of the parcel and also just for the parcel itself in regards to setbacks. This is also more in line with the trend in development in the area. This is an area which is mixed between City of Lockport, Village of Homer Glen, and then unincorporated Will County. If you are familiar, there are several warehousing developments so it is an industrial area.
Staff supported the applicant's request and recommended approval.
The Planning & Zoning Commission also unanimously recommended approval.
Of the agencies that were notified, we did not receive any objections. We did receive a question from the Village of Homer Glen just asking why the applicant was selecting I-2 over I-1. We provided those responses accordingly.
I can take any questions that you might have. Chairman Marcum said questions?
Rachel Ventura said I have a question real quick. What is he intending to do that's different than the landscaping business that would better suit I-1?
Janine Farrell said I apologize, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. The applicant is proposing to do his landscaping business on the parcel. That remains unchanged. The big difference is A-1 setbacks are 50 feet. I-2 is allowing a lot more space for the applicant to develop the parcel. There are less restrictive setbacks. The applicant would be able to use a cargo container for storage, for example. So, there are benefits for the applicant's business within the I-2 because it is an industrial use, as opposed to A-1 with a Special Use.
Steve Balich asked did everything get resolved with Homer Glen?
Janine Farrell said correct, yes. Homer Glen just had a question of I-2 versus I-1. So, they are not objecting to it.
Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
5. Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision to Deny the Variance Request for the Animal Confinement Structure Setback from 50 feet to 0 feet for Zoning Case #ZC-19-042, Javier Cervantes, Owner of Record, for PIN #10-11-13- 100-012-0000, in Jackson Township, Commonly Known as 17215 W. Spangler Road, Elwood, Il, County Board District #6
(Janine Farrell)
Janine Farrell presented this case which takes place in Jackson Township.
The appeal that you have before you, APCD-19-001 is an appeal of 2 Variance requests.
The applicant was in violation for constructing buildings without Building Permits and exceeding the amount of animal units on the property.
The applicants applied for 4 Variances in order to bring the property into compliance. 2 of those Variance requests were already approved. They are not the subject of what is before you today. 2 of the Variances were denied. The Variance for the animal confinement building setback from 50 feet to 0 feet and the Variance for the amount of animal units on the property. The applicant is not pursuing the appeal to the animal units, only the animal confinement structure. So, what is before you today, is the appeal of the Variance denial for the animal confinement building setback from 50 feet to 0 feet. That request, as I mentioned, was denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Staff had also recommended denial of that Variance request.
I can answer any questions that you might have. Just as a reminder, this would require a 3/4 majority vote by the full County Board as well.
Chairman Marcum said questions?
Jacqueline Traynere said I was just going to make a motion.
Steve Balich seconded the motion.
Chairman Marcum asked what's the motion?
Steve Balich said to concur with Land Use.
Chairman Marcum said I'm going to ask since this is an appeal, how should it be worded?
Matt Guzman said I would suggest that you do everything in the affirmative. So, motion to approve the appeal. If you vote no, you are voting against his appeal.
Chairman Marcum said ok, thank you. Committee Members, do you have anything?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said we did have 2 people sign up to speak. Javier Cervantes, sorry if I mispronounced your name. I just kind of take guesses at names sometimes.
Javier Cervantes introduced himself. I am appealing this decision that I got on November 5th. The structure for the animal confinement was based on the barn, which was a metal building. I had 3 cows. I sold the cows and the permit that I was looking for never did go through. They never said anything about the chicken coop which is in the middle of the property. It is roughly about 42 feet from each side of the property. I no longer have the cows so I'm not pursuing that. The only thing I have is our chickens. To my understanding, I can have 40 chickens because I have 2 units, considering 20 chickens are a unit. They're kind of hard to count but roughly I have between 38 and 45 chickens. The building that I constructed on the property line is going to be taken down. The main concern was the chicken coop that sits in the middle of the property. My property is only 98 feet wide.
Chairman Marcum said ok, thank you. We also had a Mike sign up to speak. I'm sorry I can't pronounce your last name. If you could just state your name when you get up here.
Mike Guyette introduced himself. I am the neighbor that borders this property. As he stated, he has a 98 foot wide lot with a 50 foot agricultural easement. It will not work. The chickens are 20 feet from my property. My quality of life, I have a 5 year old son, is affected. We have flies all summer. It's too close. In my opinion, 20 feet from my property line, to have 40, 50, 60, 70 chickens running around and pooping in my yard, pooping in my other neighbors yard, it's just too much. I would like you to please consider that there are other issues involved with people having chickens. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. Does anybody else have anything to add?
Steve Balich said I just have a question for Land Use. I remember about a year ago and I thought we approved an unlimited amount of chickens with no roosters. I don't recall the discussion of the setbacks for the cages. What are the existing rules?
Janine Farrell said it's going to vary from Zoning District to Zoning District. For this property, which is Zoned A-2, they are limited to 1 animal unit per acre. 1 animal unit is 20 chickens. So, as Mr. Cervantes said, he is allowed up to 2 animal units, so he could have up to 40 chickens on the property. But, the animal confinement buildings need to meet a 50 foot setback from the property line. So, you could have those chickens by right but they need to be a minimum of 50 feet from the property line.
Steve Balich said you mean the cage has to be? Janine Farrell said correct. The chicken building.
Steve Balich said so if there's 98 feet, there's no way to have chickens. I thought we approved even for the residential areas.
Janine Farrell said residential, without looking at the Code in front of me, I believe its up to R-3, they are permitted to have chickens. I don't have it in front of me, but I think.
Steve Balich asked is that rule the same, residential too with a 50 foot setback? Janine Farrell said I think it's 20 feet in the Residential Zoning District.
Steve Balich said but is it still a 50 foot setback? My lot wouldn't be big enough. I don't want any chickens, but if I did, I couldn't.
Jacqueline Traynere said I know what to get you for Christmas, Steve. Rachel Ventura said make sure you cook it.
Janine Farrell said we're checking right now.
Rachel Ventura said while they're looking that up, can I ask a question?
Chairman Marcum said go ahead.
Rachel Ventura said a question and a follow up. Would it be possible to elongate the chicken coop to meet the 50 feet? It's only 98 wide in its entirety. That 50 feet would mean it would be a -2.
Janine Farrell said I just received word that in R-2, R-2A, R-3 and R-4, it's a 25 foot setback in those Residential Zoning Districts. In A-2, the applicant's property is the 50 foot.
Rachel Ventura said on each side? Janine Farrell said correct.
Rachel Ventura asked is he interested in having other animals besides chickens? Or, is this regardless the 50 feet cows or chickens, it's still the 50 feet?
Janine Farrell said regardless of the farm animal, it would be 50 feet. It is my understanding that at this point the applicant is just interested in having the chickens on the property.
Rachel Ventura asked, what is this, wetland, or what's the red lines? Janine Farrell said that is a floodplain on the property to the rear.
Tom Weigel said if we deny the appeal, he can come back and ask for a Variance for the chicken coop, can't he?
Janine Farrell said he very well could. Right now it's the Variance from 50 feet to 0 feet and that is on the east side of the property. If the applicant wanted to request a Variance for perhaps on the west side of the property from 50 feet to 25 feet, that would be a new request.
Tom Weigel said ok, but he said he could tear this building down anyways.
Janine Farrell said there is a metal building that is on the property line on that east side. That is where the cows, up until recently, had been housed. So, that building would have to come down or be relocated and perhaps the applicant could request a new setback Variance from 50 to 20.
Tom Weigel said ok.
Jacqueline Traynere said how come we only have a 25 foot setback for the residential and 50 for agriculture? That doesn't seem to compute in my head. Then the other thing is, if I owned these chickens and I owned this piece of land, I think I would move the chickens further away from the house. But, that's just me.
Janine Farrell said in the A-2 Zoning District, typically the lot standard is 300 feet of frontage. So, this parcel is much narrower than what the standard A-2 parcel would be. I don't have the date of creation in front of me, but it's one of those older, grandfathered in parcels. So, in the Residential Zoning Districts, the parcels are much smaller, maybe 90 feet of frontage, for example, so the setbacks are proportional to that lot width. It just happens that with this applicant's parcel he has a much narrower lot than that 300 feet for an A-2 typical parcel.
Jacqueline Traynere said from what I see in the photo here, I'm guessing I'm looking at it right, is cow barn and chicken coop both are on the far side of this property up next to a nursery.
Janine Farrell said correct, that is a nursery.
Jacqueline Traynere said it looks like he's put these buildings, or somebody's put these buildings, as far away from the neighbors from east to west as you possibly could do. It's just that they're right up next to the housing instead of maybe at the back of the lot or the front of the lot, I don't know even know which I'm looking at. I guess the back of the lot where they'd be away from all of the housing and close to the nursery and not necessarily anybody's house. Although there is somebody on the other end of the property. You might get more objections there too.
Janine Farrell said we did actually have an objector who was the owner of that nursery come out and object to that building being on the property line. I do not know if he is here today though.
Chairman Marcum asked anyone else?
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I don't understand why, for an A-2 Zoning, we would require a 50 foot setback, but then in R-2, R-3, or R-4 we only require 25 feet. That doesn't make any sense to me. Your chances of having issues with chickens would occur more in the residential zoning. I'm also wondering, the R-2, R-3, and R-4 parcels, how many chickens are we allowing with the 25 foot setback?
Chairman Marcum said that is what Jackie just asked so I will refer you to Staff. Janine Farrell said for the Residential Districts?
Chairman Marcum said yes.
Janine Farrell said it's a different calculation. You have to have a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet, I believe. It is 1 chicken per 2,500 square feet. So, it's a different standard for the Residential.
Rachel Ventura said the difference is going to be 1 chicken versus 50 chickens.
County Board Member Joe VanDuyne said this property is in County Board District 6 which I sit in that seat and represent these individuals. It's unfortunate to me that the gentleman has a property that's 98 feet wide. However, we have 2 property owners on either side of this gentleman that both have objected. They believe that their quality of life has been compromised. I would like to ask the Board to be affirmative on this denial. Thank you.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I just wanted to make 1 comment. I don't know why, but it seems to always be confusing. A-2 is a Residential Zoning. A-2 doesn't exist anymore because it was replaced by E-1 and E-2. A-2 is not necessarily agricultural. It was basically our rural residential zoning that allowed some agricultural activities slightly more than E-1 and E-2 provides. It is a residential type zoning. When you say well I don't know why we do it different than residential zoning, this is a residential zoning. He could go to maybe the residential zoning, R-1 or R-2. He won't be able to have as many chickens but he would still be able to have chickens. I just wanted to point out that A-2 is a residential zoning. I personally think that, and I even mentioned this to David once, but we should go back into our Zoning Ordinance and change all the A-2's to the appropriate zoning. Whether that Is E-1, E-2, R-1 and just change them so there's a true reflection of what it is, which we have the right to do. Maybe Staff will bring that up at some point and the Committee could take a look at it.
Rachel Ventura said I want to point out that this is the frustrating thing. When you look at this parcel, it is very obvious that this was split in half. The driveway's right in the middle of the line. This really is a detriment to both of these homeowners. It is in an agricultural area and they can't use it for agricultural uses. To that, I do think that the applicant should reapply for the chicken variance after the building has been removed and ask for a 25 foot Variance. This is exactly the type of things that we want to avoid when we're looking at splitting properties. To Jim's point, it really should have been zoned some type of "R" at that point. It's just too narrow to have agricultural uses on it. It's frustrating for us, because you all heard I'm a proponent for wanting chickens. In this case, it just isn't appropriate to have anywhere from 40 to 70 chickens that close to your neighbors. It's just not good. There could be health issues that arise from that. Hopefully he will come back and ask for a different Variance for the chickens and maybe have a few less.
Steve Balich said Jackie just pointed something out. If the chicken coop's moved to the far back end of the property, it's not going to be infringing on any neighbors. Would the guy be able to get it by right then? Janine Farrell said you have to meet the 50 foot setback.
Jacqueline Traynere made a motion to approve the appeal. Steve Balich seconded the motion. A Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 0-7.
Chairman Marcum said this will go through to the full County Board with a recommendation not to approve. This will require a 3/4 majority vote to approve the appeal.
RESULT: FAILED [0 TO 7]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
NAYS: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Amending Sections 155-7.30 Use Table and 155-18.20 Definitions, of the Will County Zoning Ordinance - Adult Use Cannabis Businesses
(Colin Duesing)
Chairman Marcum said Colin is going to give a little bit of a presentation on everything that has been going on and what PZC recommended.
Colin Duesing said we're back to Adult Use Cannabis organizations.
Again, we as Staff, are not advocating for or against Cannabis Businesses in general. We're just providing Staff recommended solutions to zoning questions.
Again, in summary for what counties can do is administer Ordinances regarding time, place, manner, number of businesses, distance between businesses, distance from sensitive locations, and on-premise consumption.
What counties may not do is unreasonably restrict cannabis business establishments or create regulations more restrictive than those activities defined by the State Statutes.
Lastly, the businesses that we're talking about are Cultivation Centers, Craft Growers, Processing Organizations, Infusing Organizations, and Dispensaries.
The comments that we received at PZC were regarding separating Medical Cannabis from Adult Use Cannabis businesses because of a difference in the Statutes. Then also there were suggestions about including in the sensitive locations, colleges and universities along with parks and playgrounds and other public lands and buildings. Also, increase the distances from sensitive locations as well as changing what is permitted as a Special Use in the Commercial Districts.
Either eliminating entirely, permitting them in certain areas or basically eliminating the neighborhood and highway Commercial Districts and keeping it in the more regional areas.
Also the comments that we received that we probably cannot enact at this time would be to enact the number of business licenses, adopt a 1.5 mile setback from communities with opt out Resolutions, that we believe is too cumbersome and too restrictive, increase distances between other cannabis businesses, and shorten operation times.
Of those that we can possibly do at this time, I've provided scenarios. One would be separating the Medical from the Adult Use businesses, keeping those separate in the Zoning Ordinances. Also, including colleges and universities into the sensitive locations. We'll also get into the others through the presentation so these will be the decisions that you will need to make later on. So yes, we'll be talking about parks, playgrounds, and other public properties, increasing the distance from sensitive locations, and what Zoning Districts should have these businesses.
First, we'll start off with the Commercial & Industrial properties that are currently available in Will County. On the map, the Industrial is in purple and Commercial is in red. Just to give you an idea of where they are. This is the breakdown of how many C-1's through C-4's and I-1's through I-3's, how many parcels we have and how many acres they all encompass. The yellow is the Residential Zoned properties in unincorporated Will County. The schools are in blue, schools and daycare centers.
When we apply a 1,000 foot buffer for Dispensaries, Infusers, and Processors, the number dropped tremendously just on this alone. Then, if we add in the Colleges and Universities, the difference is minimal. It's only an additional 4 lots through the entire County that are affected, so very minimal change. If we wanted to add in the public properties, then it becomes drastic as to what is available. It's still available but it is very much limited.
Going to the 2,500 foot buffer for Cultivators and Craft Growers, again, the number is still tremendously low that are available but still permitted. Same when adding in Colleges and Universities, the difference has not changed. It's 4 parcels. Not necessarily the same parcels but it's 4 parcels. Then adding in the public lands as part of the buffer, it drops tremendously. 1 lot in the C-1 through C-3 and single digits in the rest except for I-3, which is only 31 properties.
I should point out the little asterisks there for all of these, these are counting only those residential properties in unincorporated Will County. I did not do anything for municipal properties because I did not have the municipal zoning available to us. Each municipality is responsible for their own. So, these numbers on all of the charts could change based on where the residential properties are in the municipalities.
For the mile and a half buffer, it's pretty much just limited to that street, LaGrange Road. There's a few other scattered sites. A total of 7 Commercial or Industrial properties that would be available if we apply the 1.5 mile buffer. This is to all municipalities. I know the discussion was for those that decided to opt out, but also there's municipalities that decided to protect their own businesses.
Jacqueline Traynere said I looked at all of these maps and I really couldn't figure out. You were showing us all of the places you couldn't supposedly do it, I guess. What I was looking for is the places you could. You're saying just these 7 lots with the red arrows.
Colin Duesing said if the 1.5 mile buffer for all municipalities is applied.
Jacqueline Traynere said if it's just the 1,500 feet or whatever, I forget what the law states.
Colin Duesing said it would be 2,500 foot for Cultivators and 1,000 feet for Dispensaries.
Jacqueline Traynere asked on the Cultivator one, that is everything that's white? Colin Duesing said pretty much, yes.
Jacqueline Traynere said ok, then everything on the Dispensaries, the 1,000 foot buffer, again, everything's that white.
Colin Duesing said the white is the Agricultural areas. It's a little deceiving as to what's available.
Jacqueline Traynere said I see plenty of purple on my screen.
Colin Duesing said there's plenty of purple but that plenty of purple is already accounted for.
Jacqueline Traynere said so what you're saying is there's absolutely no Industrial property available here.
Colin Duesing said no.
Jacqueline Traynere said that's what I'm trying to figure out.
Colin Duesing said theoretically, that's why I put up the chart with numbers.
Those numbers on the chart are the lots that are available.
Jacqueline Traynere said ok.
Colin Duesing said on the right side.
Jacqueline Traynere said for C-1 in this case there would be 5 lots and a total of 18 acres. Is that what you're saying?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Jacqueline Traynere said I see it on here, so that's what is available. Colin Duesing said correct. 18 acres on that map is teeny tiny.
Jacqueline Traynere said right. Got it. Now I understand how your chart works. I'm just going with the paint by number thing and trying to figure out what the colors meant.
Colin Duesing said especially with the public lands, that is where the difference is really seen. So, that's what it would look like by applying most of those buffers.
Again, what Staff is recommending is to maintain the current Medical Cannabis business definitions in the Ordinance and then add in the statuatory definitions of the Adult Use Cannabis businesses and apply the different buffers for them. And, also include Colleges and Universities. So, if you look at the different scenario's, the red underlined would be all the new material. The College and University is bolded since that was not presented to you initially. We are recommending adding that in.
With the different scenarios, scenario 1 is what was originally proposed to you, trying to mirror the Adult Use Cannabis with the Medical Cannabis. So, what is permitted under Medical would be permitted under Adult Use with a Special Use. When you apply the buffers, what's available would be in the chart on the right. Dispensaries would have the 1,000 foot buffer and Cultivation Centers would have a 2,500 foot buffer.
Rachel Ventura said I have a question about how this is laid out. So, if we vote on scenario 1 or any of the scenario's, are the buffers separated? Do we say scenario 1 with this buffer? Scenario 1 without the buffer? Is that how it would work?
Colin Duesing said yes, that would be separate. Those would be separate items. The ones we have presented are similar to what the Statute has for Medical Cannabis. That's just what we used as a baseline. We'll get into what the different numbers would be later on. This is just what we're looking at. Scenario 1 is mirroring the Medical Cannabis. Scenario 2 keeps everything available but makes everything Special Uses so that the number of lots that are available does not change. I should point out that these scenarios are increased in restrictiveness. The next would be eliminating all of the Commercial properties except for C-3. It should also be pointed out, we do have the First Amendment protected Adult Uses with scenario 4, so we could also mirror that kind of language and have everything Special Uses in the I-3 only.
Jacqueline Traynere asked First Amendment?
Colin Duesing said strip clubs.
Jacqueline Traynere said oh.
Colin Duesing said strip clubs are First Amendment protected. Jacqueline Traynere said we have those?
Colin Duesing said yes we do.
Jacqueline Traynere said not in my neighborhood.
Colin Duesing said probably not. They're only allowed in the I-3 as a Special Use and that's what this language reflects.
Back to the distance from sensitive locations. The current separation distances of 1,000 feet and 2,500 feet are suggested and recommended because they are already established in existing Statutes and our current Zoning Code. Any increases by this Committee and the Board, we really need a reasonable rationale for why they're being increased for when we do our Staff Reports. Then it adds in to why would we need to add them in? It's because the Medical Cannabis which is statutorily regulated, these would be available for Variance. So, we would need to know why you're increasing the distances so we could apply the Variance criteria.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody have any questions?
Jacqueline Traynere said I do. I don't believe that setting the hours of operation is in violation of the law. I'm not a lawyer. I truly believe that lawyers are supposed to serve the entities that they work for. If I want to do something, a lawyer needs to find a way to make it legal. That's how I look at you guys. We can establish hours of businesses for alcohol. We don't have to let bars stay open all night, 24/7. It seems to me that we ought to be able to set the regulations on the times. That's the only thing that I have seen so far. It seems like if we can say Colleges and Universities are sensitive, if that wasn't spelled out in the original law, and maybe it was, it's 614 pages, it just seems like a conflict. If you make one change over here you should be able to make one change over there. That's all I'm saying and I would like to have an answer to that, why we think we cannot change the hours.
Colin Duesing said we cannot make anything more restrictive than what the Statute says.
Jacqueline Traynere said we are by including.
Colin Duesing said in the Statute the hours of operation are set.
Chairman Marcum said it's up to us to set the sensitive zones.
Jacqueline Traynere said can't we set the hours of operation as part of the Special Use Permit?
Colin Duesing said no.
Ray Tuminello said we could make them longer, we can't make them shorter.
Steve Balich said Jackie is making a good point. Just think about this. You're saying that we have to follow the law. The reality is, the law doesn't follow the federal law. When we start talking about law, I said it many times and I will say it again, there's no such thing as a law anymore. Who's going to enforce what? If we don't enforce a law, it doesn't become a law. So we can do whatever the hell we want, nobody's going to stop us. Nobody's going to come and sue us. If they sues us then we say alright, we'll sue you back for something else. It will become a big joke because the laws no longer exist in the United States. I agree with Jackie.
Jacqueline Traynere said careful Steve.
Steve Balich said well, she's right. Then the other thing is, there's already medical marijuana places. Aren't they supposed to be getting a license? They're in Mokena, 2 in Joliet, and 1 in Romeoville supposedly. That's all 4 that we can get in Will County.
Chairman Marcum said we're not going to get into State numbers.
Steve Balcih said I am just pointing out that there are so many things that are screwed up with this whole thing. We should just make our own rules and if they don't like it, then too bad. We're going to enforce our rules.
Chairman Marcum said I prefer not to get the State's Attorney an aneurysm.
Rachel Ventura said Steve, the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution gave states the right to govern. I wanted to make this point. He says there's no laws. It's very clear where our laws come from. The hours, you guys are making an assumption, and I don't know if it's true or not. We're saying that if they buy it, they smoke it right then and there. We don't know that. I go to Jewel and I buy wine at 10am. That doesn't mean I go out, pop it open, and start chugging it. When you buy it, doesn't necessarily mean that you consume it. They're not allowed to consume it on the premise. I guess I just don't understand the argument of why the hours make a difference.
Chairman Marcum said Mr. Guzman, I'm going to put you on the spot. It is your opinion that we're not allowed to do that, correct?
Matt Guzman said I concur with what he is saying, yes.
Jacqueline Traynere asked what page is it on?
Matt Guzman said I don't know.
Will County Board Chief of Staff Moira Dunn said the hours are set in the legislation.
Steve Balich said I disagree with the lawyers all the time. I think that the lawyers are giving their opinions and my opinion happens to differ. I interpret the law and you interpret the law but we have different opinions on the interpretations.
Chairman Marcum said I'm going to go with Mr. Guzman's opinion since he is the lawyer who is representing us in Land Use cases.
Steve Balich said I'm being logical, he's not.
Chairman Marcum said that's fine but I think the hours are set.
Matt Guzman said I can tell you it's on page 45 of page 125, where it specifies the hours may operate between 6 AM and 10 PM local time.
Jacqueline Traynee said MAY operate. Not shall.
Rachel Ventura said because you can go longer. You could go 24/7 if you wanted to.
Chairman Marcum said I think Mr. Guzman has put the hours to rest so we'll move on.
Colin Duesing asked any other questions about what I've presented so far before we get into decision making time?
Chairman Marcum asked anybody?
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said your map showed relatively no areas that would be allowed should we put the 1-1/2 mile buffer on it. But if we did it on all municipalities versus we didn't include the ones that opted in, if we put the ones that opted in, would you say that there's going to be a lot more locations available in the County?
Colin Duesing said possibly.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said so if we did it 1 mile versus the 1.5, do you have an opinion on that?
Colin Duesing said with the 1 mile, we would have more spots.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said you believe that we cannot set the 1.5 mile?
Colin Duesing said correct.
County Board Member asked because it's too restrictive? Do you believe that 1 mile would be too restrictive?
Colin Duesing said I do not know, I have not looked at those numbers. Jacqueline Traynere asked do you think that's too restrictive?
Colin Duesing said yes because it reduces everything down to single digits.
Amanda Koch asked is that going to be difficult to track as we annex different properties in and municipalities will take properties? I feel like this is going to be a lot of work to create a buffer between municipalities and the County in regard to this. I'm in favor of not having the buffer just for my Staff's sake, but I would be interested to hear from Staff before I make that statement.
Colin Duesing said the buffer would be established annually by GIS. They do it every year in the Spring. So, any buffer that would occur, would only occur during that time and would be good for that year. We wouldn't know about any new annexations at that time.
Amanda Koch asked what would happen with a business then that was technically too close that you review? We're just going to grandfather them in? It just seems like its very arbitrary. That's kind of why I'm not in favor of it. If somebody could convince me of a counter argument, I would be interested to hear it.
Colin Duesing said the question is if the 1.5 mile from the municipality buffer is applied.
Amanda Koch said or a mile or half a mile.
Colin Duesing said if a buffer from a municipality is applied and the information that comes to us as Staff is only updated annually, which means municipalities update their annexations more frequently than that and you miss a property and we approve a property that is within that buffer by accident, what happens?
Matt Guzman said that's a good question.
Amanda Koch said what if we approve one and then as annexations happen the following year, now it becomes too close, are we grandfathering them in? How does that work? So, this is why I'm kind of against the buffers in general unless someone could counter argue why they are such a great idea. It just seems like a way to really create problems down the line, now we're too close and so on and so forth. If I could get your legal opinion, I would really appreciate it.
Matt Guzman said I can tell you that I agree with you that there's going to be a lot of issues. I know this is an issue that Staff, and myself, and members from my office have all discussed this particular issue. Enforcement is going to be a huge problem in this regard. Maybe I shouldn't say problem but it is going to be an issue. Precisely as Colin mentioned, the boundaries change. They're going to change and how do we make sure we keep track of them? What if they happen on a Thursday and we go check them the Wednesday before and we miss it? Then there's some legal questions that arise if this happens. I would dare to say that if we approve one and it happens after the fact, well tough, we missed it. I think that those are issues that could arise and probably will arise if we go and do something like this.
Amanda Koch said so not being in favor of buffers is not crazy, there's a legal reason to not be in favor of them. What about these buffer zone sensitive areas? Is that a lot less contentious or is it a similar issue that we're going to face?
Matt Guzman said I'm not going to say it's as contentious of an issue. I'm not going to say it's as much of an issue, because I can think right now we can establish where universities are located and where these locations are.
Amanda Koch said so it will happen less frequently so it will be ok?
Matt Guzman said yeah, I would think. I have to speak to Staff on this but I think the universities or ones that's going to arise or one that exists now is going to be much more noticeable to where we would be able to find out about that much easier than when a change in boundaries occur. I'll defer to Staff on that.
David Dubois said I just wanted to see if Colin could provide some clarification. Colin, do you know which separation distances that the state would verify through their licensing process?
Colin said I do not know what the licensing process is because I don't know their rules.
David Dubois said it's difficult for the County to make a determination ultimately and rely upon the State through the licensing process. I was just curious if you knew. I don't know.
Rachel Ventura said I am not in favor of the buffer. I think it makes it complicated for the residents and the people to know. They know if they're incorporated or unincorporated. They know if they're in the City or not. They're not going to measure out 1.5 miles from my house. I think that's ridiculous putting an undue strain on the County. So, I'm in favor of not having the buffers as part of it.
Steve Balich said the Mayor of Lockport called me. He said they are opting out, this was before they had the vote. He is concerned the County is going to turn around and opt in and then, in these little pockets, we could end up having sales and they're voting it out but it's right in the City of Lockport. So, he's upset about that. The piece of property that we just voted on today In Land Use earlier, on Gougar Road, borders up to Homer Glen and Lockport. Homer Glen opted out. There's a lot of properties on 159th Street that are unincorporated. So now, all of a sudden, we're going to say they can have sales there but they don't allow it in the Villages unless you have a buffer? How do we protect the Cities in our Districts from us?
Rachel Ventura said because it's a Special Use. We get to make that decision, Steve.
Steve Balich said we can still pass the Special Use. We could pass that. They don't want to have it. They voted no. If we say yes to have it, that's fine.
Colin Duesing said for a Special Use, by Statute, the local municipalities are notified. So, they have an opportunity to send letters of objection, but they don't have the opportunity for a legal objection.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said that was my point. I respect my colleagues that believe we shouldn’t have a buffer. However, I think it’s sad if we don’t allow the opportunity to protect the Villages and the wills of the individuals that did not want to have it in the first place. The entire town of Frankfort, I believe, was unanimous in opting out, but yet we’re going to put one right in the center of their town. I know you’re laughing over there but to me it’s not a laughing matter. Mokena as well as New Lenox as well as Orland Park, my entire District, every single Mayor, every single town, all their Trustee’s have voted out. To not protect them I think is an irresponsible thing to do.
Chairman Marcum said my question would be for Staff. Do we do buffer zones on.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said I wasn’t done.
Chairman Marcum said oh, I’m sorry.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said my point also, Amanda Koch was talking how it was cumbersome. Staff already once a year, does the buffering. They do this because they just plug it into their GIS, the system spits out the information, just because we have to have that information available to us to be able to verify. So, it’s done once a year and this would already be in place. I understand that while things come in partway through, that’s going to get a little convoluted. However, it is an opportunity for us to put something in our laws based on the 1.5 mile buffer based on what we determined on the 1st of the year.
David Dubois said I just wanted to add some clarity and maybe Matt needs to jump in. It’s a State Law that states unreasonably restrictive. It’s a matter of interpretation. So, if the Board itself desires to make things more restrictive than what’s being presented today, for example with a buffering, the Board can do that and then be tested later is somebody believes that it’s more restrictive.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said it’s also the State that gave us the 1.5 mile protection in the original laws to allow for the filing of the objections. I’m not sure if they gave us that authority anyway if it’s still restrictive.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said in my opinion it’s not too restrictive.
Rachel Ventura said when you say we’re forcing them or not protecting them, that’s just not accurate and I don’t think that’s fair to say. When you have Special Use, there is a process, and you all know this, they come and they put their application in and then the Board decides. The Planning & Zoning looks at it. The Land Use looks at it. The County Board votes it as a whole. There’s multiple opportunities for the cities to come, for residents to come, if it’s by a school, if it’s right outside the border, that is why we have the Special Use ability to say no, this doesn’t meet the needs of the community. So to say that we’re not protecting the people of the cities, it’s just not fair to anybody that sits on this Board and on the future Boards. The idea is that we would listen to the people in those areas and make an informed decision at that time. So, the buffers, in my opinion, are not needed because if they wanted to be in those Cities, they would have annexed into those cities. The fact that they’re not and they’re in unincorporated, they follow the laws of Will County. Will County has the ability then to listen to the residents as the applicants apply and make an informed decision at that point. To make it sound like we’re jamming something down somebody’s throat, is very inaccurate and it’s not fair Ray.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said I would ask you to ask the residents that asked us to vote no to Lenny’s Gas N Wash. They all came out and they didn’t want this but guess what, the Special Use process wound up getting challenged and they put it right in their back yard anyway. That is not fail proof and don’t believe for one minute that’s going to allow us to really govern where we want it. At the end of the day, the courts can overturn that at a moment’s notice.
Rachel Ventura said I don’t want to bring Lenny’s up into this but that was a case that from my understanding, it did go through not because of what the residents wanted, but because of something that happened with the Board Members in this room. So, let’s not use that as a precedence.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said that’s not true. County Board Member Jim Moustis said that’s not true.
Chairman Marcum said we’re not going to dig into Lenny’s, we’ll be here until 2 AM.
Colin Duesing said we have been talking with Staff about the possibility of creating an Exclusion Zone. It would be a Map Amendment of the 1.5 mile that would be a fixed point. Therefore, it would be a Map Amendment when something would come in. We can’t do it now because of the publishing. It would be a Map Amendment with an Exclusion Zone. That would allow municipalities to have their legal objection filed in those cases. The process would be more of a comprehensive re-zoning process instead of a Text Amendment. It is possible, but not at this time.
Steve Balich said we could solve this problem real easy. If you did a referendum and the people of Will County all voted and they said that they wanted to have the sale of marijuana in Will County, then guess what? We don’t need buffers. We don’t need nothing because all the people spoke in a referendum. They had a chance to say yes or no. We’re not doing that so now we have to play games and do this other stuff. The answer is to ask all of the people. Every single person in Will County is affected by this. The same as the gas tax. Everybody’s affected. There’s a lot of times that you say you shouldn’t do that, we’re elected to represent the people. How many people call you up? 30 or 40 people out of your whole District on one issue? I mean come on. Why don’t we go out and do a referendum and we don’t have to discuss this? It could be anywhere because that’s how the people spoke. We’re supposed to represent the people but we can’t represent them because everybody has a different opinion. So, let everybody vote. Winner take all.
Colin Duesing said so, decision time. This is for zoning. The decision whether or not to opt out will be done before this, I hope, at the County Board.
Rachel Ventura said no.
Chairman Marcum said Land Use is the first Committee so we go first. Colin Duesing said ok.
Rachel Ventura said it's really the zoning that needs to be voted on, not an in or out option. We can basically opt out with the zoning that we create here. Zoning is what the vote's about. Does that make sense?
Coling Duesing said yes. That's not how I thought it was going to go. So, what you're voting on first will be whether or not to separate the Medical from the Adult-Use Cannabis businesses as recommended by Staff.
Chairman Marcum said my question would be, what is the benefit to doing that?
Colin Duesing said each one is separated by a different Statute. So, when one changes, we would only need to change one section of our Code as opposed to both of the parts.
Chairman Marcum asked comments from the Committee?
Rachel Ventura said the State legalized them. They're both accessible so I don't see the reason to separate these 2 out, but that's just my opinion.
Chairman Marcum asked anybody else?
Matt Guzman said it's the definitions, they're not the same. So, when you do make a change on one, if you combine them, it's going to be a lot of work to make changes on the other. In other words, if there's a change regarding or affecting just one, like the Medical or the Adult Use, if you combine them both, first of all you have to make those definitions congruent with one another to begin with. Then if there's a change on one, you have to go back and cross all that out.
Rachel Ventura asked can't you have the definitions legally based on the State and then say that these zonings apply to this?
Matt Guzman said that's kind of what were getting into another alternative where you talk about adopting the definitions of each one. I don't know if we've discussed that putting it into one particular.
Colin Duesing said yes.
Matt Guzman asked is that coming up?
Colin Duesing said no, that was prior.
Matt Guzman said it just made more logical sense to keep them separate.
Rachel Ventura asked so we will have 2 zonings then? A zoning for Medical and a zoning for Adult Use?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Rachel Ventura asked is there a possibility to define them as in this zoning, Medical refers to "x" definition or Adult Use is "x". Then, as those definitions change, you would just have to update the zoning for the definition.
Colin Duesing said that's what we're doing.
Rachel Ventura said you don't need to have 2 separate. In the same zoning just say it refers to these 2 definitions and have it all in the same zoning. I don't see the point of separating them out.
Colin Duesing said it's a matter of how many rows we create, is what it ends up being. What we're doing is we're making 2 separate definitions. Then it becomes, how many different rows? So, it would be one row for Cultivation and Craft Growers and Dispensing Organizations. There's one for Medical and there's one for Adult Use.
Matt Guzman said David made a good point. I don't know why I didn't think about it, it's right on point. What if there's a legal challenge? I mean we're dealing with Adult Use now. What if there's a legal challenge on that? Guess what, if they're combined and there's one Ordinance, this whole thing will fail.
Rachel Ventura asked, what do you mean a legal challenge?
Matt Guzman said if somebody challenges the way we draft our Ordinance. If we're going to pass this and allow it in unincorporated Will County and they challenge specifically the Adult Use only, if it's intertwined with one definition with the Medical, the Court has to go take a look at it and say can I separate these two? If they can't, guess what, all of it goes away. It will all fail.
Rachel Ventura said I'm not saying we shouldn't define them separately. I thought you were saying we would have one Ordinance for this and one Ordinance for that. One zoning for this and one zoning for that. I don't have a problem with that.
Chairman Marcum asked anybody else on the Committee have anything?
Amanda Koch said correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always keen to look at the State's Attorney to make sure the stuff is even viable and that's my concern here with the definition. We already have Zoning set for Medical, correct?
Colin Duesing said yes.
Amanda Koch said so we could leave that and set it aside. We could either use that to guide what we wanted to do for Recreational or not, but keeping them separate would be the most legally sound way to do it?
Matt Guzman said yes, I believe that is the best way just because of how they define it and the parameters. Where they can and cannot put them, they differ, so it just makes sense to keep them separate.
Amanda Koch said thank you, I appreciate your opinion on that.
Rachel Ventura said so then there would be 2 types of zoning and we wouldn't have the chart. It would only show the red.
Colin Duesing said the Medical Cannabis would remain. We are just adding in the Adult Use Cannabis.
Rachel Ventura asked adding to it?
Colin Duesing said yes.
Rachel Ventura said so they really don't get put separate then.
Chairman Marcum said it seems to make sense. It's not going to change anything if we keep them separate. Do we need to take a vote to do that?
Colin Duesing said yes please.
Steve Balich made a motion to keep them separate. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Jacqueline Traynere was not present during the vote.
Colin Duesing said next will be, do we include Colleges and Universities? As mentioned before, there’s very little difference between the 2, if we include them or not.
Chairman Marcum asked anything from the Committee?
Rachel Ventura said this is creating a buffer zone outside what the State law has already set, correct?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Rachel Ventura said and you’re suggesting that buffer to be what?
Colin Duesing said I’m not suggesting any buffer at this time. I’m recommending including them as a potential sensitive location. Buffers will come in later.
Rachel Ventura asked how would that be applied? Let’s say someone comes in and we pass scenario #1 and they’re close to a University. How is it treated differently than it normally would if we don’t include this?
Colin Duesing said it would be ignored because Colleges and Universities are currently ignored.
Rachel Ventura said ok, but someone could come in and say hey, I don’t want this by a University and the Board would then have to make a decision versus automatically denying the application. Is that what you’re saying?
Colin Duesing said I’m not quite following you.
Rachel Ventura said by including Colleges and Universities in as a sensitive location, what is the thought of that decision?
Colin Duesing said they are both on par with schools and daycare centers. Rachel Ventura said so it would ban anyone from applying?
Colin Duesing said if they’re within the buffer zone, yes.
Rachel Ventura said so you’re not suggesting what that’s going to be yet? Colin Duesing said no that will be #5.
Chairman Marcum asked does anyone else have opinions on including Colleges and Universities? I don’t see it being an issue.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said the only issue I see is that we have an Adult Use situation. Colleges and Universities tend to not already be an adult age group.
Chairman Marcum said it’s not going to have a huge effect on the County. I mean there’s 4 of them.
Steve Balich made a motion to include Colleges and Universities as a sensitive location. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Jacqueline Traynere was not present for the vote.
Colin Duesing said next up is do we included parks, preserves, and public lands and buildings to sensitive locations?
Chairman Marcum said you indicated this one is quite restrictive, correct?
Colin Duesing said yes, this is quite restrictive. It’s not impossible but it is restrictive.
Chairman Marcum asked any comments from the Committee?
Steve Balich said I move to include them.
Rachel Ventura said I feel this is putting undue restrictions on people and locations. It’s another form of buffer. I just don’t agree with these. I guess I should have voted no for the Colleges and Universities. Again, I think this is a decision that should be made as these companies present their licensing, then we can look at everything as a whole and decide what’s best for the community. If there’s a park nearby then you make a decision this is not applicable to this community and then you vote no. I don’t understand why we need to add all these restrictions. I will be a no vote for these restrictions.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have an opinion on this?
Amanda Koch said parks I kind of get because maybe kids are going to be there or something. Preserves and public lands, what’s the purpose? Is it just because it’s trying to define what’s a park versus a preserve?
Colin Duesing said you have the different parks, yes. Then you do have the forest preserves, preserves, and reserves. Then you also have Midewin, which is not a park, its national grasslands. It’s public property. It becomes very difficult to define. Public buildings such as libraries, city halls, and that sort of thing are easy to define.
Amanda Koch said this is just for the buffer right?
Colin Duesing said yes, to include them as a sensitive barrier. Amanda Koch said I will ask for a roll call vote when we do this. Chairman Marcum asked anybody else have any questions?
Steve Balich made a motion to include parks, preserves, and public lands to sensitive locations. Tom Weigel seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 2-4. No’s were Tyler Marcum, Mark Ferry, Amanda Koch, and Rachel Ventura. Jacqueline Traynere was not present for the vote.
Colin Duesing said next up is the 1,000 foot buffer for Distributers, Processors, and Infusers from the sensitive locations. Again, the 1,000 foot is what is used for Medical Cannabis. We’re just suggesting to mirror that language.
Chairman Marcum asked any questions?
Rachel Ventura asked doesn’t the State law already eliminate some of this?
Colin Duesing said it’s only available for Medical Cannabis, there is no buffer for the Adult Use Cannabis.
Rachel Ventura said I thought in the Adult Use Cannabis, there is how many feet it has to be from another distribution center.
Coling Duesing said correct. This is for the sensitive locations. This is for setting up a buffer for the sensitive locations. I’m sorry if I did not make that clear.
Rachel Ventura said so this is for like the Colleges and Universities.
Colin Duesing said correct. This is for Schools, Daycares, and Colleges.
Rachel Ventura asked it wasn’t already in there?
Colin Duesing said no it is not.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said this 1,000 foot, that’s 1000 feet from Grade Schools and Kindergartens?
Colin Duesing said correct.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello asked or is that just for Colleges?
Colin Duesing said this is for all of the sensitive locations which would include Schools and Daycares.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said 1,000 feet, okay.
Colin Duesing said this is what is provided for in the Medical Cannabis section of the Statute and is what we use in our Code. This is for Distributors.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said it is not for sales?
Colin Duesing said it is for sales, this is Distributors, and Distributors are sales.
Chairman Marcum said Distributors, yes. Like I’m distributing to you and the Sheriff’s office won’t arrest me.
Steve Balich made a motion to keep the 1,000 foot buffer for Distrubuters, Processors, and Infusers. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Motion passed 6- 0. Jacqueline Traynere was not present for the vote.
Colin Duesing said next is a 2,500 foot buffer from sensitive locations for Cultivators and Craft Growers. Again, Cultivators in the Medical Cannabis is 2,500 feet. Craft Growers are similar in nature to the Cultivators.
Chairman Marcum asked any questions?
Rachel Ventura asked is this currently the way it is for the Medical Cannabis?
Colin Duesing said yes.
Rachel Ventura asked this isn’t in the State law?
Colin Duesing said for Medical Cannabis, it was in the State Statute.
Rachel Ventura said for some reason we don’t know why it wasn’t included in this one.
Jacqueline Traynere asked once we make it 2,500, is there anything to stop us from lowering it to 1,500 at some point in the future? I mean obviously we can’t get bigger.
Colin Duesing said you missed that conversation. Yes, you can make it larger and you can make it smaller.
Jacqueline Traynere asked you can make it larger? Colin Duesing said you can make it larger.
Jacqueline Traynere asked after we already allowed a business to open? Colin Duesing said yes.
Rachel Ventura said this is for sensitive areas.
Colin Duesing said yes, this is for sensitive areas. Because of how the Statute is written for sensitive locations as Schools, Daycares, and now Colleges, and Universities, the buffer from these sensitive locations can be increased or decreased. There is nothing written in the Statute about it for Adult Use Cannabis. For Medical Cannabis, it is set. It is set at 2,500 feet. The language being provided mirrors the State Statute on that end and it mirrors our current language for Medical Cannabis as well. You can change it but we need to have a rationale behind it. These can be varied. When there is a Variance, we need to know why there was a change so we can make appropriate Staff recommendations.
Jacqueline Traynere asked how many feet are a mile?
Colin Duesing said this will be less than a half mile.
Rachel Ventura said so you’re saying if the State changes it, we would have a reason to say ok, the State changed it to 2,000 feet, we’re going to adopt our Ordinances to be the same.
Colin Duesing said correct.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have any questions?
Steve Balich made a motion to keep the 2,500 foot buffer for Cultivators and Craft Growers. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Colin Duesing said on to #6, which is the more complicated one. What Zoning Districts are we going to put these in for Permitted or Special Uses? We have some different scenarios for your information. You may make any changes or variance to them. Scenario #1 is what was initially recommended by Staff. It mirrors what is currently available in the Medical Cannabis section.
Rachel Ventura said I will make a motion to pass Scenario #1 without any additional buffers.
Amanda Koch seconded the motion.
Chairman Marcum said ready for conversation.
Steve Balich said I’m so confused with the whole damn thing right now. Maybe the Federal Government comes down one time and says you can’t do it and we’re sending in the troops to stop you. I doubt it would ever happen, but it could. We’re breaking law after law. I’ll tell you what, I agree with the 1st one but I don’t want anything in there about buffers. I’m just agreeing to the Zoning scenario for one without the buffers. So, I would make an amendment to her thing that we don’t have any buffers.
Rachel Ventura said I’m not including the buffers.
Chairman Marcum said this is what the motion was to approve by Rachel, this scenario. So it would be Medical Cultivation and all that would be separate. You’re adding Adult Use Dispensaries as a Special Use in A-1, Special Use in C-1, C- 2, C-3, and C-4 and I-1, I-2, and I-3. Craft Grower would be Permitted in all the above mentioned zones. Cultivation Centers would be a Permitted Use in all the above mentioned zones. Infusers and Cannabis Processor would be all Special Use. Does everybody have that?
Rachel Ventura said and no buffers except for the Colleges and Universities at 1,000 and 2,500 for.
Steve Balich said the reason I said that is we were talking about a 1.5 mile buffer for some things and 2,500 for other things.
Rachel Ventura said this is without that.
Jacqueline Traynere said these 2 buffers that are listed, you’re saying, would not be in that?
Rachel Ventura said just the chart underneath. He didn’t give us an option for that. Scenario #1 without the buffers.
Colin Duesing said discussion for #4 and #5, having the buffers, those buffers would be applied.
Rachel Ventura said Scenario #1 for the sensitive locations. So, we only voted in the College.
Colin Duesing said adding in the Colleges.
Chairman Marcum said all of the other ones were already in there. We added in the Colleges and Universities to High Schools, Junior Highs, and the rest.
Rachel Ventura said I just want to clarify that the chart is not applying to everything. It is only applying to Colleges and Universities.
Several people were talking at once.
Jacqueline Traynere said let him answer. Rachel Ventura said he said it’s not.
Chairman Marcum said ok Colin, you can speak.
Colin Duesing said this implies what would be available in those particular Zoning Districts in lots and acreage. That’s the amount that would be available when applying those buffers to the sensitive locations section. So, it would be Schools. It would be Daycares and it will be Colleges and Universities.
Chairman Marcum asked is everybody clear?
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I just wanted to make a quick comment. I think we should eliminate C-1 and C-2 since those are very light zoning. C-1 for sure but also perhaps, C-2, I think should be taken out of the locations for the allowance of marijuana sales. That’s all.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said the only thing I had was, I was a little different. I was C-1 and I-1. The reason being is C-1 is our neighborhood commercial. I just think that it being the neighborhood commercial, that probably shouldn’t be in there. As far as the I-1, it is the most restrictive industrial use but I think it should be restrictive of the Cannabis use. This is where we typically put all of the indoor batting cages, workout places, and facilities for the kids to go there, like the jumpy zones and those types of things. I believe I would restrict just the C-1 and I-1. The rest of it looks good.
Chairman Marucm asked anybody else?
Jacqueline Traynere said I could maybe go along with the C-1. I’m just sharing that for information purposes. I know we’re not voting on that right now. How many neighborhood strip malls are there in unincorporated? There’s 5? Maybe?
Colin Duesing said that’s what would be affected by this scenario. There are more but those are the ones that would be available.
Chairman Marcum said there’s a motion on the floor and a second. Steve, you tried to.
Steve Balich said strike my amendment.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have anything that they would like to add to this conversation?
Amanda Koch said can you just clarify what the motion is?
Chairman Marcum said the motion is to approve your chart here. So, Adult Use Cannabis Dispensaries will be Special Use in A-1, C-1, C-2, C-3, and I-1, I-2, and I-3. Do everybody got that?
Rachel Ventura said I think you should clarify the buffers in this case only applies to sensitive areas.
Chairman Marcum said let me finish. Adult Use Cannabis Craft Growers will be permitted in A-1, C-1, C-2, C-3, and I-1, I-2, and I-3.
Jacqueline Traynere said I have a question. You just said Growers. We don’t grow anything in C-1, C-2 or C-3 or I. You said A-1. Did I misunderstand?
Chairman Marcum said you don’t have to grow in the ground for Cannabis. Jacqueline Traynere said oh. So hydroponics?
Chairman Marcum said yes.
Jacqueline Traynere said gotcha. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said hold on, let me finish reading this. Adult Use Cannabis Cultivation Centers will be permitted in A-1, C-1, C-2, and C-3, and I-1, I-2, and I-3. Adult Use Cannabis Infusers will be permitted as a Special Use Permit in A-1, C-1, C-2, and C-3, and I-1, I-2, and I-3.
Amanda Koch said and C-4.
Chairman Marcum said and C-4, sorry. Adult Use Cannabis Processors will be a Special Use Permit in A-1, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and I-1, I-2, and I-3.
Matt Guzman said just real quickly. I think David and I both missed C-4 on all of these Special Uses. Also for the Cannabis Craft Growers, it’s Permitted in C-4. Maybe we just didn’t hear it, I don’t know.
Chairman Marcum said ok. So, that is the motion that is on the floor. Amanda Koch said with these buffers for the sensitive areas. Chairman Marcum said that were already passed, yes.
Amanda Koch said ok.
Chairman Marcum said we passed those so it’s included in our definition.
Tom Weigel said I think we should opt out so I’m going to be voting against these scenarios.
Chairman Marcum said thank you.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I have questions for Staff. I don’t know anywhere that we allow retail sales in the industrial areas. Why would we treat this differently than any other retail product? I don’t know why it would be suggested. Retail pretty much takes place in the “C” Districts, whether it’s C-1 through C-4. I don’t understand why we are treating this particular product differently from other retail sales. I guess that could be a question for Staff.
Chairman Marcum said let’s get Staff to answer that.
Colin Duesing said the rationale behind it, from my point of view, was because the State allows all locations.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said all locations? So you could do Dispensary and Cultivation?
Jacqueline Traynere said no, Medical.
Rachel Ventura said but at the same time Ray, you even said Industrial, you have things like batting cages and these Sky Zone jumping things. They sell socks and vending machine stuff. There’s sales there.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said for their service.
Rachel Ventura said I don’t think buying from a vending machine is a service. County Board Member Ray Tuminello said from a vending machine?
Rachel Ventura said they have things that’s for sale. Absolutely.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I don’t think so.
Rachel Ventura said I’m just trying to think of some examples.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have anything to add? Is everybody clear on the motion?
Rachel Ventura said yes.
Chairman Marcum said I would prefer not to have to read all of that again.
Rachel Ventura made a motion to approve Scenario #1. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-2. Tom Weigel and Steve Balich were both No’s.
County Board Member Ray Tuminello said so that’s keeping C-1 in?
Chairman Marcum said yes, nobody made a motion to amend it, so it’s still on. Chairman Marcum said so motion passes with Tom and Steve voting no.
Colin said that is the end of my questions for you.
David Dubois said I just wanted to compliment the Department and Colin. It has been a big moving target. Again, Staff doesn't advocate either way. All we're doing is presenting options to the Board to address the use if the County determines to not opt out. Also, just be aware that if the County does opt out, then these changes are not necessary to the Zoning Ordinance.
Tom Weigel said in your packet you show a scenario for opting out. Are we going to vote on that?
Chairman Marcum said since we voted on approving the Zoning, I don't think there is a need to vote on that scenario.
David Dubois said this has been a very compressed timeline that we have been working with. During this process, we had initially presented some Zoning changes that would have been a scenario to an opt out process. After conversations with the State's Attorney's Office about this, no Zoning Ordinance changes are required or necessary if the County opts out. What's being presented to the Board is what's being recommended today.
RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 2]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Koch, Traynere, Ventura
NAYS: Balich, Weigel
VI. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE
1. Chairman, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Chairman Marcum said I just wanted to thank everybody. It's been a fun year and we've had a lot going on. I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and thank you to Staff for making us all look good. So, you guys are the heroes.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Rachel Ventura said I wanted to say I noticed the Land Use Master Plan screen shot was added to one of those. I want to say thank you for taking the advice when I asked for that at other meetings. I just wanted to say thank you very much and please continue that. It's very helpful. Thank you.
Steve Balich said I just wanted to tell everyone that you do a good job. I like arguing with the lawyers. Merry Christmas!
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
David Dubois said I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Holidays.
4. Other
Colin Duesing said Amanda was at one of our Pre-Application meetings and she was amazed by a pen I had. I have provided a pen and pencil for all of you. The pen is from our RR&E Division. For educational purposes these are pens created from recycled bottles. The pencil is from recycled denim. They are for you to take home and enjoy.
5. Public Comment
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Not needed.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Amanda Koch made a motion at 12:53 PM to adjourn the meeting. Rachel Ventura seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
IX. NEXT MEETING - JANUARY 14, 2020
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=3679&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up