Will County Land Use & Development Committee met Jan. 14.
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 10:35 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 was 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 - Dec 10, 2019 10:30 AM
Minutes approved with no corrections or additions. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, 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-19-059; Formato Properties LLC, Owner of Record, (Jennifer Formato, 100% Interest), Thomas Osterberger of Kavanagh Grumley & Gorbold LLC, Attorney, Requesting a Zoning Map Amendment (M-19-013) from R-1 to I-1, for Part of Pin #16-05-07-101-018-0000, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as 14409 S. Archer Avenue, Lockport, IL County Board District #7
(Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-059, which takes place in Homer Township.
I do want to advise the Committee that the attorney and the applicant are not in attendance to this morning’s meeting. Staff has not had previous communication with the attorney that this would be the case.
Jacqueline Traynere said did I read this wrong, the first case 059, correct? Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Jacqueline Traynere said and you’re saying the attorney is not here? I see Mr. Kavanagh sitting there.
Marguerite Kenny said that is correct. Mr. Kavanagh is not representing this client.
Jacqueline Traynere said ah.
Chairman Marcum said they didn’t give notice so I think we can proceed.
Marguerite Kenny said ok.
Chairman Marcum said I have no problem with that. Does anybody have a problem with that?
Jacqueline Traynere said no.
Steve Balich said I live there. I was at the Township meeting and the people at the Township meeting were very upset about passing this. I guess the Townships can’t force the 2/3 vote anymore. Is that true?
Chairman Marcum said correct.
Steve Balich asked when did that happen? I thought they could do that?
Marguerite Kenny said pursuant to State Law, only municipalities within the mile and a half can legally file an objection.
Steve Balich said I thought in the past we had objections by Townships that forced the 2/3 vote.
County Board Member James Moustis said that is an objection for the Special Use Permit. All the others you cannot.
David Dubois said any Township authority with regard to a legal objection changed with the last census when we went over a certain population.
Steve Balich said ok.
Chairman Marcum asked does that answer your question?
Steve Balich said I just want to point out, the people in the town have numerous problems over and over again with the guy that owns it. There’s no way in hell that we should be voting to approve it. I don’t know who came and complained or anything but I’m dead against it. I think if we’re going to do anything on it, we should listen to people that live there.
Chairman Marcum said that’s why I was making sure the Committee was okay with it moving forward.
Steve Balich said I’m okay with killing it.
Rachel Ventura said one of my concerns is, and first of all thank you for the 5 different maps on this, the Board thinking of this. There’s a whole row of residents behind this property. If 2 of the aspects are industrial, I think it’s a stretch to say that the entire area is industrial. I saw that the mixed use was on the map. My concern is that we give him the rest of the property to be industrial and then a year from now he sells the property. Now the entire corner lot there can have a giant warehouse, right behind people’s yards. It’s not that this doesn’t happen, check out Romeoville and Bluff Road. Check out most of the area around Romeoville where they put warehouses right up behind those homes.
Jacqueline Traynere said Bolingbrook too.
Rachel Ventura said it is mixed use but that’s going to be a large property with industrial use which doesn’t stop them later. A year from now. 2 years from now or 5 years from putting up something that the residents don’t want there. Once it’s zoned that, what legal standing do you have then? I have concerns about this. I’m with Steve on this. Right now it doesn’t look like this is the best spot but I don’t know what the intentions are of this homeowner. I know we can’t always make a decision based on who’s there now and who’s there in the future. I think that we need to take a little time and really consider what the residents have to say. But if they’re not here.
Chairman Marcum said the residents are here. The applicant and the attorney is not here and they did not give notice. So, my opinion is that we just keep going since they didn’t give notice. They knew when the meeting was. If you want to give your summary then we will have the public speak. There’s a lot of people signed up to speak.
Marguerite Kenny said this Case involves a 2.75 acre split-zoned parcel. The front portion of the property is zoned I-1 along Archer Avenue. The rear 1.45 acres is zoned R-1. This split zoning has existed since the County’s comprehensive re- zoning in 1978. The County no longer split zones parcels. Basically we also encourage split zoned parcels that are in existence to either go through a split zone determination to decide which Zoning District is the prevalent Zoning District for that or to re-zone the portion if they can find a legal description to re-zone under a single Zoning District.
A brief history of this particular property and this area.
The applicant owns the 2 adjacent parcels directly southwest of the property. It operates a construction services business. The applicant recently purchased the subject parcel and began storing construction equipment on the parcel.
Again, its split zoned I-1 and R-1. Since the R-1 portion started to have construction equipment, a complaint was received at our office, investigated, and a violation was issued for outdoor storage without a principal structure on the parcel.
Part of the remedy when the applicant came in to meet with Staff was to pursue a re-zoning for the R-1 portion so that the parcel could become a single zoning lot. So, entirely I-1 if the County Board approved. This would allow the applicant to potentially consolidate the rest of the parcels into a single lot.
With that, there would have to be further site development requirements, outdoor screening, land use buffers against any residential uses or residentially zoned property.
The R-1 portion of the subject site, as you see in the maps along West 144th Place, which abuts the Fouray Unit 7 Subdivision. That was platted back in the 50’s, so it is an old subdivision.
Staff finds that R-1 is not appropriate within this corridor between Archer and North 144th Place just because the ingress/egress would be difficult because of the floodplain as well as just the development. Recent zoning action in the area has been more commercial or industrial requests.
In terms of the I-1 properties to the southwest, the most recent was in 2014 when they re-zoned from R-1 to I-1.
PZC first heard the case back in November and the attorney’s requested it to be tabled and continued.
Objectors have been present for all the public zoning meetings.
You have received several memos containing further email objections, an objection from Homer Township, as well as some clarifications from the Staff Report.
In terms of Planning & Zoning, this past week, they voted unanimously to deny the request for the Map Amendment.
With that, I would be happy to entertain any questions.
Chairman Marcum asked questions from Committee Members?
Jacqueline Traynere said if I understood what you are saying, we’re the ones that are basically pushing the issue of making this 1 lot and all 1 zone. That’s our rules as a County.
Marguerite Kenny said correct, in order to rectify the split-zoning. Jacqueline Traynere said to eliminate the split-zoning.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Chairman Marcum asked any other questions from Committee Members?
Rachel Ventura said I’m going to present something and we can talk about it later in new business, but we have had several cases that fall into this. Is it possible for us to make an I-3 or I-4 that allows for businesses like this and some of these other ones that we have seen function in a way that is great for their capacity but then they later can’t sell it off and become a warehouse that would have to be I-1 zoning? Is this something that we can consider as a Committee to create?
Chairman Marcum asked who wants to take that one?
Jacqueline Traynere said not me.
Chairman Marcum asked did you guys have a question?
Janine Farrell said I was going to say, I think this is more of a legal opinion if we were able to do something like that.
Matt Guzman said I’m sorry, David and I were discussing something.
Chairman Marcum said go ahead Rachel.
Rachel Ventura said I was just saying that several of these cases are popping up where there are businesses that are trying to do their business but, in order to do so, they need to be an I-1. Our fear, as a County, is that they will later sell the property and put in a warehouse which the residents would not want. Is there a way to create a category, maybe an I-3 or an I-4 that would allow them to do the business that they need to do on this property, but then if they sold the land later, it could only be a similar business like this that operated there?
Matt Guzman said once the zoning is changed, it’s changed.
Rachel Ventura said I understand that. I’m saying creating a new category so that businesses could operate in entirety, an I-3 for example, and then they could do the same business as they’re operating today. But then later, they couldn’t sell that land off and it be an I-1.
Matt Guzman said no, that just goes back to what I said. Once you change the zoning, if you create a new one like an I-3, you can’t limit the business that’s going to be on there if it’s allowed in that particular zoning, it’s allowed in that zoning.
Rachel Ventura said right now, a warehouse is allowed on I-1. What I’m saying is if it’s I-3, then they would have to re-zone it to I-1 if that was the case and would have to go back through this Board to do so.
Matt Guzman said I’m not sure I fully understand your question. This is what I’m hearing. You’re saying create a new zoning, for example, and then in that new zoning, if they pursue that particular zoning, to then say you can only do "x" for yourself.
Rachel Ventura said no. Types of businesses like this, we've seen landscaping businesses, we’ve seen some of these mini truck terminal type things, or like the truck parts that we had a little while ago, where they’re not full on warehouses and not full on industrial the way that many of us think would be industrial. They’re mom and pop businesses that are operating under kind of archaic laws at this point because we haven’t updated the uses of some of these. What I’m saying is create the category that encompasses all of these types of businesses.
Matt Guzman said it sounds like it’s more of a particular use. So, you want to exclude a particular use within that zoning. Is that what you’re saying?
Rachel Ventura said I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know how to explain this any better. I’m trying to find compromise between having businesses within our community still be able to be there without impacting people’s lives. You put a giant warehouse in the back of my yard and it’s going to impact my life. If a truck guy is coming in and dropping parts off here and there, it doesn’t impact it as much. Maybe it impacts the roadway, in which case we can make certain qualifications for that, or the Highway Commissioner can. It’s different. There’s trees all around it and their minding their own business and doing their job in keeping the noise down. There’s a plethora of industrial work. I’m saying perhaps it’s time that we categorize what that industrial work looks like and what’s acceptable to have in the community and what’s acceptable to only have in a highly industrial area.
Matt Guzman said it seems as if you’re still looking at focusing on a particular use within that zoning. If you’re looking at a particular use, you’ll have to change the use and say this use is allowed and this is not. Bottom line is if you’ve got a zoning, you can’t have something remain within a particular zoning and then later take it out of that zoning.
Jacqueline Traynere said I have a question about her comment.
Chairman Marcum said Amanda you are first.
Amanda Koch said I think what Rachel’s proposing is to create a new zoning category that would have a more restrictive use than I-1. So we have those permissive uses, and she’s saying that there’s a lot of permissive uses in I-1. So she’s saying to create a different category to have less permissive use and then that would allow us to, by code, restrict some of the use. I don’t think it's targeted towards a specific industry or business, but I agree with her, we have seen a lot of landscaping businesses and stuff come up and they’re Agricultural and they want to go to I-1. There’s a lot of permissive uses there. While we don’t have an issue with the landscaping business, we’re afraid that if it’s sold, it could be something much larger. Then, the adjoining community would not be happy with it. So, if we created a whole new zoning category, then we could have less permissive uses. Did that help a little bit?
Matt Guzman said I understand that. You’re creating actually a whole new Zoning District.
Amanda Koch said right. I’m with Rachel and would be interested in creating that because it seems like month after month we run into this same issue. Instead of doing that, I want to make it easier for residents to do what they need to do to operate their business and make it fit the surrounding community. So, I think that’s something that we should definitely pursue in the future. Chairman?
Matt Guzman said I think that’s something that we certainly could explore. Jacqueline Traynere said that was actually kind of my point. I was going to try to explain what Rachel was saying because clearly we weren’t understanding each other. I understood what you were saying. I don’t know all the different zoning categories. My understanding is there’s only an I-1. There is no I-2, I-3, or I-4. We do have 2’s and 3’s in the A’s and the R’s. I just wanted them in the I’s.
Steve Balich asked currently, how many violations are existing on this property?
Marguerite Kenny said currently on the subject parcel before you, I believe there are 2 open. One was issued after the November 19th meeting. A complaint was received about site work being done because there were some trees removed from the property without a Site Development Permit. A violation has been issued. Our Code Enforcement Division is working with the applicant to resolve that. It’s my understanding that they were waiting for the Map Amendment to decide which route to go with how they’re going to further develop the property. If they get the I-1, they can basically look at the whole property instead of just the specific area that they have to correct. The other one is with regards to unpermitted uses. Again, with the outdoor storage without having a principal structure on the property. This was issued in October, but it also began back in July. So we’ve been working with the applicants to come forward with the Map Amendment request and the zoning action to come into compliance since July.
Steve Balich said this reminds me, because I’ve heard all the negatives already, of when a couple months ago we had a guy that just ignored the rules and expected us to change the rules to fix them so that he could do what he wants. He didn’t pay attention to the rules and he said I didn’t know. Remember that guys?
Chairman Marcum said yes.
Steve Balich said this is the same type of scenario. The guy does whatever he wants and says well I’m sorry, I didn’t know what I was doing. Right? That’s what is going on. Again, that’s happening here and it’s probably going to happen a lot of other times. We can’t let people do just whatever they want.
Jacqueline Traynere said you want them to.
Steve Balich said I’m one of those people that don’t like the rules, you know that. I don’t believe in the rules. I think some of these rules are stupid. But the other side of it is, there are rules. If we just let people say they don’t exist, or I didn’t know, or whatever, and then come here and ask for immunity basically, that’s kind of crazy. To me, this is the same scenario as it was before. Like I said, we’ll have more. I like what Rachel’s talking about, creating a new zoning category. What do you do with people that intentionally violate the rules? If I violate them, you’re coming to my house and you’re hauling my butt to jail.
Marguerite Kenny said we are complaint based. Any complaints that we receive at our office we do investigate them. If we do find that they are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, we do put them in violation. Then there’s a process where we give them time to come into compliance. Sometimes it’s a couple weeks. Sometimes it might involve a little more time for site development and working with engineers trying to get all the engineering with that process. Then, if they still do not come into compliance, we have the option to go to adjudication or even court to bring them into compliance. So, there is a process it’s just a lot of times it takes longer than overnight to rectify those situations.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have any questions about this before we have the public speak?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said the first one that signed up to speak is Heather Glockler. I’m sorry, I’m not good with last names. I apologize.
Richard Kavanagh from Kavanagh, Grumley & Gorbold LLC asked Mr. Chairman, may I speak for just a moment?
Chairman Marcum asked is it ok? Do you mind since I called you first? Heather Glockler said that’s fine.
Chairman Marcum said ok, go ahead.
Richard Kavanagh introduced himself to the Commission. When I came in this morning, I advised Staff that I was not representing the Formatos. However, I received a call from my partner, Thomas Osterberger who is the attorney, and he said that he has dictated a letter and addressed it to the Staff saying that the application is being withdrawn. So, I’m here to say that if you want to cut this short, the application will be withdrawn today.
Chairman Marcum said ok. This is what I’m going to do. Since you did come and sign up, it sounds like it’s going to be a done issue, since you do have the right to speak, I guess you can if you want.
Heather Glockler asked is it official?
Chairman Marcum said once the letter’s received.
Marguerite Kenny said once we receive the letter it would be official. Heather Glockler asked what if it’s not received right now?
Chairman Marcum said let me ask for some clarification. What would our course of action be if we were just advised that? We would still have to vote on it, right?
Matt Guzman said he said he’s going to submit a letter. If we had it right now, it’s simply withdrawn and that’s the end of the story, there’s no need to have anyone speak. You can just put it on the record that the case will be withdrawn.
Chairman Marcum asked so we can consider it officially withdrawn? Matt Guzman said yes.
Chairman Marcum said the State’s Attorney’s Office said it is officially withdrawn. According to our lawyer, it’s officially done.
Heather Glockler asked is that on the record today?
Chairman Marcum said it is on the record. Mr. Guzman I’ll ask you to repeat that with the microphone.
Matt Guzman said you have a guy behind you recording it and it’s in front of everybody here. He has said it on the record so yes, it’s done.
Heather Glockler asked may I ask a question?
Chairman Marcum said that’s fine just go to the podium.
Heather Glockler said thank you for letting me come up and ask a question. I understand that it is officially withdrawn at this point. It’s now almost 11:00 and the meeting started at 10:30. No notice was given. I understand that we just received that notice. Now that it is withdrawn, no further meetings will be held on that and they will have to restart the process, correct?
Chairman Marcum said yes, from our standpoint this is no longer a Zoning Case so if they want to come back, they have to start from the beginning.
Heather Glockler said ok. There are current violations and I think I sent an email to each of you. There are active violations on both properties. In their application, they actually did not mark that it was to rectify any of those violations because those violations were opened before the application. So now what happens with those? I know that was a concern for some of us speaking.
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of the outstanding violations, they still will have to come into compliance with those. They would just have to proceed with a different venue than the Map Amendment. So, a Site Development Permit will still be required to replace the trees that they tore down and to improve the property.
Heather Glockler said just a follow up question with that answer. The open complaint, a letter was dated 7/11/2019 from the Will County Land Use Department giving them 21 days from the date of this letter to maintain or take corrective action. There is another one on this property that they gave them until December 6th to come into compliance and then again December 21st, I believe it was, to maintain compliance with the sediment erosion control, sewage, and things like that. So, how will those be handled?
Matt Guzman said can I just say at this point in time, this doesn’t appear before this Committee anymore so maybe your question can be directed to Staff.
Heather Glockler said ok.
Chairman Marcum said if you can make sure she has the contact information. Heather Glockler said thank you. I appreciate your time.
Jacqueline Traynere said I’m going to put it on the record. I have a concern when somebody is 6 months behind on rectifying something that we let them know about. I don’t know our process, I apologize for that. I hope we’re fining the heck out of this guy for not following our rules in a timely fashion. I just want to put that on the record.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. Mr. Guzman, do we need a motion to remove this from the Agenda or can we just move on?
Matt Guzman said just move one.
Chairman Marcum said thank you everyone for coming if you were for that case.
2. Map Amendment From R-1 to I-1
RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
3. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-19-067, First Midwest Bank Trust #7052, Owner of Record, (Michelle Tracy 100% Beneficiary), Donald Cass Wennlund of Wennlund & Associates, Attorney, Requesting (M-19- 017) a Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1, for Part of Pin #18-13-08-300- 004-0000, in Green Garden Township, Commonly Known as 24405 S. LaGrange Rd., Frankfort, IL County Board District #2
(Janine Farrell)
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-067, which is in Green Garden Township.
The applicant for this case seeks to re-zone an improved portion of a property with the intent to divide that portion into a separate parcel and rent the property for uses permitted under I-1.
The entire lot measures just over 55 acres in area.
The property is improved with an office building, greenhouses, outdoor storage bins, hoop houses and numerous small sheds which previously served Fawn Landscaping & Nursery operating on the property under a Special Use Permit.
The subject of the Map Amendment are the 11.95 improved acres at the southwest corner of the property.
Should the Map Amendment go through, the remaining parcel would retain the A- 1 Zoning.
There are existing industrial uses 620 feet north of the subject parcel.
There are 2, I-1 parcels at 24145 and 24149 South LaGrange Road, which were re- zoned from A-1 to I-1 by the County Board in 2016 to allow the owner to develop what at that time was a single parcel for a sewer and water business. That parcel was subdivided into 2 lots in 2019 each with I-1 Zoning. In 2019, the County Board approved a Special Use Permit for heavy equipment sales and rental for the former lot to 24149 South LaGrange Road.
The proposed new parcel has been improved with sufficient structures and paving to make it unsuitable to revert to agricultural use.
The trend of development along South LaGrange Road is toward more intensive uses including industrial.
This Map Amendment is consistent with the Will County Land Resource Management Plan which recommends locating free standing industry within easy access to arterial roadways.
It is also consistent with the Green Garden Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan which allows industrial uses directly along major roadways.
The Map Amendment was approved by both the Green Garden Township Planning Commission and the Township's Board of Trustees.
IDNR found no reason to object to the proposal.
IDOT found that they recommended to provide a cross access easement to the remaining A-1 parcels to prevent land locking the parcel from any future development.
The Will-South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District had no objection.
However, you do have a memo regarding the Village of Frankfort Plan Commission who have reviewed the proposed re-zoning and unanimously recommended at the Frankfort Village Board meeting to legally object to the Map Amendment. The nearest property in the Village of Frankfort is approximately 1.25 miles away from the subject parcel.
At the January PZC meeting, Staff recommended approval of the request, which PZC approved with a unanimous vote.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody have any questions for this one before we let the public come up and speak? Anybody?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said we have some people signed up to speak about this one. First up we have Zachary Brown. Please come on up to the podium.
Zachary Brown introduced himself to the Commission. I am the Assistant Director of the Development Services Department at the Village of Frankfort. I am representing Frankfort on behalf of this case. As was noted, our Plan Commission did review this project at our meeting last week and did unanimously recommend that our Village Board legally object to it. We have a recently updated Comprehensive Plan, which recommends agricultural uses in this area given the lack of utility services. The issue before us is really one of timing in that our Plan Commission recommendation to our Board will not be considered by our Village Board until their next meeting which is January 21st. Unfortunately this is after the date that the Will County Board is scheduled to review it. I'm simply here on behalf of the Village of Frankfort to respectfully request that this Committee consider tabling this issue to allow Frankfort to complete its review and forward any comments, suggestions, or perhaps legal objections to the County prior to proceeding forward.
Chairman Marcum said ok, thank you. We also have Cass Wennlund sign up to speak.
Cass Wennlund introduced himself to the Commission. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. The Tracy family is seated up there along with their commercial realtor, Mark Koenig. First thing I want to do so we get a little bit better perspective on this as far as what we’re dealing with and what we’re talking about.
Cass Wennlund passed out a couple items for the Committee.
Cass Wennlund said one is a flyer that Mr. Koenig has been using to try to rent out this property since the time the Tracy’s ceased to operate the Fawn Landscaping business. The Tracy family has been operating here legally at this site for many, many years. They’ve been operating their family landscape and construction business. As what happens to a lot of us as we get older, Mr. Tracy suffered some health setbacks and was unable to continue his business. As you’ll see from this aerial, that parcel that we’re talking about just recently re-zoned to I-1 and is 620 feet closer to the Village of Frankfort, it’s that red roof structure that you will see at the top of the page. The property that we’re talking about here is that large business that you see inside and outside pictures on the flyer. Again, located 620 feet away from the I-1 parcel. It was zoned in 2016 without objection from the Village of Frankfort. Also, this Board in November, 2019, 2 months ago, allowed sales and rental of heavy equipment. Our clients are not people who have violated the rules like what we just talked about previously. They’re looking to do this properly to keep this property from being idle. As Staff said, it can’t be used for something else. It can’t be reverted to A-1. As Staff also said, we have no objection from any neighbor. We not only complied with the Green Garden Comprehensive Plan but we’ve received the unanimous support of both the Green Garden Township Plan Commission and the Township Board and your Planning & Zoning Commission and again with no neighbors objecting. We filed this application in September, 2019. The Village of Frankfort is here now and their Plan Commission is saying they’re going to file a legal objection. It’s 1.25 miles away, where no neighbors object but the Township where we sit doesn’t object, in fact they unanimously supported. That’s what their Comprehensive Plan says now and has said. The Village of Frankfort has adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, where we don’t sit, in December, 2019, last month. On that basis, the Comprehensive Plan other than your own, which we comply with, and other than the Township where it sits should prevent us from being zoned I-1. Your Plan says it, we comply with the Ordinance, Staff recommends it, the Township recommends it, and we have no objections by any neighbor. You look at that structure and you see that they cannot revert to A-1. It’s taking money out of my clients pocket for no reason. They just spent, at the request of the Frankfort Township Fire Department, about $100,000 to sprinkler the entire structure to accommodate this. It's made for this. There are no objectors other than the Village 1.25 miles away that didn't object to I-1 620 feet north of us. They didn't object to heavy equipment sales and rentals 620 feet north of us, closer to them. There's no reason to turn this down and there's no reason to table it. It does comply with the Ordinance, no neighbors object and the Township where we sit fully supports us as did your Staff and your PZC. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. Next up we have Mark Koening.
Cass Wennlund said he's our realtor. He is available for any questions.
Chairman Marcum said ok. Does anyone have any questions for Mark?
Steve Balich said I just have a question in general. If it all falls in the Township's Comprehensive Plan and they're in favor of it and it's in our Comprehensive Plan and we approved that other piece, then the City, whether it's Frankfort or another City, comes in and says we're going to change our rules and we're going to go against everybody else, it doesn't seem right. To me, as I was listening to this, it sounds crazy. I get up tomorrow morning and I say everybody was doing one thing but I'm going to be the only one and say well I guess you shouldn't do that. The whole point is that Frankfort shouldn't be able to go against all the other people's Comprehensive Plans. I would think they would have to find a way to make it all jive. It's a mile and a quarter, is that what you said?
Cass Wennlund said it's a mile and a quarter.
Steve Balich said they have up to a mile and a half. It's not even in their city. Then they're going to tell us that we can't obey our Comprehensive Plan? And tell the Township that they don't count, the city counts? That kind of bothers me because we're supposed to represent the unincorporated as well as the cities. To me, I think that we just have to not table it. I didn't even know it was going to be tabled but he said that. We shouldn't be tabling it, we should vote on it and just allow it.
Rachel Ventura said the first Zoning Case we had 5 maps and this one doesn't have any. I've asked to update the Comprehensive Plan and it sounds like it's going to be very expensive for us to do that. Adding the parts of our plan that are on here right now it is heavily Agricultural in that area. So, I'm more inclined to keeping it Agricultural, but this goes back to the first thing that I said about the need for a different Industrial Zoning, an I-2 that has different permissions available. I think this would be the perfect example where we could move to something like that. I think that would work with the Village of Frankfort with their plan because something like an I-2 could maybe support an Agricultural type zoning. As far as tabling, I'm in favor of tabling to see if we could create a new Zoning category that these types of cases can fit into. I don't know what the feeling of the Board is but that's the direction I would like to go because I don't think this is the last case obviously, that we are going to see on something like this. So, that's where I stand.
David Dubois said it will be at the pleas of the Board through the Executive Committee if they want to assign the topic. I would just keep in mind though that reviewing a map such as that would take some time and it would have to be done holistically and possibly even reviewing what I would suggest as all the Industrial Districts and going through that public process. What I'm getting at is that it wouldn't be something that would be quick, probably several months at minimum to take care of something like that through a public process.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said probably a good 6 months.
Amanda Koch said this is my District. I do think it's a fascinating case because we already have buildings there. The previous Frankfort plan has this as Industrial and they've kind of changed their mind. I'm not really keen, as a general rule, to change Agricultural to Industrial. However, when we talked about this today, I think start sooner rather than later on possibly creating another category for Zoning. That might be a better fit for this. I appreciate all the information. I'm going to make a motion. I'm not going to do it now because I want to hear everyone that wants to talk. I'm going to make a motion to table it just so we do have another month. We could allow Frankfort to file their legal objection, which is their right. Then we could kind of move forward and see if there is another category that we could create that this would fit into. I personally am not comfortable making it I-1, especially if it is for sale because the use could be something completely different before we know it. Thank you.
Steve Balich said I don’t have a problem with looking at and making another I-2 or whatever. I don’t have a problem with that. That probably could work. In this case, they applied for something and everything was ok. Then, out of a clear blue sky, the City says no and it’s a mile and a quarter away from the City. So the Township’s supposed to go stick their head in a bucket and just forget it? They don’t count anymore? We don’t count anymore? It meets our plans. It meets the Township’s plans. It met City of Frankfort and then all of a sudden they changed it and now they don’t want it but when they applied it met their plan. So now this guy who owns the property, whoever he is, I should say person, because it might be a woman.
Cass Wennlund said the owners are right up there.
Steve Balich said ok, it’s a guy and his wife, a couple. They’re going to be out a whole bunch of money. We want to stick it up their butts because all of a sudden one City changes their plan from what it was when they applied? It still meets our plan and it meets the Township plan. I don’t like that. To me, that’s like totally wrong. If Frankfort would have their rules intact when this guy applied, then say hey, you have to follow Frankfort’s rules. I would go along with that. That wasn’t the case. This guy applied before when it was legal to do whatever. It doesn’t make sense to me. I do like what you said, Rachel, about looking at some other designations. In this case, this has been applied for when it was legal. Now we’re going to go back and start saying whatever it was could change by the day. What happens if Frankfort decides not to pass their thing next month when they have their meeting? What if they decide to make it more strict?
Matt Guzman said I think that Mr. Balich does have a point in regards to the fact that you could go ahead and make a new Zoning District if you wanted to, but this applicant would not be bound by it. Because he’s applying now, the Ordinances that are applicable now and exist now, that’s what he’s bound by. He could voluntarily seek admission into that new Zoning District, but that’s their call. So, that’s one thing that I wanted to say. I think Brian brought up a good point as well that 6 months from the date of the public hearing, which was at PZC last week, if there’s no action taken on his request at that point, it’s automatically approved. The reason I’m bringing it up is what David had to say earlier. This isn’t going to be a timely process to go through all of this.
Steve Balich said I have a question. Could we be sued by the applicant because if we deny it and he loses money?
Matt Guzman said even if he didn’t lose money we could be sued.
Steve Balich said you could sue for anything, I get that. What I’m saying is, if he went to Court, I’d lay odds that he would win.
Matt Guzman said I’m not going to comment on that.
Steve Balich said I’m just saying, if I was a Judge, forget about it.
Jacqueline Traynere said I’m happy to go along with my fellow Board Member and table it for a month but I will say I’m in favor of the applicant getting the zoning that they’re requesting. There’s been nothing said today and I doubt that Frankfort passing a Plan is going to change my mind. I’m not going to the Frankfort meeting. I live in Bolingbrook and I represent the 4th District. His business has been totally legal and legit, following all of our processes. Now we’re going to just decide because a town puts something in place? Unless I’m missing something. Maybe I’m missing something. They’ve been following the zoning rules all along and I-1 is down the street. I just don’t think it makes any sense to tear down a building that they just put fire sprinklers in and turn it into a cornfield. That horse left the barn a long time ago. This building didn’t pop up yesterday. We’ve approved it. It’s there. So again, unless some new information comes along, I’m going to be in support of the applicant. I’ll support your motion to wait a month, I don’t care.
Steve Balich made a motion to approve.
Matt Guzman said in 6 months it’s not automatically approved, it’s automatically denied.
Chairman Marcum said ok.
Tom Weigel said I have a question for Brian as far as Industrial Zoning. We have 2 categories don’t we, I-1 and I-2?
Brian Radner said actually we have 3 categories. I-1, I-2, and I-3. I-1 is the least intensive Zoning District and as you move to I-3 it’s more intensive.
Tom Weigel said ok, so they’re not going to put a warehouse up there. Brian Radner said you could put a warehouse in I-1, that’s a permitted use. Tom Weigel said that is ok?
Brian Radner said County Board has determined a list of permitted uses by right that would require review for zoning while in compliance with Ordinance standards including engineering standards and building standards. Then there’s also a list of Special Uses that would be permitted in I-1 which would come before this Committee and the County Board.
Tom Weigel said but it is the least intensive?
Brian Radner said I-1 is the least intensive Zoning District.
Tom Weigel said I don’t think we need to create another category. We’ve got 3 categories already.
Rachel Ventura said so I guess what I’m advocating for is an I-4 that would be more restrictive or least permissive than the current I-1 for cases like this. It’s not that they haven’t done anything wrong, it’s now that they’re trying to sell the property or lease the property. At the end of the day, to Steve’s point, they did know that this was a condition when they asked for the Special Use that it could end up in. It’s a gamble. If you know you have agricultural land and you put a building up, it is a gamble. Maybe you thought you could always put another business like that in there. So, to say that we’re going to get sued, we haven’t done anything wrong either. We really haven’t. They came to us and asked for the Special Use. They put the building up with the Special Use. They always knew that was the possibility that it wouldn’t always be the case that’s it agriculture and if you didn’t change the zoning, that is what you would have to revert back to. I do think it’s a complicated case. There are solutions here. I am an advocate of protecting our farmland. That is something that we need to do in this County. If we just continue to allow everything to change to I-1, then we haven’t looked at the forethought where is our food going to come from in the future? How about our water? We have constant problems with drainage in our areas that are built up because the forethought is not there. So, I do want to be prudent in that. I said that from day 1 when I got on this Board that was something that we should continue to look at. This is no different. This is a highly agricultural area. Yes, there’s 2 parcels up the road a little ways that are industrial. This one is in the “mixed” category. I do think it’s wise for us, sooner than later, to start the process of creating an I-4 for people who are in these situations to not be put out and we have a compromise here. The areas that are protecting their farmland can continue to do so and not just say so there’s another I-1 and the rest of LaGrange should just become I-1. That is the reality of what happens. You have 2 on there now, then you have 3, and soon you will have the 4th and 5th. Let’s have some forethought here in how we work with the applicant but also protect what is important to the County.
Jacqueline Traynere said I appreciate your point of view Rachel. I too am very much in favor of protecting farmland. I didn’t really understand that this was a Special Use that we could actually remove, although this came up this morning in our Legislative Committee meeting. At the end of the day, there’s already a warehouse on it. That’s what I’m seeing when I look at it, a warehouse. They could grow Cannabis in there. They could grow plants of any kind. They could house chickens in there and it could still be Agricultural and it would look the same. They’re using it and it looks to be landscaping. At this point, those are things that go, we don’t eat landscaping but we certainly do produce a lot of it in this country. We’ve turned all of the desert of Arizona into a damn sod farm. I don’t want to see this property lose value or the owner lose value. If in fact this is true, that we issue a Special Use Permit to people with the understanding, and I question whether or not they understand that we’re going to force them to turn it back into a cornfield, I think that’s just a stupid policy. Shame on us. If people are investing money into a building, that’s an improvement to real estate. It goes with the land. It becomes a value of the land. Is somebody going to re-zone my house? Again, I understand this is a Special Use Permit case but maybe we shouldn’t have Special Use Permit cases where we’re allowing somebody to invest this kind of money on real estate they own, which then this building becomes a part of the value of that land of their investment.
Rachel Ventura said I agree.
Jacqueline Traynere said I don’t see us using this as a case to revert it back to a cornfield. I’m sorry, I just can’t.
Rachel Ventura said I’m not advocating for that. You just gave some perfect examples of ideas of what it could be used for in agriculture. There are other solutions here instead of just re-zoning it. I would like to explore some of those solutions.
Jacqueline Traynere said we’re also costing this man money every day that we wait. He’s got a real estate agent. They possibly have some potential buyers and if they can’t complete that deal, those buyers are out looking for a different piece of land every day that we sit on this case. That means that the owner could potentially lose his only buyer. You know I’m a new real estate agent and I understand how these things work. The horse is out of the barn.
Zachary Brown said I just had a couple quick points for clarification. First and foremost, our previous Comprehensive Plan prior to the one that was recently adopted in December, also did not support industrial development in that area. So while it does change, it did say transitional uses which were less intense uses than industrial certainly. I know in the Staff Report it states the Will County Land Resource Management Plan designates the area as rural and it doesn’t encourage industrial development in rural areas. I know there is some language that talks about “if” you’re going to do it, it should be along arterial roads, which I can’t really disagree with but the results of the statement is that it’s discouraged in those rural areas. Certainly I understand that the County has its own process and you guys are going to do what you’re going to do. The Village of Frankfort is allowed to participate as part of the State Statute requirements because of the mile and a half review. We’re simply just asking that we have the ability to complete our review before the County proceeds. Not suggesting that this is the intention here but we didn’t receive the application from the applicant until December 21st. We believe that we’ve acted in good faith to bring it through our process as quickly as possible. It went to our Plan Commission on January 9th and before our Board on the 21st. We’re just concerned if this is the precedent then the County goes and approves this prior to the Village of Frankfort completing its review then future applicants with similar requests will say hey Mr. whatever applied to the Village of Frankfort and then you can avoid them by having any influence or participation in the approval process with the County whatsoever.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have any questions?
Cass Wennlund said just a couple things for clarification. Staff was stating that the existing Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Frankfort noted the existing use as industrial. As far as converting the farmland to A-1, it specifically is just on the improved 11.95 acres. The other part of the large 55 acre parcel that will be left is simply A-1 without the existing Special Use. All of that which is on unimproved existing farmland would be preserved under our proposal.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I would like to see the tabling motion approved but maybe for a little different reason. It does say this is a rural area it’s not industrial. I know we have a couple Industrial Zonings there for heavy equipment sales and so forth. We have no development plan on this parcel. They could say what’s there is there but there could be a different use for that parcel. A legal description for the lot has not been created yet. I would like to see that done actually.
Cass Wennlund said a legal is created Jim, it’s attached to the application. As far as us filing a petition for division, we’re obviously waiting for this to file it across the hall. That legal exists, we’ve had those surveys created.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said you could do that first too, Cass.
Cass Wennlund said I can do that now.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said I personally would feel more comfortable if the lot was created already.
Cass Wennlund said I could certainly file that petition now.
County Board Member Jim Moustis said that's just with the Recorder of Deeds. Going on, I'm not so sure this is an industrial area. When we look at what we have developed as industrial parcels and to use industrial development in this County and certainly we have no lack of Industrial Zoning whether it's in the County or it's in municipal boundaries, we have quite a bit of industrial. On the other hand, it's not unusual for a corridor like Route 45, a state highway, for some type of heavy use or commercial use along that roadway. This is not an improved part of Route 45, which is another issue. Generally, you're doing some improvements on the road whether it's turning lanes or deceleration lanes or whatever. Even though it may not be required today, because of the problem further down the line if you continue that industrial type of zoning. I don't think it's an industrial area. I don't think it's agricultural either along Route 45. I do think that there could be some accommodation here and that's what I would like to see during that waiting period, to see if there's some other zoning. Saunoris Brother's Landscaping was like C-5, which it still is as a matter of fact. That did allow heavier uses but was still compatible with residential areas. I do think our C-2 is an example with the Special Uses. It has pretty extensive uses. When you look at the development along 45, I consider this a little spotty. If you look at what's coming out of Frankfort along 45 going west including what we've zoned going west, it's basically been C-2. I see it more as a C-2 corridor. If you look at the Special Uses that would be allowed, maybe there would be a good compromise for both the applicant and the Village. Maybe it's a C-3 or whatever. You have to look at all the Special Uses that would be allowed under C-2. I do think this gives an opportunity to the County, for the applicant, for the Village to sort out what this is going to be. I don't think it should be developed going forward as Industrial. I do see it as a Commercial Use down 45. I would ask, if we table it, that the applicant, Frankfort, Staff, and maybe a County Board Member, maybe Amanda can sit down in a meeting. Maybe there's a really good compromise.
Chairman Marcum said thanks Jim. Steve made a motion to approve so before any other motions are made, I need a 2nd on that.
Rachel Ventura asked what is the motion to approve?
Chairman Marcum said to approve the Map Amendment. Rachel Ventura said I thought we were going to table this.
Chairman Marcum said you can't table something that isn't on the floor, so I need a 2nd to put it on the floor. So I need someone to 2nd Steve's motion please.
Tom Weigel 2nd the motion.
Chairman Marcum asked are there any other motions that anybody wants to make?
Amanda Koch made a motion to table. Rachel Ventura seconded the motion.
Map Amendment From A-1 to I-1
Roll Call Vote was taken to table the case. Motion passed 6-1. Balich was a No. Chairman Marcum said that motion carries and it will come back next month.
RESULT: TABLED [6 TO 1]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
NAYS: Balich
5. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-19-077, LG Ranch, LLC, Owner of Record, (Luis Guzman 100% Beneficiary) Luis Guzman, Agent, Thomas Osterberger of Kavanagh, Grumley and Gorbold LLC, Attorney, Requesting (S-19-025) Special Use Permit for Ancillary Liquor Service in Conjunction with Allowed Agritourism Uses, (S-19-024) Special Use Permit for Rural Events, (S-19-026) Special Use Permit for a Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance Business, for Pin #30-07-01-200-028-0000, in Joliet Township, Commonly Known as 2225 Maple Road, Joliet, IL, County Board District #8 (Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case #ZC-19-077, which takes place in Joliet Township.
The subject parcel is 10 acres. It is a flag lot with 10 feet of lot frontage to which a previous Zoning Case brought it into compliance.
The applicant is requesting 3 different Special Uses. The bottom 6.19 acres is for the rural events, which is not to be confused with rodeos. There was some confusion at the Planning & Zoning Commission with regard to that. Rural events generally are your wedding barns, event barns, fundraisers, kind of just in an agricultural setting. In this aspect, they're looking to do more of hacienda type venue where it's authentic Mexican art, furniture and things like that. So, the bottom 6.19 acres would be dedicated to that.
In conjunction with the rural events they're requesting, would be ancillary liquor. They have submitted a Liquor License application to the County Executive's office. As part of that dual process, they should be pursuing with the Executive Committee to request an increase in the number of Liquor Licenses available for the appropriate classification. So, this is just addressing the use aspect of it.
As for the northern 3.81 acres, that's for the existing landscaping business that has been in operation for the last 5 years. It did come into being when it was previously zoned I-1. They went through re-zoning to become A-1. At that time, that's when the business became non-compliant. So, they're just looking to bring that landscape business into compliance.
There were some objectors that came out at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting mostly dealing with the concerns of the rodeos in the area. The traffic concerns, noise complaints, and things of that nature.
Staff has recommended conditions for all 3 Special Use requests. Mostly with regards to the rural events to make sure the Building Codes are followed as far as sprinkler systems and things of that nature. Also that they adhere to the Liquor Ordinance. The noise, anything related to rural events would be dedicated to the premise. Anything outside of that would require additional zoning action. For the landscaping, the typical landscaping business regulations and compliance with the IEPA standards and so forth.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of all 3 Special Uses with the recommended conditions.
With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Marcum asked any questions from Committee Members?
Jacqueline Traynere said it looks like there's apartment buildings across the street but yet when I look at the other pictures that are here, it looks pretty rural. I see this one that looks like a fenced in lot with tractor trailers. I can't believe we haven't required them to have a solid fence because we did that in the Land Use case along Veterans Parkway and I-55 in unincorporated Will. I don't know why this guy's getting away with it, maybe I need to file a complaint, although, that's not my role in this. I was just curious, is that where the noise thing comes into play?
Marguerite Kenny said to answer your question, this property is within a 1/2 mile of the Briggs and Rosalind rodeo where they had a Temporary Use for outdoor concerts. We've received several complaints with regard to that property. So, it is within that buffer for the noise. I think that's the biggest concern. There's a couple other parcels within this area that we've had some complaints on but we just haven't been able to issue violations for other rodeos and noise complaints in the area.
Jacqueline Traynere asked with only a 10 foot frontage, how could they have a proper driveway entrance to this property? By the way, this property is amazing looking in how they've cleaned up these stables and stalls, created these big banquet areas and this beautiful front porch. The property looks amazing. I can see why they want to do what they want to do but how are they getting people in and out?
Marguerite Kenny said they have 10 feet of frontage. One of the conditions is to actually show proof of an easement. The applicant has widened that 10 feet to 20 feet and has actually improved the property with a shared driveway to the south 10 feet. They have put in gravel. They have speed bumps and signage with 10 mph. With any type of Building Permit or for their Site Development Permit, IDOT approval will be required since Route 6 is under IDOT jurisdiction. If they see that there's any turn lanes that will be required as part of this rural events project, the applicant would be required to do that for the approval.
Jacqueline Traynere said I didn't see it in here but is there a maximum or minimum capacity for this place? If they're having an event with 1,000 people, and there's 500 cars, that could be hard.
Marguerite Kenny said Building Codes are going to determine the amount of capacity for the building. The applicant does intend to expand the building slightly to accommodate a sprinkler system and additional storage as the Health Department required a new kitchen. He's looking to expand the existing building just to accommodate all of those requirements.
Jacqueline Traynere said it's really hard to see the whole driveway from these pictures.
Rachel Ventura said this is a better map, it comes down here and goes out. (She was holding up here iPad so Jacqueline Traynere could see.)
Jacqueline Traynere said I didn't see that.
Rachel Ventura said the apartments that you're looking at are these ones over here, off of Maple. So, they're actually quite far apart. You have to come down this way and turn here to get onto the property.
Jacqueline Traynere said I missed this map at the end. Ok, very good.
Chairman Marcum asked any other questions?
Rachel Ventura said I'm excited to see someone wanting to use the Agritourism Liquor License that we introduced earlier this year. This does butt up against District 9, this is in District 8. I have received complaints in some areas. This would be good, I would think, to approve the Agritourism. Because of some of the complaints in our District, we want to move those entities into a business capacity that they're following the zoning and the laws as well. So, I think this is a good precedence for that. Obviously you can see the location and they've improved it very well.
Jacqueline Traynere said it's beautiful.
Rachel Ventura said I think we should encourage stuff like this especially since we do have the Zoning or the Liquor License available for this type of entity. I do encourage you guys to vote yes on this.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have any other questions? Comments?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said ok, we've had a couple people sign up for this one. Luis Guzman. Mr. Kavanagh do you want to speak on his behalf?
Richard Kavanagh said Mr. Guzman and I would be happy to answer any questions that any members have.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody have any questions? No response.
6. Special Use Permit For A Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance Business
Motion passed 7-0 with 11 conditions.
Rachel Ventura said I think this also falls under the same thing we've been talking about. This one's different because it was I-1 and went to A-1. Again, these are the types of cases that we've seen. I'm going to bring that back in New Business.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
7. Special Use Permit For Rural Events
Motion passed 7-0 with 8 conditions.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
8. Special Use Permit For Ancillary Liquor Service In Conjunction With Allowed Agritourism Uses
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
Motion passed 7-0 with 4 conditions.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision (APCD-19-002) for Case ZC- 19-068, Lowell D. Denton, Owner of Record, (V-19-071 Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 20 feet and (V-19-072) variance for minimum rear yard setback from 50 feet to 30 feet,for Pin #18-13-04-300-025-0000, in Green Garden Township, Commonly Known as 10250 W. Stuenkel Road, Frankfort, IL, County Board District #2
(Janine Farrell)
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # APCD-19-002, which is an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision for that Zoning Case, ZC-19-068, which was decided back on November 19, 2019.
There were 2 Variance requests as part of this Zoning Case. A Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 20 feet on the west side of the property. Then also a Variance for minimum rear yard setback from 50 feet to 30 feet.
At the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting there were no objectors present.
Staff had recommended denial of both of the Variance requests. The Planning & Zoning Commission upheld Staff's recommendation. There was a split vote count for these 2 denials. 2 Commissioner's voted to approve. 3 voted to deny, and 1 Commissioner abstained from voting.
I did include an excerpt from the Minutes from that Planning & Zoning Commission meeting as well as part of the packet for your reference.
The appeal of the Plan Commission's denial for the Variance requests are before you today.
Chairman Marcum said really quick, the packet is not opening.
Jacqueline Traynere said nothing is opening.
Chairman Marcum said I went back in the Minutes, that's how I knew. Just so you know, it's everything under "Other Business" where nothing pops up.
Janine Farrell said I do know that our Staff was having issues with the MinuteTraq system, so that may be a result of that.
Jacqueline Traynere asked is this the case of the chickens?
Janine Farrell said no, this is not. There's a residence on the property and the applicant was looking to build an accessory building or pole barn on the property.
Rachel Ventura asked he wanted to build what on the property? Janine Farrell said a pole barn, or accessory building, on the property.
Jacqueline Traynere asked do you have any pictures? Can you bring it up on the computer?
Janine Farrell said I can try to bring it up.
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm so used to getting things on here with no attachments, I can't tell you. So, I just assumed they weren't meant to be there.
Janine Farrell said I did include an attachment of the applicant's application, the Staff report, and the Minutes. I would recommend that maybe we should table this then and get that technological issue fixed so that you can see everything that you're voting on.
Jacqueline Traynere said I'll make a motion to table this.
Chairman Marcum said there are people signed up to speak.
Rachel Ventura asked can you bring it up here on the computer so we can see it. Janine Farrell said yeah, we should be able to.
Chairman Marcum said Mr. Guzman, do you have any thoughts on this?
Matt Guzman said to give the applicant a fair opportunity, I think you should be fully informed so I agree and I feel maybe we should table it to give him another chance if he wants to.
Chairman Marcum said we need a motion to approve the appeal to place it on the floor and then a 2nd for that.
Amanda Koch made a motion to approve. Rachel Ventura seconded the motion.
Chairman Marcum said there were some people that came out to speak. Ok, they signed up for the next one. Does anybody in the public want to speak on this one?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said we have a motion and a second to approve.
Jacqueline Traynere made a motion to table it. Steve Balich seconded the motion.
2. Appeal Of Planning & Zoning Commission Decision For ZC-19-068
Roll Call Vote was taken to table this to the next meeting. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
3. Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision (APCD-19-003) for Case ZC- 19-076, Tony Wiatr, Trustee of Wind Trust, Agent, for Pin #18-13-09-200-023- 0000 and #18-13-09-200-018-0000 Consolidated per Petition #2019-47, in Green Garden Township, Commonly Known as 24018 S. Center Road and Vacant Land on S. Center Road, Frankfort, IL, County Board District #2
(Janine Farrell)
Chairman Marcum said we had the same issue with this one, so we'll need a motion to approve it.
Jacqueline Traynere made a motion to approve. Steve Balich seconded the motion.
Chairman Marcum said we did have somebody sign up for this one. Jacqueline Traynere said let’s hear what they have to say.
Peter Wiatr said the applicant's ok to move forward if that's ok. Chairman Marcum asked you want us to.
Peter Wiatr said it's ok to move forward, I have print outs. Janine Farrell said I can give the summary then.
Chairman Marcum said we'll do the summary then. Is that ok?
Janine Farrell said it's obviously up to the Committee to hear the case or to table it to next month when the items are part of the packet.
Jacqueline Traynere asked can we hear the case and then still have the option to table?
Chairman Marcum said yes, you have the option to table it all the way up until we vote.
Amanda Koch said I did get an email from the southern bordering neighbor to uphold our denial. So, I think based on that, I'm going to be in favor of tabling it just so that we could really look at the report because it's not going to be just an easy pass since we've already denied it once. It reads: Zoning Case ZC-19-076 had a request for Variance for minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet off the property line to the south that was denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission on December 3rd. As a property owner of the bordering southern property we are requesting your support in upholding the denial. We have been trying to have 2, 55 foot trailers removed from the property for a year and those are still onsite. The neighbors plan is to build a barn for whatever is in the trailers. We really feel with his 9.7392 acres there is no urgent need to infringe upon the 20 foot standard. We will be attending the hearing on January 14th. I would appreciate your support. With kind regards, Thomas and Sharon Stack. I don't know if they're here today.
Chairman Marcum said they're signed up to speak. Let's do just the report and then we'll decide as a Committee. Is that ok with the Committee?
Amanda Koch said I would like to hear the report.
Chairman Marcum said we will hear the report and then let the people who signed up speak. Then, we can go from there. So, go ahead and give your report, please.
Janine Farrell said thank you and again I apologize for not having the documents as part of the packet.
The appeal, APCD-19-003, is in relation to a Zoning Case over in Green Garden Township. That was ZC-19-076.
This was heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission back on December 3rd. There were 2 Variance requests as part of that Zoning Case. One request was approved and the one request was denied.
The Variance for the minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet over on the southern property line was denied. It was recommended by Staff.
There were objectors present as well.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended unanimously to deny that Variance request.
The applicant was seeking to build a pole barn on the property along that southern property line and not meeting that minimum 20 foot setback.
Janine Farrell said I can take any questions.
Rachel Ventura said you said there were 2 requests, what was approved?
Janine Farrell said the other Variance request was for maximum accessory building area. Staff recommended approval of that request and the Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of that request as well.
Jacqueline Traynere asked did the applicant give any reason whatsoever for the request for the smaller setback on the southern border? Did they just not want to chop down a 50 year old tree? Something that makes some sense maybe.
Janine Farrell said I can let the applicant speak to that further, but at the Public Hearing, the applicant did state that a portion of the property is farmed. It does have adequate frontage to accommodate a 20 foot setback as opposed to just the 12 foot setback.
Jacqueline Traynere said the difference is 8 feet.
Janine Farrell said the applicant had stated that due to the configuration of the proposed building and the driveway and making a turn radius into the new proposed building. He would be able to give further detail than I could on that.
Chairman Marcum asked does anyone else have anything before I have the public come up?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said first we had Peter sign up. I can't read your last name, I'm sorry. Do you want to step up to the podium? Just state your name for the record please.
Peter Wiatr introduced himself to the Commission. First I wanted to say thank you for bringing that up. Janine, thank you for letting me speak in that respect. I did bring an aerial map. I learned from last time if I did bring something to be able to pass it around. To answer your question, that was the main reason of why we asked for the setback. I explained that at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. It has to do with fencing that is currently on the property to the north of it.
Peter Wiatr passed around an aerial map.
Rachel Ventura asked Janine, can you pull up something as far as a map for us? Peter Wiatr said I have another copy if you would like.
Rachel Ventura said I would like her to pull it up for us also.
Janine Farrell asked just an aerial image?
Rachel Ventura said yes, and then you can pass around your copies.
Peter Wiatr said I know everyone has been here for quite a bit of time already, so I will try to keep this nice and short. It has to do with spacing between the property line and existing fencing that's there on 50% of the property. As Miss Jacqueline said, why only 8 feet? I tried to minimize it as best as I can. In a perfect world, we would all want to build right on the property line. In respect of the 20 feet that's required, I did it a minimum of the 8 feet reduction which I felt left a nice 12 foot barrier. Keep in mind as you'll see from the pictures, this is wide open land. The only thing that's there besides our existing building is our neighbors existing garage, which I will add is only 10 feet off the property line. Our neighbor will tell you they didn't build it. We didn't build our fence either, or that building. Everything that you see there is existing. If you remember, I've been here with my Dad all year. We were doing a re-zoning and all that has to do with the trailers which are being removed. Already we have received another violation and we opted not to do another Temporary Use Permit, which we've done all of last year. The Building Permit which I will add is all approved. The building has been approved and the square footage has been approved. The last piece is hinged on this 8 foot relief that we were seeking.
Janine Farrell asked is this the approximate location?
Peter Wiatr said you're going to move the building north. What we're asking for is to be in line with the existing building.
Rachel Ventura asked so the white building is there now?
Peter Wiatr said I have a site plain if you would like to see that.
Jacqueline Traynere said you're just looking to put it next to the white building? Peter Wiatr said correct. The problem is that Commission Kiefner, just prior to voting, I have the Minutes here and you guys also have it in your packets, he said he was looking on Google Maps and he said you have 60 feet between the building and the fence that you see there. This is a transcript of his words. I will pass this around so you can see where it's highlighted. So, long story short, Mr. Kiefner prior to voting said there's 60 feet between that building and the fence. At the time, I had never measured it. It did not sound correct, so I did not feel comfortable to go against what he was saying. That measurement is 29 feet. It is less than half of what he thought it was. I'm not blaming him, it was just a spur of the moment and he made an error. Because of that 60 feet, he said in that same paragraph in his own words that you could easily move the building and have plenty of room to operate a pickup truck and a trailer. As you remember, we talked about a pickup truck that I was purchasing, as well as tractors and farm implements. That measurement of 29.16 feet that you have in front of you right now, if you take away that 8 feet that I'm asking for, leaves us with 21-1/2 feet. The truck that I have outside is 22-1/2 feet, just the pickup truck. My father and I don't feel the 8 feet is anything disturbing. It won't impact our neighbors. Our neighbors have been in opposition of it as Janine has stated. Truth be told, there's no reason, just because.
Jacqueline Traynere said I just want to ask some questions. The neighbors, is that the buildings straight north?
Peter Wiatr pointed to the map.
Jacqueline Traynere said oh, that's the neighbors.
Peter Wiatr said this is our neighbor’s garage.
Jacqueline Traynere said that's the neighbors. I thought the neighbor was the people above. Oh, ok.
Peter Wiatr pointed to the map again.
Peter Wiatr said this is the neighbor. This here is the new fence that I installed. I installed like 220 feet of fencing. It's 8 feet less than that building. This is wide open land.
Jacqueline Traynere said just another really dumb question. Why not make your building 8 foot shorter? I'm guessing your stuff won't fit in it.
Peter Wiatr said a lot of times when you're coming in with a tractor and a hay trailer you want to pull in. When we were here for a re-zoning from A-2 to A-1, we were told we don't have enough room. When we went for this Variance, the neighbor said we had too much room. It doesn't matter, I could ask you for a purple flower pot and the neighbors are going to object. It is what it is. This is the 12th time that I have been here. I try to be less obstructive as possible. It's 8 feet. I'm 6-1/2 feet tall. It's like a foot more than me. If this was highly residential, I could respect that. At that same meeting, PZC approved a 1 foot setback in Mokena, in a subdivision. Please is all I'm saying. We want to be done with this. We want to move the trailers. I would be happy to move them just let us put up the building.
Jacqueline Traynere asked where are those trailers? I don't see them in either of these pictures.
Peter Wiatr pointed out on the map where the trailers are. Peter Wiatr said they're where it says rectangle.
Rachel Ventura asked is there a reason the barn has to be 8 feet larger? Could you just make the barn 8 feet smaller?
Jacqueline Traynere said that was my question.
Peter Wiatr said because it's a rectangle. We don't have anywhere else to go. That's all being farmed for hay. I guess potentially we could, it's not a life or death situation. We could square it off and make it a rectangle. Again, that would impede my fencing. It would be a time and money thing and reclaiming the land that we're farming right now.
Rachel Ventura said you’re saying the fencing is for turning in. So, I'm saying keep the front of the building where you plan to have it just it’s the back of the building that's going to be.
Peter Wiatr said the back side isn't the problem, it's the side. You're looking east and west right now. It's going to be a rectangle like you see right there. So, it would be narrowing the building not squishing it, does that make sense?
Rachel Ventura said with the curser can you point to where the 20 foot to 12 foot Variance will be? Right there you shave off the 8 feet for the building you could still get in on the north side and still make your curve.
Peter Wiatr said but the problem is the overall length. So if you have a tractor and a farm implement?
Rachel Ventura said you're putting a tractor inside of it?
Peter Wiatr said oh yeah. All that stuff you see sitting there is farm implements. There's equipment on the property. It's going to be in there in addition to the hay.
Rachel Ventura said this is another question. Can you turn the rectangle so it's 90 degrees?
Peter Wiatr said then you're going to block access to the back field. You could put it in the middle of the property, that was brought up as an objection. Again you're taking away from #1, that's always been a staging area of the property, meaning gravel and things being parked there. As you were discussing with previous cases and respecting agricultural land, we're trying to keep everything in accordance. Trying to look nice.
Chairman Marcum asked did you see where the trailers are Jackie? Where she is circling on there.
Jacqueline Traynere said oh, ok. Those are them? Peter Wiatr said those are them.
Chairman Marcum said we also had somebody else sign up to speak, Sharon Stack. You can come on down.
Sharon Stack introduced herself to the Commission. I am the neighbor directly south of the property. My husband and I are against the setback from 20 feet to 12 feet. We do feel again, with the combined property, the neighbor does have plans. He has 2 parcels and he does have plans to combine the properties. With that, he will have the 9.7392 acres that he needs. We feel that's sufficient property to be able to build without infringing on that 20 foot setback. I know that there's a small fence there to the north of his building area that he wants to have but it's an electric fence. It's a move the stakes and put the wires in a different place. It's not some gigantic fence that is going to take a lot to move. It's an electric fence. I do agree with him that our garage is 10 feet off of the property line. Again, the garage has been there for 40 years. As I told the Planning Committee last time, if we ever have to change it or upgrade it or whatever it is, then we will follow the 20 foot setback because that's the law. I just don't feel and my husband, we've been here every single time, 12 times, 13 times, as many times, we really feel it's important to abide by what the Planning Commission has recommended and what the Committee has recommended to just continue with the denial in the difference of the setbacks.
Chairman Marcum said thank you.
Jacqueline Traynere said I had another question about the map.
Chairman Marcum said go ahead and ask your map question.
Jacqueline Traynere said where you see the 2 cars and the brown building, is that brown roof that I'm looking at a house? Or is that a garage?
Peter Wiatr said that is a shade house for horses.
Amanda Koch said no, I think she's talking about the bottom with the cars. Jacqueline Traynere said below the white existing barn.
Peter Wiatr said that's their garage.
Jacqueline Traynere said that's their garage, where's your house?
Peter Wiatr said right next to that.
Jacqueline Traynere said I can't see that in my picture.
Janine Farrell said I just wanted to make a quick point of clarification because this has been brought up about Ms. Stack's garage. Back when that was built, setbacks were different for the A-2 Zoning District. While we have not done extensive research into it, the 10 foot side yard setback more than likely would have been what the rule was at that time. Just to clarify that.
Chairman Marcum asked does anybody on the Committee have questions? No response.
Chairman Marcum said the first thing we're going to need is a motion. Do we already have a motion on the floor?
Steve Balich said Jackie made a motion.
Chairman Marcum said there's already a motion and a 2nd on the floor. Does anybody want to make any other motions?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said no, ok. So your motion was to approve the appeal, correct? That is the correct motion, right?
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm in favor of it.
Rachel Ventura said I have a question for the applicant. So, she made the point about the electric fence being moved. I do know that it takes some money to move an electric fence.
Peter Wiatr said it's not made of styrofoam. The map that I passed around, you might see it better. It's not just that piece that you see there, there's roughly 22 or 2300 feet of fencing. That building that you see there was a livestock building. There's no animals in there currently. I did recently purchase a horse for my daughters but that's being stabled around the corner at a ranch nearby.
Rachel Ventura asked what's the blue structure on here?
Peter Wiatr said that's a tarp covering equipment.
Rachel Ventura asked equipment?
Peter Wiatr said because it's outside and we have nowhere to put it. That's a tarp. Jacqueline Traynere asked where's the electric fence?
Peter Wiatr pointed out the fence on the map.
Rachel Ventura said the tarped equipment is just north of the fence but it would be stored in the barn then?
Peter Wiatr said correct. It's been sitting outside. To me, that's an eyesore as well. For what my neighbor is saying to just move the posts and wires, that would be re-configuring the entire layout of the fencing, which may I add, that's not something that we did. Again, it was put there before we bought it. It's kind of like saying hey, take your fence and do a little kick out here because I want to put the air conditioner on that side of the house. I don't really see the point. We're talking about 8 feet. It's not invasive and it doesn't hurt a single soul.
Rachel Ventura asked do you have an application in now to merge these 2 parcels?
Peter Wiatr said it's already been done. Janine can verify for you that it was done last year. It would have to be done prior to the Map Amendment we had and it still stands.
Rachel Ventura asked and did that change the setbacks at all or does it keep it the same?
Janine Farrell said it's still the 20 feet.
Amanda Koch said quick question. I see you have the trailers all the way at the top. Is there a reason why you're storing stuff there now and want the barn in a different spot?
Peter Wiatr said currently where that building is going to be again, it's kind of a staging area. Those trailers there are kind of elevated. When you're pulling up to them, you'd have to be here versus being on the ground. Well, really 2 reasons. The first one was to keep it away from my southern neighbor because there's things like this that come up. So one was to keep it as far away from them but also because of the existing building there. When you were pulling up to it with something and you didn’t have to kind of work on an angle when you're lifting it up 5 feet. Kind of for my back.
Rachel Ventura asked do you use the electric fence now?
Peter Wiatr said just as a perimeter. It's not electrified. My dad has a dog that is out there. My kids sometimes after we're done cutting, we'll ride 4 wheelers in that area. It is not electrified.
Amanda Koch said I'm just going to speak real quick as the Commissioner of this area. I think this barn would be an improvement because we would not have tarps and trailers. I do understand the conundrum that you're in. The fence, I've hobbied enough in this kind of stuff to appreciate the amount of work involved in that. If it was 2 feet from the property line I would have a huge issue with it. I do agree that 12 feet is a fair setback. I think I am inclined to approve this going forward. I just wanted to mention that to the fellow Commissioners.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. Does anybody else have anything? So, the vote is to approve the appeal. Just so everyone is clear. If you want to allow it, vote yes. We're going to do a Roll Call for this one.
4. Appeal Of Planning & Zoning Commission Decision For ZC-19-076, Variance For The Minimum South Side Yard Setback From 20 Feeto To 12 Feet
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 5-2. Marcum and Ferry were both No's.
Chairman Marcum said just so you know, it will take 20 votes on the County Board to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission.
RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 2]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
NAYS: Marcum, Ferry
5. Authorizing Extension of a Special Use Permit (SEXT-19-002), for Zoning Case ZC- 17-036, First Community Bank and Trust, Trust No. 20100385; Mary Dukes, Rebecca Gouwens and Robert N. Verdun, Beneficiaries, Shane Shields, Woodlawn Solar LLC, Agent, James R. Griffin, Schain Banks, Attorney, for PIN #23-15-34-200-012-0000, in Crete Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on E. Goodenow Rd., Crete, IL, County Board District #1
(Janine Farrell)
Chairman Marcum said we had the same issue with this one, just so you know.
Janine Farrell said if you want, I can just give a brief overview of what the Special Use extension is for to see if the Committee would like to table it or move forward.
Rachel Ventura said we have the attachments on this one.
Chairman Marcum said it did, I'm sorry. You can give your summary.
Janine Farrell said the Special Use extension, SEXT-19-002 is in relation to ZC-17- 036, which was a Special Use Permit for a solar farm over in Crete Township off of Goodenow Road.
This was actually the first solar farm that was approved back on January 18, 2018. As you may recall, we did an update to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the Special Use Permit to have an initial term of 2 years. The applicant is now coming up on the end of year 2 for this Special Use Permit. This would technically be the first extension of said Special Use Permit.
It would bring the new expiration date to July 16, 2020.
The applicant has applied for the Site Development Permits for the solar farm facility. They are currently under review with the Land Use Department Staff as we speak.
The applicant does intend and hope that this Permit be issued well before that July date for the expiration.
As a reminder, the Site Development Permit would have to be issued in order for the Special Use to not become void.
I can take any questions you may have.
Chairman Marcum asked any questions?
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm just tickled in pink. I had the inspector at my house yesterday, so I have to brag a minute. I got my final ok from the Building Department in Bolingbrook for my solar panels. Now I am just waiting on ComEd to say yes I can go outside and turn the switch. I'm very excited about this one and I'm more than happy to extend their Special Use Permit time.
Chairman Marcum asked anybody else?
Rachel Ventura said I'll second that. I'm excited for these solar farms coming to Will County. If we have to extend this great, but hopefully we'll see the other ones who won the lottery as well.
Chairman Marcum asked does anyone from the public want to speak on this one as well?
6. Extension For Special Use Permit ZC-19-036
Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
VI. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE
Committee Members, anything else?
1. Chairman, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
None.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Rachel Ventura said I want to bring up the New Business. Maybe we call it when creating a new zoning, I-A with a focus of Industrial that would support maybe Agricultural uses. It would be more restrictive than I-1 with permissive uses that would blend into some of the Agricultural base on some of the cases we've seen. Since it is going to be a lengthy process, starting it sooner than later would probably be better. So, what would be the correct directive action?
Chairman Marcum said I was going to comment on this. It sounds like the Committee wants to look at our Industrial Zoning. So, I'll make a request at the next Executive Committee meeting to have it assigned. Then we could go from there and Staff could have their direction of what they need to do exactly.
Rachel Ventura asked so do they assign it here or where do they assign it?
Chairman Marcum said at Executive Committee, then they'll assign it to us that way Staff has direction and we can talk about what we're looking for and what we'd want to go forward with.
Rachel Ventura asked why does it have to go to Executive before it comes to us?
Chairman Marcum said everything gets assigned through Executive Committee per our rules.
Jacqueline Traynere said and nobody wants to change the rules.
David Dubois said historically, it's best to go through Executive so that way the Executive Committee is aware of potential changes and is it the desire of the Executive Committee to do it? Then it has to go through the process but it does circle back to them. There's no surprises and they know that's what they authorized to be looked at.
Chairman Marcum said next month we'll be discussing that.
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
Brian Radner said I also would like to ask that this Committee assign Building Code update at Executive Committee to the Land Use Committee. The reason for that is the County has currently adopted the 2012 International Council Codes.
Jacqueline Traynere said it's 2020.
Brian Radner said it's 2020. Code updates have been every 3 years for new codes. Typically, the County has adopted them every 6 years. The next set of Codes that's available right now are the 2018 Codes. Many communities in Will County and around the country have adopted the 2018 Codes in the last few months, or last year. We're looking to have that matter assigned to this Committee to evaluate the adoption of those Codes and any possible local amendments.
Rachel Ventura asked these are State Codes?
Brian Radner said this is the International Code Councils Code, it's not the State of Illinois' Code. The State of Illinois has their own Plumbing Code and their own Energy Code. There's other Codes that this State has that we have to follow no matter what. They're adopted by a reference but whenever the State adopts them, we automatically have to follow those Codes. These are specific Codes that the County would adopt for the unincorporated areas. Mainly building, and electric, mechanical, those types of Codes.
Jacqueline Traynere said I misunderstood. You're saying we're in 2012 codes and you're wanting to assign to us adopting the 18. I thought you meant we were going to adopt the 2012 and that's what kind of blew me away because that's like 8 years ago.
Brian Radner said the International Code Council does a new one every 3 years. There was a 2015 and now there's a 2018. The County has typically done it every 6 years so that you're not coming back every 3 years and updating a new set of Codes.
Jacqueline Traynere said I understand that's a big headache for everybody involved and I'm not trying to minimize that. I will say that I don't know anything about electric other than you flip the switch or you plug it in. I just got my solar panels. When they sent the plans out, my Village upgraded them and said you couldn't install it with this particular kind of conduit, you had to do this more "safer". I'm going to say "safer" because I'm assuming that's the only reason we have Building Codes. By the way, they were union electricians. They didn't catch the change because it wasn't communicated to them so they had to come back out and re-do it. Clearly there's some concerns or the Village of Bolingbrook wouldn't have requested this more "safe" conduit. It kind of worries me a little bit that we're this far behind. That's basically what I'm saying.
Steve Balich said I just wanted to point out, you know all the times I've come forward with information, we do have to follow the State of Illinois laws. We can create our own laws according to the State. For new people I have documents that say we can create our own Ordinances for Building Codes, we don't have to follow anything. They also told us that they will not prosecute us for not obeying their Codes that we're on our own. I just want to point that out that going forward, yeah we're going to look at it. I was on that Committee before and you guys were not in charge then. It was ran through and they wouldn't let me talk, basically. Every time I brought up an objection, our former chair guy from the Land Use kind of like ignored it and it was put to the side. This time, if we're going to re-do it, let’s do it the right way so I don't have to come back and try to make amendments to the rules.
Rachel Ventura said I guess if you want to clarify, we will be discussing the International ones and not the State ones that we are obligated to follow. More to Jackie's point, I like that it's the International Codes. The reason I asked about the Illinois thing is because in Germany, they have the German Passive House and the Building Codes allow for better energy efficiency. I don't know if any of that's in here now but I know with Joliet, they changed their Building Codes on putting black pipe or gas lines down. It used to be 2 or 3 feet and now it's 60" or 5 feet down. So it doesn't freeze or whatnot. Thanks for bringing those forward. I'm looking forward to maybe seeing some more energy efficiency Building Codes moving forward.
Chairman Marcum said so we have those 2 things that I will ask to be assigned to our Committee for February.
4. Other
None
5. Public Comment
Roy Adcock introduced himself to the Committee. Do you want my address too? Chairman Marcum said we just need your name.
Roy Adcock said I didn't know if you were going to check me out on Google. Jacqueline Traynere said no.
Roy Adcock said I just wanted to thank everybody again. I sat here for the whole meeting. You guys do a great job. I want to thank the PZC Committee also. I was here mainly for the program that got withdrawn. It was interesting. It's good to know that we're all going to work together on that. A few things that I did want to point out because I was on the list to speak for that. There's something that needs to be brought out about that. To answer one of Steve's questions that he was asking, there was 2 violations that they said was on there. I want everybody to know for the record, that company has only been in business for a few years. There's 83 pages of violations that company has in the few years they've been opened. That's what we're fighting over there with. So yeah, they have 2 violations that are active but that's what we're dealing with. The poor Will County and all of these people are constantly going out there with. So when they say they came out there, yeah, they cut down all the trees before they even came up with. They clear cut every tree out there before they even went out there and we're stuck with that. The floodplain, they were ready to fill it in until they got stopped. The homeowner's are getting flooded out right now. That's what's in the pictures that you guys see. It's sad. I'm glad that they finally withdrew it so that they don't do this. A new thing that came up that I'm interested in, that's why I'm glad I stuck around. You guys are updating your Code. I hope you guys will be going into the HTP materials and all that kind of stuff. It's much more efficient stuff to use. A lot of the communities in southern Will County are all using that. I hope you guys make that permanent for Will County. It's a product that they're using overseas. It's just something to think about when you're looking at the Codes. Everyone's using Ducto liner and they're like yeah, it's 3 times the cost. You can use this newer material and it saves the taxpayers money. Just thought I'd throw that out there for you. You guys are doing a great job. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Marcum said thanks for sticking around.
Chairman Marcum asked anybody else from the public?
No response.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Not needed.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion To Adjourn The Meeting
Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
IX. NEXT MEETING - FEBRUARY 11,2020
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=3708&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up