Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Dec. 3.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Stipan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:37 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Thomas White | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Absent | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Secretary | Present | |
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Marguerite Kenny, Lisa Napoles, Janine Farrell, and Kristine Mazon.
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's office.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Nov 19, 2019 6:30 PM
Motion approved 5-0. Thomas White abstained from voting due to his absence at the November 19, 2019 meeting.
Approved with no corrections or additions.
RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSTAIN: White
ABSENT: Mitchell
V. ZONING CASES
1. CASE ZC-19-065 on Agenda for December 3, 2019 this case will be heard on January 7, 2020 WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-19-065, Domingo Cabral, Owner of Record, requesting (V-19-069) Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 20 feet (north) and (V-19-073) Variance for lot frontage from 300 feet to 166.14 feet, for Pin # 23-15-21-101- 021-0000, in Crete Township, commonly known as 25659 S. Dixie Highway, Crete IL
THIS CASE HAS BEEN TABLED TO THE JANUARY 7, 2020 MEETING.
Chairman Stipan said anyone who is interested in this particular case, we will not hear it until January.
Motion to table this case passed 6-0.
Chairman Stipan asked the State's Attorney, can I table all these cases that we're not going to hear and then go into the minutes and the rest of the meeting?
Chris Wise said I think I would do them one at a time.
Chairman Stipan said yes, I will do them one at a time but can I do them out of order?
Chris Wise said you can do them out of order. Chairman Stipan said ok.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Mitchell
2. 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 Pin #(part of) 16-05-07-101- 018-0000, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as 14409 S. Archer Avenue, Lockport, Il County Board District #7
THIS CASE HAS BEEN TABLED TO JANUARY 7, 2020.
Motion to table this case passed 6-0.
Chairman Stipan said anyone who is here for this case will not be heard until January.
Someone said sir, may we find out why? A lot of my neighbors have been here now for 2 meetings and we have dedicated a lot of our time. We all work full time jobs. We were told at the last meeting that we were waiting for.
Chairman Stpan said I have no control of this ma'am. This is coming from the people themselves and their lawyer who determined whether or not the case will be tabled. It's not us.
That same person asked can we file an objection on record since we have all showed up.
Chairman Stipan asked to tabling?
She said yes.
Chairman Stipan said I can't do that because the tabling is necessary because they're not here to hear the case. Do you understand what I'm saying? It's not us that's causing you any slowdown. I can't do anything about it.
She said I understand. May I ask a quick question before you proceed? Chairman Stipan said sure.
She asked what happens at the January 7th meeting if they ask to table it again? How far out can they table it before you guys just remove it?
Barbara Peterson said she should be on the record.
Chairman Stipan said I'm not sure of that answer as to how many times a case can be tabled?
Barbara Peterson said we have tabled 3 times before.
Chairman Stipan asked is there any limit?
Chris Wise said as far as I know there is no limit. At some point it just becomes stale and if they aren't going to pursue it, then it just dies. I don't know if there's a rule that says you have to have it completed in a certain period of time.
Janine Farrell said not for PZC.
Chairman Stipan said it so seldom happens that we have multiple tabling's. Usually when it's tabled it's because somebody did something wrong with the postings, or they didn't have all the information at the time. That's why I think it's reasonably tabled. It's not part of our Board's process. We just have to table a case if it can't be heard.
Heather Glockyer introduced herself. She said thank you for clarifying that for me and my neighbors.
Chairman Stipan said I'm very sorry for the inconvenience this causes everybody but I can't do anything about it.
Someone said can I ask one question, sir?
Chairman Stipan said come on down please.
Sharon Stack introduced herself. She said although I don't have any direct contact with this case, I just want to know for process, they're asking to table it and you guys vote on it. What happens if you vote no? No they can't table it.
Chairman Stipan asked would the State's Attorney care to respond to that. Chris Wise said you would proceed but I don't know why you would.
Barbara Peterson said let me try to answer that. I have been on the Board for 20 years.
Sharon Stack said I'm just asking.
Barbara Peterson said always, when Staff is requesting us to table it, we don't question them. Their due diligence is to have all of the material move forward with the case, and that's exactly what we're all about. But when Staff asks us, it's usually for a good reason and we have never questioned Staff in the past. It's usually because some of the material that's necessary to move on past this Committee, to the next Committee, is missing or there's a matter of maybe posting hasn't been proper. I'm not saying that's what's going on, but there are a number of things that stop us from hearing a case. They are legitimate reasons and we have to go along with the letter of the law because this is a public hearing.
Sharon Stack said I understand about the letter of the law. I was just wondering why vote on it, if you voted no, what would make a difference?
Barbara Peterson said because it's part of the procedure and we vote on every case that comes across.
Chairman Stipan said if we voted no and the information wasn't there correctly, we could be taken to court for it or sued for it because we didn't do our due diligence.
John Kiefner said if I could ask a question of Staff it might move this forward. Did you know about this tabling before tonight's meeting?
Janine Farrell said I'll answer that. There's typically 2 reasons why a case would get tabled. One, as we saw with this first case, it was because the applicant had not sent out proper notice. Staff is making that request because we are aware that proper notice was not served in order for that case to be heard. In this instance, the applicant who is represented by the attorney here, is making the request for that case to be tabled. So, it is up to the Commission if they so honor that request and allow this case to continue to be tabled, or if they do want to hear it regardless since it was already heard before. It is typically uncommon for the Commission to hear a case if the applicant is requesting it to be tabled. It usually means they are trying to work on something or provide some more information for their public hearing. Commission Kiefner, I'm sorry but I forgot what you're.
John Kiefner asked when did you learn of this tabling?
Janine Farrell said either today or late yesterday.
John Kiefner said so it's possible somebody contacted the day of the meeting, you might be able to give them information, which I suppose can change a little bit too.
Janine Farrell said correct. We try to give as much notice as possible, but finding out less than 24 hours before the meeting, there's no way for us to really get notice out that the case is going to be tabled.
John Kiefner said if we table this to January, is the applicant required again to send out certified mailings informing them of that meeting?
Janine Farrell said no, not in this instance.
John Kiefner said ok.
Janine Farrell said correct. Because you are setting a date, and I will look to the State's Attorney for this. You actually set a date saying January 7th. If the case was being tabled indefinitely to an undetermined date, then in that instance we would have to resend out notice to notify people that the date has been set to May whatever it is, for example.
Sharon Stack said I'm just trying to understand process, that's all.
Chairman Stipan said some of these cases, parts of the case may be in court. These are some of the reasons they ask us to table it until the Judge rules or whatever on that particular case. If an inspector comes out to your property and determines that you have a violation, and you're arguing the violation and it ends up in court, then we have to wait for the determination from the Judge before we could even go on and hear the rest of the case. It's not what we'd like to do. We like to get them in and out.
Sharon Stack said it was just when you guys voted on it, I was like if you're going to vote, you could vote yes or no.
Chairman Stipan said we do, but we have normal common sense reasoning for saying we're going to vote to table it. Staff doesn't lead us astray. They're not favoring one party or the other. They're just telling us that pieces are missing or are not correctly applied. What happens if we hear a case next door to you, and you didn't get a notification?
Sharon Stack said that would be wrong.
Chairman Stipan said we can't do that.
Jerry Sharp introduced himself to the Commission. If they table it to next time and then we come, and they table it again and we don't come, then you'll vote on it then?
Barbara Peterson said we'll vote on it.
Chairman Stipan said we'll vote on it whenever it comes up for.
Jerry Sharp asked if we don't show up, how would you vote? You would vote yes?
Thomas White said if you don't have an opportunity to come to the meeting, you have the right to submit a written or you can shoot an email to Staff and they will put it in our packets. If you can't come on the 7th, by all means send an email or letter into Staff.
Jerry Sharp said I will come, I just don't want to be played. I don't want to just keep on coming until they figure alright when enough of them quit, we'll show up.
Thomas White said better yet, send in a letter anyhow and then if you come on the 7th, even better. Do you know what I'm saying? That way if you can't come we still have something here.
Chairman Stipan said I have letters of objections here already in this file. As he says, it is always better if you can show up because you can put emphasis on what you've said.
Jerry Sharp said alright, I got you.
John Kiefner said or the details of what's presented at the next time we meet could be different from some of the details that we've already had.
Chairman Stipan said it's like going to traffic court. If the guy you're going to traffic court against doesn't show up, you have to keep showing up until you're both there and the case can be heard. It's a pain. I understand that. I'm really sorry about that. As I said, our whole Board would prefer to hear this and get these things passed through. Either pass or fail. This way we don't have to keep reading and re-reading the little packet of stuff on the same case.
Jerry Sharp said I got ya. I understand. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir.
Roy Adcock introduced himself. It will be a real quick question.
Chairman Stipan said that's fine. I hope I can give you an answer.
Roy Adcock said I live in the subdivision. I notice Staff was talking to someone I presume is their attorney. Is that correct? When we were here 2 weeks ago and they had the regular attorney here, he was possessed here with everybody talking and said it was out of his range and he wanted their attorney here for the next meeting.
Chairman Stipan said that's correct.
Roy Adcock said ok, I didn't hear wrong then. So, we're all here and their attorney is here, I don't understand why we're tabling it. We're here. Their attorney's here. Why would their attorney want it tabled? I don't get it.
Chairman Stipan asked do you want an answer to that questions? Roy Adcock said yes.
Chairman Stipan said it was my understanding that the person himself asked for it to be tabled.
Roy Adcock asked the owner?
Chairman Stipan said yes.
Thomas Osterberger introduced himself and said I can answer that question. First of all, my apologies, I should have come up and done this formally. I didn't realize the number of people that would come out. Staff's in a tough position. I asked them yesterday to table it. The back grade on this property starts out high and goes low. I'm working with the engineer in regards to their complaints. I will point out that there have been some complaints that are not necessarily from these people here, which are patently untrue. That disturbs me. A lot of the complaints I got, I understand. I did get from the County a list of the complaints and I don't want to bore you with the response. First of all, my apologies. There's no way to tell people. I want to try to get an engineering solution. As you know, an industrial property needs to be screened. There's natural trees here but there's a grade change. Normally it would be easy. Let's berm it and put up a fence. Let's talk to the County. Let's make sure there's no light and minimal sound. This is a touchy one so I have asked the engineer to work on it and do something. We can get into the details more but there's nothing surreptitious. I feel bad that people came out. If you wanted them to hear it now, it wouldn't be very efficient. I would sit and I would wait to respond until next time. When these things happen, it's just a bad situation. I was here 5 years ago and there were no objectors. I think the objections are mainly directed towards the present use of the property. There was nobody here 5 years ago. When it came up last time, Dick Kavanaugh, who is about as good of a zoning lawyer as you can find in the State of Illinois, said wait, let's stop, let's address those complaints. The problem is properly addressing the screening issue, which maybe we can't solve. I don't know. Without throwing the engineer under the bus, lawyers are slow but engineers are really slow. I'm working on that. That's the reason. I apologize I didn't come up. It's not going to get continued again. I wish I had something but I'm working on a solution to try and help. As you know, we always do. We don't want neighbors to be unhappy. That's it. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir.
Roy Adcock said that answer's my question. Thank you.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/7/2020 6:30 PM
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Mitchell
3. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-19-069, Michael A. Ciba, Owner of Record, requesting (V-19-074) Variance for minimum west side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.7 feet, for Pin #15-08-07-304-018-0000, in New Lenox Township, commonly known as 2453 Dougall Road, Joliet, IL
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-069 which takes place in New Lenox Township.
The owner and applicant is Michael Ciba.
The applicant has been caught building an addition onto his existing attached garage without first obtaining a building permit. As such, the attached garage is located 4.7 feet off of the western property line. The property is zoned R-3 and the R-3 District requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback.
The applicant is requesting a Variance for the side yard setback in order to bring the garage and this addition into compliance and also have the building permit be able to be issued.
The subject parcel is Lot 20 in the Cherry Hill Unit 1 Subdivision, which was platted back in 1926. The subdivision is an old subdivision and a lot of homes as you will see from the images are older in character. As such, the subject property was improved with a residence back in 1929. A 400 square foot attached garage was added in 1962. The residence was built 7.8 feet off the western property line, again back in 1929, so even before the County had a Zoning Ordinance. While the attached garage was built 4.7 feet off the western property line, both structures have been deemed legal non-conforming. When non-conforming structures are expanded to the extent of expanding the non-conforming, so in this case since the attached garage is encroaching into that 10 foot side yard setback, the addition is encroaching the extent of the non-conformity. Variances are required to bring the structure into conformance with present zoning code.
Since the applicant continued the building line, he needs a Variance for the side yard setback basically to just bring everything into compliance.
Staff finds that since the residence and attached garage were constructed many, many years ago, this could be considered a unique circumstance, although, the applicant did create this hardship by building without a building permit.
The garage addition is 264 square feet, so the applicant still meets the accessory building area specifications for the R-3 Zoning District.
The Health Department did make note that they have approved the building permit itself just because the building is 10 feet out of that septic field. That could also constitute a unique circumstance for this property to limit where additional accessory buildings could be built on this property.
Looking at the aerial and zoning map, you can see that the subdivision is zoned R- 3. A lot of them are smaller than the typical R-3 lots that you find within present day. There are a lot of the existing structures within the subdivision that were built the same time as this subject parcel, so 1920's, 1926. And they appear to have also encroached into the side yard setbacks, whether it be the primary residence or accessory structures that were later built. The adjacent parcels to the north and east built detached garages that appear to encroach into that 10 foot side yard setback.
The subject parcel is at the intersection of Dougall and Oakdale.
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request in addition to the proposed building location not being out of character in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds that the variation will not endanger public safety, negatively impact public welfare or property values, nor is it based exclusively on a desire to make money off the property. The applicant just simply needs a little bit more space and wants to expand his garage.
Of the agencies that have submitted comments, none have objected. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan asked does anyone have any questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Is the owner or agent here? Someone raised their hand.
Chairman Stipan asked would you care to come down, sir?
The gentleman commented sure.
Chairman Stipan said wait one second. Is there anyone concerned with this case or an objector?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said there's no concerned or objectors and Staff has recommended approval, you are welcome to just sit there and let us vote if you would like.
The gentleman sat back down.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Motion passed 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Mitchell
4. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-19-074, Anthony Rosa, Owner of Record, Lisa Anderson, Agent, requesting (V-19-076) Variance for maximum number of animal units allowed in the A-2 zoning district from six (6) to eighteen (18), for Pin # 18-13-14-100-008-000 in Green Garden Township; commonly known as 8527 W. Dralle Road, Frankfort, IL
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN TABLED TO JANUARY 7, 2020.
Motion to table this case passed 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Mitchell
5. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-19-075, Wingren DG, LLC, Owner of Record (Jeffrey Wingren 100% Interest); Edward Kalina of Engineering Solutions Team, Agent; Requesting (M-19-019) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2, for PIN #16-05-08-300-031-0000, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on South Gougar Road, Homer Glen, IL, County Board District #7
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-075, which takes place in Homer Township.
This is regarding a property that you have been familiar with this past year. Last month, Temporary Use Permit 19-010 was approved November 19th regarding this property. Then earlier this year, the subject property also had a Special Use and Variances associated with this property which was approved.
This property is located off of Gougar Road between 151st Street and 147th.
The applicant here tonight is requesting a Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2, where landscaping and lawn maintenance businesses are permitted as a right.
The thorough in-depth details of the criteria used are in the Staff Report. I will just touch on a couple key concepts. The first, the existing uses in the vicinity and the trend in development tend to go hand in hand. You have a mix of uses. Industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, and open space within a mile radius of the subject parcel. However, the trend in development has been towards industrial uses, especially along the I-355 corridor. Within a 1/2 mile of the subject property, we have the Prologis Business Park, which is just west across I-355. That started development back in 2018 and is still under development. Aerial measurements show the 2 warehouses being 750,000 square feet and 305,000 square feet. Directly west across the subject property is the Heritage Crossing Corporate Park. There are several warehouses already being built and I believe a few more are in the works. Some of these warehouse range from 290,000 square feet to 500,000 square feet in size. So, we are talking large warehouses.
There's quite a few commercial re-zoning's in the area. Some allow an indoor shooting range, self service storage, construction company, plumbing business, contractor's yard, and things of that nature.
The most recent subdivision, built more that 3/4 mile to the southwest across I- 355 is within the Creekside Estates development. So that's the Creekside Estates, Creekside Estates South, and Creekside Estates South Phase II which were platted in 2002, 2004, 2005 or 2006 and 2015.
The trend with agricultural zoning has been more towards re-zoning to a Commercial, Industrial, or Residential Zoning District or use.
Looking at consistency with the officially adopted plan within the County and surrounding municipalities, the subject parcel lies within the Suburban Communities Form. Within this Land Resource Management Plan, industrial free- standing office is a permitted use. However, there is some leeway into the terms of impacting residents within the area. So, since the closest residential uses in the area are greater than a third of a mile or more, Staff finds that adverse impacts of this Map Amendment should be minimal.
Gougar Road is the boundary line between the City of Lockport and the Village of Homer Glen. Since the property lies within the Homer Glen side, Homer Glen views this area still being residential based on their 2005 Comprehensive Plan. They are currently undergoing the process of re-evaluating the Comprehensive Plan and in this area they are actually looking at further studies to see what is appropriate. In your packet, you do have comments from the Director of the Planning & Zoning at the Village, who mentioned that I-1 zoning could be compatible with their future zoning within this area. They do question the I-2, but they have not submitted any formal objections to the I-2 Zoning District. They just noted that it's a little bit more upscale. Within the City of Lockport I-355 Corridor Master Plan, the area west of the subject property is light business park, light industrial, and offices. So, in terms of having an outdoor storage yard associated with the landscaping business, it seems compatible with those uses.
As mentioned before, the subject property has a Special Use for a landscaping and lawn maintenance business. They can operate on this property. They have submitted a site development permit for this property to start developing it as such as an A-1 parcel. The site development permit was issued back in September so that they can start grading. This is just the next step to kind of continue on with their operation and potentially expand for the future.
In terms of the LESA score, a score of 150 to 300 is considered the protected farmland in the essential farmland category. For this property, it scored a 146, placing it in the lowest, which is potential growth in incorporated areas.
Looking at the site concept plan that was approved in September, you can see that the majority of the use is the outdoor storage area. In terms of growing any types of trees or landscaping plants, things like that, it's not the intended use of this property. It's more to get the product to the site, load up the vehicles from here, store the vehicles, and then go out and take care of the clients.
Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment to I-2.
Of the public agencies that were notified, none have objected. And just re- hashing, the Village of Homer Glen is curious about the I-2 but has not questioned anything further or submitted any other comments other than that.
With that, this concludes Staff's analysis.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Does anybody have any questions of Staff?
John Kiefner said if I could ask a quick question of Staff. Site Plans for development, the County wouldn't require anything different for an A-1 Special Use or the I-2, I am assuming.
Marguerite Kenny said correct. In terms of the landscaping and lawn maintenance business, we consider that a Commercial Use so we would be looking at the total impact of the site in terms of area disturbed for general landscaping and things like that. So, it's the same either way.
John Kiefner said ok.
Chairman Stipan said I just wanted to make one comment. I really think we should quit calling A-2 farmland. A-2 is close to estate residential. Right?
Marguerite Kenny said it's our grandfathered one.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Is the owner, agent, or representative here? Someone raised their hand.
Chairman Stipan asked are there any objectors or concerned citizens?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said you have a recommendation of approval and you have no concerned citizens or objectors. If you just care to sit there and let us vote, you are welcome to do so.
A gentleman said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said unless someone on the Board has a question.
No response.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.
Motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Stipan asked if there was any paperwork for him.
Barbara Peterson said no, this goes on to Land Use Development Committee. Chairman Stipan said you will go to Land Use Development Committee.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Mitchell
6. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-19-076, Wind Trust dated January 5, 2015; Owner of Record, (Peter Wiatr 100% beneficiary), Tony Wiatr, Trustee of Wind Trust , Agent; requesting (V-19-077) Variance for minimum south side yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet, (V-19-078) Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 9,160 square feet, 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 south Center Road, Frankfort, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-076, which takes place in Green Garden Township.
There are 2 requests with this Zoning Case. A Variance for minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet over on the south side of the property. Also, a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 9,160 square feet.
The agent in this case is Tony Wiatr who is the trustee of the Wind Trust who is the owner of the property.
This property is probably going to be very familiar to you. It's been the subject of some recent zoning actions. There were 2 recent Temporary Use Permits, TUP-18- 015 and TUP-19-006, which were to permit 2 semi truck trailers on the property for temporary hay storage. Then also ZC-19-027, which was for a Map Amendment and associated Variances in order to re-zone the parcel to A-1. That case was actually withdrawn.
The property is actually 2 separate parcels with 2 separate PIN's which have been consolidated and combined. That consolidation has not been fully executed yet so it is still showing on our GIS system as 2 separate parcels. Combined, these parcels are 9.7392 acres.
There is existing accessory building area of 4,159.709 square feet. I'm using the terms that are on the Plat of Survey. Although you may not agree with these terms, that's what we're going to use. We have a frame garage on the property which actually resembles more of a pole building. We have cages which appear to be chicken coops. We have a canopy, which is a wooden structure and we have a wood barn. We also have the attached garage. I want to call out the attached garage on the residence. It is a walk out house. They're saying there is an upper and lower garage. Staff did not perform an internal inspection to verify that there is actually a lower garage in addition to that upper garage. We have included both of them into this calculation just to err on the side of caution. They are each about 575 square feet. So, we have that extra just in case there is that lower garage as the Assessor is calling it.
The frame garage is located on the southern side of the property. The wooden barn is on the northern side of the property.
The proposed pole building, 5,000 square feet, is located on the southern property line. It will be going directly behind the frame garage. The applicant is proposing it to be only 12 feet from that southern property line. The minimum set back for A-2 is 20 feet. He has applied for a building permit for this structure.
Based upon the review criteria in regards to the maximum accessory building area request, Staff does find that this is indeed due to unique circumstances. The applicant is already exceeding the 3,000 square feet of accessory building area which is permitted on A-2. So, any addition to this would require a Variance for maximum accessory building area.
This pole building would resolve that violation issue of those semi truck trailers being located on the property as it would allow for the hay storage in that building. It's also important to mention that the applicant's parcel is roughly 3 times the standard A-2 parcel, which is 2-1/2 acres. The applicant has over 9 acres. So, this accessory building area request is proportional to the applicant's property size.
Staff also finds that the Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the area. The area is primarily composed of A-2 and E-2 parcels and they both allow 3,000 square feet of accessory building area, BUT stables are not included in that. So there are several parcels that I noted in your Staff Reports that exceed the 3,000 square foot accessory building area limitation because they are used for the stabling of horses, for example. So, having these larger accessory buildings in this area are not out of character.
I also wanted to point out here that we do actually have a couple of Zoning Cases and an Administrative Adjustment in this vicinity. Directly behind the applicants parcel is an Administrative Adjustment, so that was something that was approved administratively in our office this year for accessory building area. We have 3 other accessory building area Variances in the area. So, within this area, Variances for accessory building area are actually common.
Staff affirmed the remaining criteria in your Staff report for the Variance request.
In regards to the setback Variance request, Staff does not find that this is a unique circumstance. There is no condition of the property or any sort of a flood plain issue that limits location of the building. A wetland, for example, the building is located away from those. Those are located more towards the street. There is no topographical condition which would require this setback. The applicant's property has over 324 feet of lot width. They have 40 feet for those setbacks plus the 50 feet so that's 90 feet total. There's sufficient room to accommodate this building in order to meet those setbacks.
Staff also believes that this may impact the vicinity and other properties in the area. From aerial measuring, it appears that the majority of the structures on the parcels meet the 20 foot setback for A-2, and E-2 as well. There are some parcels located along Stuenkel which are very, very long, skinny parcels. Those are the majority where the structures do not appear to meet the setback because they are very narrow.
Based upon the other criteria for the Variance standards, and the full details are in your Staff Report, Staff does believe that this does have the potential to negatively impact that property to the south because it is that southern property line request and it does not meet that.
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance for the maximum accessory building area for those aforementioned reasons but a denial for the Variance of that setback request from 20 feet to 12 feet.
From the agencies that responded, we did not receive any sort of objection. That concludes Staff's analysis.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, does anyone have any questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. I take it the last 2 here are the owners and then we have some in the corner. Are you objectors or concerned citizens?
Someone said yes.
Chairman Stipan said would the owner or agent please come down?
Peter Wiatr introduced himself to the Commission. I missed you guys. I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. It's been a couple months. I'm sure you guys remember. We have been here for the better part of the year. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If I could ask one thing, can I use the little laser pointer. I brought electronics last time and I was told I shouldn't.
Chairman Stipan said I think it's right there, isn't it?
Peter Wiatr said oh, ok. I will address the setback if I could since there's an approval of the square footage. Like Ms. Farrell had mentioned, this dimension here is where the 12 feet is. There is a reason for this although the Staff report says it's not a unique characteristic, I don't know if I would consider it unique, but it's a property characteristic and I will explain that now. The exiting pole barn has a door and the proposed building has a door and is also inline with the exiting pole barn. It is like this for 2 reasons. If you remember a couple months back we had talked about the purchase of an RV that's going to be happening. There is a driveway all along the southern property line. The RV is pretty long. In addition to the hay storage, the RV is sought to be parked in this building. In order to make that turn, the idea is to be able to back it straight in. It's just for ease of use. That is compiled with the fact of as far as any farm items and tractors, if this building was to be moved up another 8 feet it would limit access to the middle area. There is a fence installed, basically a horse fence, and it's been there. There's posts every 8 feet. If the building's moved up, it's going to be hard to drive any tractors or equipment, as well as enter the garage doors because of the offset. So basically, this dimension here from the existing fence to the property line it's going to put it smack in the middle plus give it 2 kind of awkward accesses. As far as impacting the neighbor to the south, the neighbors garage is 10 feet off of the property line. The 12 feet is bigger than a car lane on the road. It doesn't impact them, there's nothing going on back here. There is a fence with trees along the whole side and there's no visibility blockage and no use blockage. There's no water. An engineering site plan was done for grading and for water. Conservation and Soil & Water had no objection to it. Neither did Health & Human Services. Those are the functional reasons why I'm asking for the 12 foot setback. I'm not looking to push it off 1 foot, 2 feet, 5 feet. Again, it's 20 feet that's normally required and I'm asking for 12. That's the reasoning of that. Is there any questions about that? Thank you for your time.
Chairman Stipan asked are there any questions about that?
Peter Wiatr said and it resolves the other issues that we have also.
Chairman Stipan said the only other question is, what about your neighbor next to you? You're encroaching on his property line. Has your neighbor given you permission to do that?
Peter Wiatr said we have not spoken. Over the last several months, we have put up the fence which at that time we kind of thought it was a blessing, for both of us. Actually, not that it matters, I even chose colors to match the neighbors barn. So, they're going to be the exact same color, if that matters. We haven't spoken, to be honest. They are here and I don't know if there's an objection to it. I don't even know what the problem could be. The wind comes from the south so it's not even stopping the wind from going there. If anything, it should be better to keep that separation.
Chairman Stipan said it's better for you but it's not better for the County law. The law says it supposed to be a certain dimension from the property line.
Peter Wiatr said correct.
Chairman Stipan said if you'll take a seat there, I will ask your neighbors to come down.
Sharon Stack introduced herself. I am the neighbor to the south. We are concerned with the 12 foot setback. We are in agreement with Janine, your Staff, and her thoughts on whether or not he needs that setback. The combining of the 2 properties would give him 9.7 something acres. We feel that that's plenty of space to adhere to the rules that are there for that 20 foot setback. There's a lot of room for him to put a barn up. We're happy that he's going to be putting a barn up. We're hoping that the trailers eventually move. They're still there but we're hoping that it happens. We would really like to see the barn up, but again, following the guidelines that are there for the 20 foot setback.
Chairman Stipan said I'm sure you heard him. His thinking is, with the other building in front, he is concerned about coming down that driveway and backing in.
Sharon Stack said I understand there's a fence there. It's a wire fence. It's easily moved. That was an electric fence. That's all it was. It's a thin wire on a couple pieces of wood. It's not something that cannot be easily moved. I think that would give him plenty of room to put his trailer or his camper in there. But again, we really feel strongly about listening to the guidelines and the thoughts of your Staff. A 20 foot setback is more than enough for the 9.7 acres that he has.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you very much. Does anyone else have any questions?
Peter Wiatr said just my final statement. My neighbor also has 9.7 acres, the exact same property that we have. Their garage is at 10 feet. That's the last thing I'll add. This is the 7th time of us being here. I just want to put up the building and be done with it. Thank you guys for your time and consideration. Do you have any other questions of me?
Michael Carruthers said can you move it over and back since you have so many acres?
Peter Wiatr said we could move it back but a lot of that area is the hay that is being cut. The back 60% is all hay. Originally we had thought about putting it on the northern property line where the trailers are, but that's all hay. There was gravel put there. It didn't make sense there. Between the 2 of us, there's over 18 acres. 8 feet, I just don't see that doing anybody harm. Their garage is 10 feet off the line which is less than the 12 I am asking for. Then, I will run the fence all the way to the back.
Sharon Stack said can I make a comment about the 10 feet on the garage? So, just like some of your other cases earlier where they talked about pre-existing. The garage was there when we bought the house 30+ years ago. I can't move my garage. Now, when it's time to re-build my garage, then I will be here and I will be talking to you about whether or not I can keep it on the existing line or whether or not we have to re-build at 20 feet. At this time, the garage was there when we bought the house. I can't change that. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you.
John Kiefner said I brought up the Google Map image and I see the driveway. I see that the driveway does indeed go to the north of the current building. I see that there appears to be about 60 feet between the fence and the north side of the current building. It seem obvious to me that there's a neighbor that doesn't want this built that close. You could easily push that building north. They could make the south end of that building line up with the south end of the other building. Move the east facing door that they now have to the north side. That just means you would have to go to the north side of the current building on the driveway to have a straight shot. Then they could move the north facing building along the long wall onto the south side. It looks to me like you would have 50 feet to the property line to maneuver equipment in and out. I think with the 9 acres I would agree with the neighbor that they have plenty of room to make that building fit.
So, I would be voting against the motion. But I would be voting in favor, if a motion is made, for the 9,000 foot of storage. I would give them their extra storage so they could get the trailers off their per the neighbor's request. But, I would want them to stay with the current zoning.
Barbara Peterson said I would just want the applicant to reply.
Chairman Stipan said we are discussing this amongst ourselves right now.
Barbara Peterson said I didn't know that.
John Kiefner said it would be my belief that if we fail this and pass the other, he will work with Staff and Staff will make sure that they find a place to put it.
Thomas White said agreed.
Chairman Stipan asked Roger, do you care to add anything?
Roger Bettenhausen said no.
Chairman Stipan said ok.
Motion for the Variance for the minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet failed 0-6.
Thomas White made a motion for the Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 9,160 square feet. Roger Bettenhausen seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Chairman Stipan said so you lost the first one and you won the second one. You got approval for your maximum accessory building.
RESULT: DEFEATED [0 TO 6]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
NAYS: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Mitchell
VI. OTHER
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Stipan said I would like to thank all of Staff and everybody that works so hard for us. Merry Christmas to you since we won't see you before the holiday. We appreciate all of your help.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Thomas White made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 PM. Michael Carruthers seconded the motion.
X. THE NEXT PZC MEETING WILL BE DECEMBER 17, 2019
Chairman Stipan asked will our next meeting be January or December?
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3671&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up