Will County Land Use & Development Committee met Feb. 11.
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 10:30 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 | Late | 10:57 AM |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Late | 10:34 AM |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present |
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Jan 14, 2020 10:30 AM Motion passed 5-0. Minutes were approved with no additions or corrections.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Weigel
ABSENT: Traynere, Ventura
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. 8597 : ZC-19-067 Map Amendment From A-1 to I-1
(Janine Farrell) Chairman Marcum said this one was tabled last month so we need a motion to remove it from the table. Steve Balich made the motion. Mark Ferry seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Lisa Napoles said as mentioned at the January 14, 2020 meeting, the Committee voted to table the case to allow Frankfort to do their 1.5 mile review, which they initiated in December because of receiving their application on December 21st of that year.
The Village of Frankfort issued a legal objection to the Map Amendment on January 22nd, which has been forwarded to the Committee in a memo dated February 5, 2020.
Chairman Marcum asked does the Committee have any questions?
Rachel Ventura said we had talked about creating a new zoning case and we did define it as the Agricultural/Industrial blend. Did Staff get a chance to look at any of that?
Brian Radner said that matter was just assigned to the Committee for discussion today, so that discussion hasn't even happened yet to see where the Committee wants to go.
Rachel Ventura said I do feel this is a case that would fit well there and I didn't know if the Applicant's willing to wait. I know that when we discussed it last month there was some discussion of Special Use or other uses for that. I do know that setting precedence is important in this case. I'm nervous to approve this as Industrial when it's surrounded by Agriculture.
Steve Balich said I was going to say pretty much what Rachel just said. I would just like to figure out what kind of zoning we can have. Jim Moustis suggested Commercial Zoning. Rachel suggested Industrial Zoning. I don't know if you want to table this or if you want to keep going with it. I'm thinking if the people involved get in touch with Land Use and they get together and come up with a solution for the new zoning that would be a lot better. If everybody in this room votes yes, it's still probably going to fail at the County Board because they need too many votes. I want to see some kind of resolution that works for everybody. I think what Rachel brought up and Jim followed up with it, it's just a matter if you want to do Commercial or Industrial, or what's included.
Rachel Ventura said mixed use.
Steve Balich said I don't know the procedures for this. Is this something we should say just table it for another month and let the parties get together and discuss it? Or do we proceed to vote on this thing, move it to the Board and then it will fail? Then we'll end up in a lawsuit that we'll probably lose. I don't know the answer. Chairman, tell me what to do!
Chairman Marcum said since people signed up to speak on it, nobody make any motions to table it. I think Staff is prepared to go forward if the Applicant is prepared for it to move forward.
Amanda Koch said I did speak to Janine beforehand and I'm going to have her re- iterate what she said to me. I asked about the Special Use Permit. This exists with the Special Use right now. So, I was asking about how the Special Use Permit moves forward. Does it move forward with a new tenant? Does it move forward with a new owner and how that works? Take it away.
Janine Farrell said just to answer some of your questions and concerns, Staff did meet with the Applicant and we also met with the Village of Frankfort a week or two ago. We talked about the proposed new Zoning District. We talked about potentially the Commercial Zoning District for other types of uses. I can let the Applicants attorney speak for them but there was a consensus that the Applicant wants to move forward with the Industrial Zoning. At this point they do not want to wait the several months that it could potentially take in order to have a Text Amendment go through for a new Zoning District to be created. So, that was the decision that came out of that meeting we just had. In regards to the Special Use, the property was approved for a Special Use Permit for a landscaping business a number of years ago, sorry I don't have that in front of me. The Special Use would still be valid as long as it hasn't been abandoned for a continuous period of 1 year or more. We have spoken with the Applicants about that because Staff has gone out to the site and it didn't seem, from the appearance, that the use was still occurring. So, we would just need to obtain some sort of proof that the use is still ongoing on the property in order to say for sure, definitively, that the Special Use Permit has not been abandoned and is still valid. So, potentially, a new tenant could move onto the property and operate a landscaping business under that Special Use.
Chairman Marcum asked does anyone else have any questions?
Tom Weigel asked what happens to the buildings if we don't approve the Special Use or the Industrial Zoning? The buildings that are there, they can't use them anymore? Do they have to abandon them?
Janine Farrell said the buildings can remain. There are uses allowed in the A-1 Zoning District where those buildings could be utilized. Let's say if someone wanted to operate a wholesale nursery on the property, and I know a nursery was actually operating there as well, the buildings could be used for that nursery business. There's an office inside the structure, maybe some storage going on. It could go for different uses that are already permitted in that Zoning District.
Rachel Ventura said let's say the Board wanted to have a blended option going forward. One being so the Applicant could get a business in there. Then, while that's happening, we could also look at a potential new zoning category. This is not the last case I'm sure that we will see with similar situations. So, I do think it's prudent that we include that route at some point. My question then is what would be the process that you talked about to show it wasn't abandoned? How long is that process if they wanted to start? What would be step 1 so they could make sure that it's happening in a timely manner? Also, what would be the timeline it would take to create a new zoning category so at some point, if they wanted to move over to that zoning, we would know what that would look like?
Janine Farrell said in order to show that the existing Special Use for the landscape hasn't been abandoned, we would basically be asking for who is the new tenant that's on the property? What's the name of their company? We may give them a call. We may need an email or written confirmation that they've been operating, or their lease started on "x" date, just so we know that it has been in constant operation. Sometimes people give us real estate ads as well saying the property has been actively marketed as a landscape business and there's no attempt to abandon that, that they still want the landscape business to continue, they may just be running into some difficulty with the tenant for example. So, paperwork comes to our office and we take a look at it and review it and get back to them. It's a very quick administrative type internal process. For the new Zoning District, that would require being assigned to Staff, so we'd have to do some research, get feedback from the Committee, perhaps see what other counties are doing or municipalities to look for what might fit what we are looking to achieve here. Then there would potentially be some back and forth regarding the language for that. Then, we would actually have the public hearing on the proposed language. So, everyone would get together and say this is the one that we want to move forward with, then we would have the public hearing at the Planning & Zoning Committee, Land Use & Development Committee, and then final approval at the full County Board. So, that would be a several month process to go through that.
Rachel Ventura said with the first one, once they were able to show you that they had advertised this property as such, are we talking about less than a month then? Do they have to do anything else?
Janine Farrell said no, it would just be receiving some information. We would look into it and verify it. It would probably take about a week.
Rachel Ventura said that might be the best for this case. At least it would be the fastest.
Janine Farrell said that would be up to the applicant to decide how they want to proceed.
Chairman Marcum asked any other questions?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said we did have 2 people sign up. First up we have Michelle Tracy.
Cass Wennlund said we're together.
Chairman Marcum said that's ok, come on down.
Cass Wennlund introduced himself to the Committee. I am here on behalf of the applicant, Michelle Tracy, who I have here with me. To answer a couple of questions about the landscaping and Special Use, there has been, for a portion of the property, continuous processing of the top soil or black dirt. We don't believe that there is abandonment. There is an 18,000 square foot building there. Our commercial realtor, Mark Koenig, tried to market that to landscaping companies for the last couple years without avail. As far as timelines, and there was some question about timelines, we filed the application here on September 19th. I notified Frankfort by email on September 24th and Zach Brown from Frankfort acknowledged that on September 27th. As you know, and we have said here before, we had unanimous support of Green Garden, with no neighbors objecting. After September, I was here before this Committee and the full County Board for a property which is just across the high tension lines from this property. That property was Zoned I-1 in September, 2016 with no objection from Frankfort and was unanimously approved by this County Board. I was here in November, as I said, for a Special Use Permit with United Rentals, the world's largest equipment rental company and is publicly traded, and no objection from Frankfort, not a single neighbor opposed, and full support again from Green Garden. So, we're further away now from Frankfort, over a mile and a quarter. That request, as I said, received unanimous approval in November. In December, Frankfort passes their new Comprehensive Plan. Remember, we filed in September. Now, we have a legal objection to this saying you shouldn't have I-1 there. This is an existing 18,000 square foot building. Michelle's not United Rentals. She's a wife, a family member who built a business here for 20 years. They developed this. This is their savings. Her husband fell ill to a horrible illness, and he's here today thankfully. A lot of families have to deal with this. They looked for extra income. They can process dirt, but they have a building sitting vacant. They have tried to market this to the landscaping business. Again, we have no objectors. I know you were provided materials beyond this map. The southern border of Frankfort, along Laraway Road, and all along Route 45, if you look out the Village Hall you see its I- 1 and I-2 uses. This is their life. They spent their life building that business. The Village of Frankfort didn't object to the billion dollar company. They are simply trying to get some money out of this. As far as the other category, we've looked at C-2 uses. Our commercial realtor would be happy to answer some questions about this. We've had 2 very interested users, a wetlands restoration and maintenance company and a vehicle upgrading company where they put buckets on trucks and such. That's I-1, it's not C-2 or anything like that. That is again, is a whole other process. This process doesn't need to be tabled or changed in order to do that. We would have to file a separate application and we would have to re- publish. This doesn't need to be tabled. This just needs to be approved. These people have nowhere to go. Again, this is not United Rentals. This is not the real estate investment trust that I was here for in November. This is a family from Green Garden who gets along with their neighbors and has Harvest Festivals for them. We have full support of Green Garden Planning Commission and Green Garden Township Board. We sit over a mile and a quarter from Frankfort’s nearest boundary. They are right across the high wires from the same zoning. You have the power to either help them or hurt them. I'm just asking to help them.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. Does anybody else want to speak on this case?
No response.
Steve Balich said I like the clarification that he gave. Everything was okay when he filed. I said that at the last meeting. We got a different statement made that Frankfort was against it all along. I don't know which is A or B. When they went for this thing that was in September and that's before December. That's to me like the biggest thing going. They applied for something and it's okay with everybody and then a couple months later after they already paid the money and they're already going through this. That's where I have a problem. Now I'm hearing what Janine said about the real estate for sale. They're saying it's been for sale for years. Maybe that's the issue. Maybe they should just show that it's been for sale for years and it all goes away. I don't really know. This is a troubling deal for me.
Amanda Koch said I do agree that the Frankfort Comprehensive Plan changing is problematic. I will say that I looked at it the first time in early Spring last year so it's not like they were hiding this Comprehensive Plan and they had to make an unveiling. It was online and I looked at it a couple times. They originally had this as an industrial corridor and then they changed to wanting it to be an agricultural corridor. I'm not in favor of changing something to industrial in the middle of agricultural because, even though the current owners have the best intentions, we don't know what the next owner's going to do with it. So, I'm not a big fan of that. I do feel since you've been actively marketing it, this should still be an active Special Use Permit. There's still lots of things like Janine talked about that you can do on the property. My big concern was the building was going to need to be torn down or this would be totally worthless property. She was able to ease some of my concerns about that. So, that's just coming from a person that lives not too far from there, this is my District. I would like to try to work with the Village of Frankfort for their vision for this corridor versus saying well you changed your mind, you're not allowed to do that. But, I also want to help the resident. I know you can still use the Special Use so that's important to me. If that was different, this would be a different conversation for me. Perhaps if you were able to sell it or rent it, and we do come up with another category that might fit better, that might be something to pursue in the future. I'm being clear with you and letting you know that I don't like industrial in the middle of agricultural. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked anybody else?
Cass Wennlund said I would just like to respond to that briefly. Basically, it's just a clarification as far as the Village of Frankfort's Comprehensive Plan. I have my email to Zach and his response, Zach Brown with the Village of Frankfort, in September. The prior Comprehensive Plan they had didn't support industrial either. He says that in his email. Nonetheless, they didn't object to the I-1 across the power lines which is closer to them. They did not object to an I-1 closer to them. If Mr. Koenig, an experienced commercial realtor, could have rented this to a landscape company he would have done that a year ago. That's a very limited market especially for a building. Look at the size of this. It's 18,000 square feet of overhead. There's not too many landscaping companies that size. Maybe Allied, and they've got the building.
Rachel Ventura said when it comes to other levels of government like Frankfort and what they should or should not have done, we can't control that unfortunately. They should have maybe put in an objection for that other one, but they didn't. I don't know why. Yes, you're right, they should have objected early on. Perhaps they were waiting on their plan to be finalized before giving legal objection, I'm not sure. But, we can't comment on that. Our Board has to be responsible for moving forward and make sure that we're not setting bad precedence. I think that's the point that we're trying to make here. We want to help the homeowner here. We want to find a way forward whether it's creating a new zoning category so you can get more businesses in here or approving a Special Use so she can immediately find some kind of financial solution there. We're not trying to block her. We have to think of all the other residents too. This area of Will County is continuing to have a warehouse issue. By this Board just continuing to approve I-1 Zoning as is in agricultural areas, we further that problem. The next applicant who comes here is going to say well there's an I-1 here and an I-1 there, why can't I have my I-1? At some point we have to say we need to be responsible in our planning too. Every month, the Staff can tell you, I have asked for a new Comprehensive Zoning Plan, a new Comprehensive Plan for Will County. I've been told it's going to cost $1,000,000 and take some time to do so, and we don't have that in our budget right now. I'm pushing forward for it to be in our budget for the future so we don't have these ongoing problems of where can we have warehouses at, where can we have agriculture, and where can we have homes at? In the meantime, we can't approve things in a vacuum. We do have to look at the long term effects of what our decisions are. We are trying hard to work with the applicant in moving forward with either a different category or a Special Use so that she can find financial help. We also want to make sure that everybody else in this area has their livelihood upheld too. Allowing industrial all over the County and allowing warehouses to be built everywhere is not the way to go. I'm not saying that's what she's doing, but it could create a dangerous precedence. We do have to take that into account here on this Board. I will be a no today.
Cass Wennlund said I understand your position. I just wanted to make it clear in order for a new zoning category to be created and even if one were, we would have to apply and start from scratch. So, tabling this doesn't do any good towards that.
Rachel Ventura said I understand that.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 2-4. Traynere was absent for the vote.
Chairman Marcum said that motion does not carry.
RESULT: FAILED [2 TO 4] TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member AYES: Balich, Weigel
NAYS: Marcum, Ferry, Koch, Ventura
ABSENT: Traynere
2. 8725 : ZC-19-080 Special Use Permit For An On-Premise Dynamic Display In Agricultural And Residential Zoning Districts (Lisa Napoles) Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-080, which takes place in Washington Township.
In 2000, the County Board approved Special Use Permit 4798-SV for the religious assembly use accompanied by a Variance for minimum street yard setback which brought the existing church building and use into compliance.
The applicants seek to modify an existing illuminated sign by adding a new illuminated identification header and a dynamic display at the center of the sign. The applicants have applied for the Building Permit to make these alterations.
The Ordinance prohibits dynamic displays within a 300 foot radius of a residential structure as measured from the center point of the dynamic display sign face. A Variance is required if a dynamic display sign encroaches into this 300 foot radius.
According to GIS Maps, residents at 28011 Yates Avenue, north of the subject parcel on the opposite side of the street, falls within this radius. The residences immediately north and south of this subject parcel are both set back behind the sign base, therefore, they fall outside of the radius.
The subject parcel has had a monument sign on the property since at least 2000, the year when they received a Special Use Permit to operate as a religious assembly based on photographs taken for that application as well as historic aerials.
The proposed modifications to the existing sign conform to requirements for quantity, type, and dimensions. In addition the sign must comply with regulations found in Section 155-13.70 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to insure the sign is not a nuisance to residential neighbors or passing motorists.
The proposed dynamic display will replace an illuminated cabinet sign that existed on the property. It is Staff's professional opinion that the addition of a dynamic display, which conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, will not have substantially adverse effects on the locality.
Staff finds that the applicant represents a non-residential, non-agricultural use surrounded by residential and agricultural uses in a characteristically rural area of the County. The very nature of a religious assembly building is that they are located within or near the residential uses that they serve. Therefore, that creates the hardship.
At the January 7, 2020 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit and the Variance and they were both approved 7-0.
Staff has received an email dated January 24, 2020 from Washington Township saying that the Supervisor and the Board of Trustees have no objection.
I can take your questions.
Chairman Marcum asked does anyone have any questions?
No response.
Motion carried 7-0.
Someone said the applicant would like to speak.
Chairman Marcum said ok, I'm sorry.
Harold Karstensen came to the podium. He said my wife passed away a little over a year ago. I wanted to update that sign that we have there and put in a new digital display. I thought that would be a good thing because it's so much easier to change and put different things on there during the week or anytime. It seems like everything is going fine but it seemed like quite an exorbitant fee of $250.00. We're not there to make money. We're a non-profit organization who's there to save souls and that's our main objective. So, I'd like to ask the Board if they could consider waving that exorbitant fee or maybe part of it or something.
Chairman Marcum asked do we have a process for that?
Janine Farrell said the Zoning Case would have to finish playing out. Then, the applicant could request for a refund of fees. Someone in our office could work with him through that process. It will be the discretion of the Board should they wish to refund the fees.
Chairman Marcum asked do you know if we've ever done that before?
I know that the most recent one that has come before you was the Crete Fire Protection District, which was also for a dynamic display and that request was denied. That's the most recent one that I'm aware of.
Rachel Ventura asked have we ever approved this in the past?
Brian Radner said very limited. I can't think of a specific example off hand.
Jacqueline Traynere said and that was another government body and we said no.
Chairman Marcum said you can apply after the Special Use process. It will come back to this Committee and then to the full County Board for your refund fees.
Harold Karstensen asked is there some information that you can send to us? How do we go about doing this?
Chairman Marcum said Staff will make sure that you get all the information that you need.
Harold Karstensen said I thank the Board for re-considering. Thank you.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
3. 20-1 : APCD-19-002 Appeal Of PZC Denial For Variance For Minimum Side Yard Setback From 50 Feet to 20 Feet and Variance For Minimum Rear Yard Setback From 50 Feet to 30 Feet (Janine Farrell)
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # APCD-19-002, which is in relation to Zoning Case # ZC-19-068. This takes place in Green Garden Township.
That Zoning Case was heard back on November 19, 2019 at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
The applicant was requesting 2 Variances, a minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 20 feet over on the west side of the property, then a Variance for minimum rear yard setback from 50 feet to 30 feet.
Staff had recommended denial of both of the Variance requests. There were no objectors present at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
There was actually a split vote count at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. There were 2 Commissioners who voted to approve the Variances, 3 Commissioners voted to deny, and 1 Commissioner abstained.
The applicant is now appealing that decision of the Plan Commission denial of those 2 Variance requests.
I can answer any questions that you may have.
Chairman Marcum asked questions?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said we did have 2 people sign up to speak on this. Richard Kavanagh, do you want to come on down?
Richard Kavanagh introduced himself to the Commission. I'm here because my partner, Tom Osterberger who is representing Mr. Denton, is on vacation and in fact, out of the country. So, obviously, he cannot be here. I have some handouts that I would like to present to the members of the Land Use & Development Committee. I'll be asking you folks if you would, to follow along with me as we go through this. I have one for Staff too. This is a split-zoned parcel. As you look at this drawing that gives the elevations, the south end including all the way out to where the parcel moves off to the west is Zoned A-2. The north portion of the parcel is Zoned A-1. Mr. and Mrs. Denton bought this property back in 2016 with the idea of building their retirement home. In 2018, they had this particular elevation prepared by MG2A, which is an engineering firm out of Manhattan. It showed a location for the house in the upper left hand corner. It showed a possible barn further to the north and left. That's where the 2, 770's are. It showed a location for a barn a little bit south and east of the house where you see 760. The 760 would be the floor elevation of the barn. The barn land elevation is actually 756.4. You can see at the lower right hand corner 754, which is a low spot on the property. This is property that drains substantially from north to south. The first picture that you see here is a picture taken from the street on Sunday of the house. You can barely see it. That's how far back it is from the property. What I did when I took this picture, I didn't move any closer but I expanded the profile on my phone so you could see the house. What's important when you look at this picture is you can see the way the land slopes from left to right. Actually, the high point on this land is about 772 feet above sea level. The low point is in the low 750s. At the back there is the A-1 parcel. Keep in mind we couldn't put a barn on the A-2 parcel because the building is on the A-1. The 3rd picture that you see here is a picture of the 100 year flood plain. You can see that it barely touches the Denton’s property, but you can see how water flows south and east. You can also see a line here from the farm north where it flows down that way. In fact, the southern portion of the property is actually in the 100 year floodplain. We have a parcel which is basically split-zoned. A-1 and A-2. You can't build on the A-2. Well, you could build a house and then build a barn, but you wouldn't be building on the high point. Obviously, you want your house to be on the high point. If you look at the portion of the A-1 that's to the east, that is basically everything east of the house, that land is low. In the Spring and Summer, water stands there. In addition to that, it has a high water table. Mr. Denton first looked at the spot, which on the map is noted as 760. He looked at that spot for putting the barn. He took soil samples and he had 3 feet of good, black soil there before you go to anything where you could put a foundation. 3 feet of black soil. In addition to that, the water table is quite high there. So, it's not a good place to put a barn. You'll notice on this particular drawing here, you'll see an area that says septic field. They actually couldn't build the septic field there. The Health Department told them you have to move it so he couldn't build the septic field there because of the water table. So, you have to move it to the north and west about 80 feet. So, where can he build a barn? Well, you don't want the barn sitting in front of the house because basically it stops all good views of the house. The place to build the barn is to the left and above the house. The same elevation, around 770 feet. The 2 neighbors who are most affected are the Prunsky's to the west and Steffes to the north. Letters were sent out to every adjacent land owner. Mr. Steffes responded, I think from Las Vegas. He was in Las Vegas but he responded to say no objection. The Prunsky's said no objection to the location of the barn where he has proposed to do it with a 20 foot setback on the side yard and a 30 foot setback from the back. I want to take a few more minutes, just very, very quickly and go through the Staff report. Is this a self- imposed hardship? I submit that this is as a result of the shape of the parcel, the split zoning, and the change in elevation of the parcel which is again roughly 20-22 feet. 20 feet from top to bottom. You don't want to build your house anywhere where water is going to seep in. The house is built at the top of the site. Then, where do you put the barn? The barn is close to the house but the neighbor to the north has no objection. The neighbor to the west has no objection, nor do any of the other neighbors. The application was sent to Green Garden Township and they never even asked for a meeting. So, we've heard nothing from Green Garden Township. There were no objectors from the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. In my mind, it's the shape and topography as well as the split zoning which creates the hardship. As I said, there is standing water for a portion of the Spring and a high water table to the east. You can't build to the south. The purpose is to not make more money, the purpose is to put a barn in that won't have problems once you start using it because of the high water table. Finally, Staff had the opinion that this could diminish property values. The 2 people that are closest to and who's property abut and request a Variance from, both say they have no objections to the 2 Variances. We're asking you to overturn the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommend to the full Board. We need 20 votes to pass it.
Amanda Koch said I'm wondering if maybe Staff could tell me but I'm not really sure why this failed at Planning & Zoning. The adjacent property owners are okay with it.
Richard Kavanagh said I don't think they had the letter of approval. Mr. Denton didn't have an attorney at the Plan Commission, he was here by himself.
Amanda Koch said I'm just wondering what happened. I'm fascinated by their decision, given this. Maybe Staff could illuminate me.
Janine Farrell said at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, like he mentioned, there were no objectors present. When the report was prepared, Staff was unaware of the high water table and some issues like that. Those issues were brought up at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. I think the Commissioners were just a little confused and they didn't understand what was actually going on and the conditions of the property. So, that's where the vote count came from.
Rachel Ventura asked why is that currently against it still?
Janine Farrell said we do not change our opinions. We prepare our report and we move it forward to the Planning & Zoning Commission and then the Commission makes the decision. That's really where it ends.
Amanda Koch asked so this is really where we can change that decision?
Janine Farrell said correct.
Rachel Ventura said so even if Staff did change their opinion you can't legally in writing tell us it's changed.
Janine Farrell said correct.
The memo that I prepared for you as part of the appeal is really just informational. It's telling you this is what happened, the vote counts, and this is what's occurred. Then the appeal, the decision is up to the Committee and the County Board.
Rachel Ventura asked as a Board, are we able to solicit a new opinion with new evidence? Or, is that not something we can do?
Janine Farrell said I don't think so.
Amanda Koch said thank you for that. This one's in my District, they're all in my District. I would support this Variance change or whatever, I would like to overturn the decision from the Planning & Zoning Commission. It makes sense here so thank you for coming in and explaining the whole story. It was very clear. I just wanted to speak on that since it's my District.
Jacqueline Traynere said my question actually had to do with the barn part. There's already a barn here.
Richard Kavanagh said that's on the adjacent property. That barn is actually 450 feet away from his north property line.
Jacqueline Traynere said it looks so close. Wow! When you look at this pole barn in the picture, it looks like this pole barn is right behind it and in between are some trees.
Rachel Ventura asked is this it, the 770 in the corner? That's what I thought those white buildings were.
Richard Kavanagh said there's no barn there now.
Jacqueline Traynere said that's where they're proposing.
Richard Kavanagh said the building's up here, way north.
Jacqueline Traynere said look at this one, you see the little boxes.
Richard Kavanagh said that's the proposed barn.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay, that's the proposed barn.
Rachel Ventura said the 760 is the proposed barn, down here.
Richard Kavanagh said no, he looked at 2 possible places for a barn.
Jacqueline Traynere said that had the mushy black soil. That's a bad idea.
Will County, Illinois Posted: 3/16/2020 Page 14
Minutes Will County Land Use & Development Committee February 11, 2020
Richard Kavanagh said right. He excavated there and found he had 3 feet of good black soil with a high water table. Then he went to this second alternative, which is the one to the northwest.
Jacqueline Traynere said so this spot here is where the barn will go and the house is back here somewhere.
Richard Kavanagh said correct.
Jacqueline Traynere said oh, I understand the drawing much better now. I'm in favor.
Chairman Marcum asked any other questions? Do we need 2 different votes or just the 1?
Richard Kavanagh said I would suggest 2, because you're voting on 2 different Variances.
4. Appeal Of Planning & Zoning Commission Decision For Minimum Side Yard
Setback From 50 Feet to 20 Feet Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
Motion carried 7-0.
5. Appeal Of Planning & Zoning Commission Decision For Variance For Minimum
Rear Yard Setback From 50 Feet To 30 Feet
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
Motion carried 7-0.
6. 8792 : APCD-20-001 Appeal of PZC Decision For Variance For Maximum Number Of Animal Units Allowed In The A-2 Zoning District From 6 To 18 (Janine Farrell) Janine Farrell said I had sent out late yesterday and put a copy for each of you on the table there in front of you.
The applicant has retained an attorney. That attorney sent me an email yesterday requesting that this matter be tabled until the April Land Use & Development Committee meeting.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 4/14/2020 10:30 AM
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Member
SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member
AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Request for Refund of Fees for Chris Hovis, Zoning Case #ZC-19-079 for Pin #16- 05-06-200-022-0000, Commonly Known as 16339 135th St., Lemont, IL, County Board District #7 (Janine Farrell) Janine Farrell said this is a request in relation to Zoning Case # ZC-19-079, that actually did not go to public hearing.
The background story on this case is that they needed a Variance for their property to bring it into compliance. They applied for it and was going through the process. Staff was doing research to prepare the Staff Report, which is part of the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. We contacted the Mapping & Platting division with the Supervisor of Assessments just to get the history of the parcel and how it came to be.
It was at that time that Mapping & Platting Staff realized they had sent us the wrong information. So, the applicant did not need the Variance. Their parcel is what we call legal, non-conforming or "grandfathered in".
The Variances were not required.
Unfortunately the information for the public hearing, including the newspaper publication, had already been done.
We do not have the authority to administratively just refund those fees. That is why this request for refund of fees is before you today.
Rachel Ventura asked what was the cost of that publication?
Janine Farrell said Land Use Staff has paid for that publication. The application fees.
Rachel Ventura said I know it's $550, but what was our cost to do that? You're saying that something had already been done.
Janine Farrell said it usually costs about $150 to $200 for that newspaper publication fee.
Rachel Ventura asked are we able to refund some of the fees or is it all or nothing? What's our capabilities here?
Janine Farrell said we already paid for that publication.
Rachel Ventura said no, I know. What I'm trying to figure out is if he wants $550 back and we paid $100, maybe we give him $450 back. I'm just asking is that possible? What are our options here? Is it all or nothing?
Janine Farrell said I think it's all or.
Brian Radner said you have the ability to reduce the amount if you think it's appropriate. I mean it was a County error.
Chairman Marcum said it's our fault so we should just eat this.
Jacqueline Traynere said I think we should give the whole amount back, honestly.
Steve Balich said I agree with Jackie.
Rachel Ventura said just to be fair, I do not disagree with you guys, but it sounds like it was also their error too. They sent us something wrong. Or, was it all our fault?
Janine Farrell said it was all the County's fault. We had just advised the applicant with the information we received. Then we received information that it was incorrect information.
Rachel Ventura said alright, I got it. I was understanding that they sent it first.
Janine Farrell said no.
Motion carried 6-0.
Jacqueline Traynere said look at us giving a refund, write this day down in history.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
ABSENT: Ferry
2. Will County Building Code Update
(Owen Needham) Brian Radner said first I just wanted to go over a high level of the Building Code update.
The last time the County updated it's Building Codes was in 2014. At that time, they adopted the 2012 International Codes by reference.
We did make some modifications to the Will County Building Ordinance in 2018 dealing with expired permits and also not requiring permits for certain types of activities.
This endeavor that we're looking to take now is to adopt the 2018 Codes. This is a bigger process, it's not a minor Ordinance revision.
The reason why it's important to update your Building Code is that the County is given a rating by the Insurance Services Office. They do something called a Building Code Effectiveness Rating Schedule. They come out to the County and they evaluate how much training your staff has, how much certifications do they have, and what version of the building code are you using? Then they use that information to determine how effective the Building Code is and the enforcement of that Code in the jurisdiction. That information gets shared with insurance companies and it often helps to determine what premiums people pay for insurance.
At this point, the agency that does that rating is looking to evaluate the County again and assign a new rating for how we enforce our Codes and what Codes we're on. So, it would be in our best interest to get that Code updated now so we have a better rating that could impact the rates of insurance for the citizens.
Rachel Ventura asked when do they do that?
Brian Radner said they do it periodically.
Owen Needham said every 5 or 6 years.
Rachel Ventura said I mean like a month from now or 2 months from now?
Brian Radner said they will wait until this process is finished, but they are wanting to update Will County's. The time is right, other communities in Will County have already gone to the 2018 Codes. Yes, there's still some that haven't but the majority of the communities are moving toward the 2018. Then, it won't be too long before the next cycle of Codes comes out beyond that.
In this process, we'll be looking at a couple different things. The main thing is the 2018 set of Codes, but there's also a few other changes that we'd like to take a look at. Owen is our Chief Building Official and Residential Plans Examiner. He has jotted down, over some time here, some issues that we should take a look at to help make the process a little easier for people applying for Permits. Also, we want to take a look at some of the fees associated with the Building Permits. Then also the Contractor's Registration Ordinance, which currently is adopted by reference. We'd like to look at actually having that made as part of the Building Code and have its own section in American Legal. Currently, as I mentioned, it's adopted by reference and it's a stand-alone document.
Those are some of the things that we want to look at. Next month we were thinking about coming to the Committee with the schedule of where we want to be and how long it's going to take. Also, between now and then, if something is on the top of your mind, start thinking about things we can take a look at that maybe you have identified or your constituents have identified as problematic areas. We'd like to take a look at those and see what the Committee thinks about whether they think the change is appropriate or not. We will also be involving other agencies, the construction trades, building associations in this process. If there's any other group that you can think of that should participate or be noticed of our proposed Code change, we'd like to hear from you as well on who those groups are.
Owen did you want to add anything?
Owen Needham said I sent out an email to some builders to see if there's any issues or problems they are having and if they can identify any changes that we can make to make things easier on them. We'll see if they respond to that.
Steve Balich said going back to 2012, I was on that Committee. I was young and dumb and didn't know how to move the stuff forward. Back then, I was working with the unions. I had people from the City of Chicago, Lockport, and Homer Glen. I went to all these places to find out how they do it. Everybody did something different. Chicago was the most lenient. In general, we should be looking at repair and maintenance items on property. I can tell you that when somebody knows they're going to have to go get a Permit, they don't realize in unincorporated Will County, you're going to go there and inspect the Permit, that's it. They think that they're going to look at their whole house. People that don't have enough money to fix everything that's wrong with their house. So, they don't want to get a Permit, then they go and do something and there's all kinds of problems. Repair and maintenance items should not be included. Those types of things should be exempt. We did 2 of them and then it stopped. The reality is if a piece of siding gets wrecked in a storm, why the hell can't you just fix it? One piece of siding. We made it so you could fix a square on a roof without a Permit. Nobody ever gets a Permit, you guys even said that. To replace a door, it's just a bunch of hinges coming off. We should be exempting that stuff. Even a toilet, when you replace the toilet that's ok but a chain in the toilet is a movable part so you need a Permit, right? This is the kind of stuff we have to get away from. Get it off the books. We should just have all repair and maintenance items be exempt. I'm saying minor repair and maintenance. I'm not talking about repairing an entire house, we're talking about a repair. I want to make sure that's in there because this time I'll be pushing real hard for that. I hope I'm on that Committee. I think we're going to have a Committee. I've already done a lot of research on that. I still have all the paperwork unless something changed, which I don't know. I also know from when I worked with the State that we don't even have to have this. We don't need to have any rules. I'm not saying to do that, but we already know we don't need it. Our former Chair, Mr. Paddock, me and him would go at it. We really didn't get along too good. He would tell me something and he wasn't telling me the truth. I would find out the truth when I would call the State and talk to the lawyers down there. I know I have a lot of knowledge about this stuff. I want to make sure that we go the right direction and we don't have to have arguments at this Board going forward on that stuff. Please put me on that Committee.
Rachel Ventura said Steve, I don't disagree with you on some of those things. I think Staff has told you that we're complaint based, so if nobody's complaining about the toilet chain, nobody's going to get fined about the chains. Its State Law, State Statute. It sounds like maybe that's something to bring up with Legislation because we have to adhere to State Law. I wanted to address you guys about 2 things. On the Modern Housing Solutions Committee, we have had some of the realtors and builders come in and talk about the reasons that it's maybe not profitable housing and we need to move forward with that. Part of that is creating a process or plan for the County to move forward that makes sense for an incentive to build houses this year. We did ask the other part of Land Use Staff to help us look through our Building Codes and update that. Right now I feel the right hand is doing this and the left hand is doing that. I'd like us to work together on that. I wish Martha was still here so we could maybe address it but perhaps we could get a meeting together so we could go through some of those things. In the next few months, she's going to be reporting to the Housing Committee what those changes might be. So, it sounds like that would be very wise for you guys to attend. The other side of that too, when we talk about the housing and building changes, is I would like to push us more towards creating homes that are more energy efficient, which might be changing things like our ratings. I'm not sure what the 2018 Building Codes are, maybe they're already in there. I know Germany has what's called the passive house. They look at how to create their building standards so that it is to maximum energy efficiency as they move into more renewable energies themselves. So, there might be some things from that but if we're taking from the state or some other guidelines and have the ability to implement some of those things, I think it's at least worthwhile to look at them. It would end up saving taxpayers a lot of money. If homes are more energy efficient, they're going to pay less money for their energy and heating bills. I think that's important too for taxpayers. Although maybe an R-50 insulation is a little more expensive in the building cost, in the long run, the 30, 40, 50 years you live in the home, the savings is going to be astronomical. I think it is worthwhile at looking at some of those things. Maybe pairing it with what Martha's doing already and some of the research she's doing would really be worthwhile so that we're not both spinning wheels and going in different directions.
David Dubois said I appreciate the input. In a typical process, whether it's a planning process or a Code update like the zoning did in 2012, we coordinate internally within divisions. The Staff internally is allowed to provide input to coordinate and review documents. So, that is something that we do take into account as far as coordination.
Rachel Ventura said that's fantastic to hear.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said since my District is largely unincorporated, I would like to see us become more friendly to the land owner. I find that the process is very negative. Another part of the process is, let's say I want to fill up my coffee cup. I just know that I have to get a cup. I fill up my cup and I find out I have to put some sugar in it, then I find out I have to put some cream in it. Then I have to taste it to make sure it's not too hot. There's too many steps. The land owner comes forward and they think of this process and then they get to the next step. Kankakee County has a different process where they kind of give everybody all the information up front. I'd like to see us do that. I'd also like to see us make things so they're not as restrictive. We're very restrictive and I've come aware of some situations. One is a commercial kitchen in Channahon. They lady wanted to do it in the unincorporated area but she ended up doing it in the Village of Channahon because we had too many restrictions there. I want to keep that person in the unincorporated area creating a commercial food kitchen because it makes sense because we're going to be getting the development costs and the taxes. We would be getting that rather than giving it to Channahon. I think we should really look at the processes that anyone goes through while they're doing all these things. So, when you sit in a room, it's look really great and sounds really great. When you actually apply it sometimes, it's different. You have to look at yeah, it makes sense this and that. But when you're actually doing the application of it, I think we need to look at how it actually impacts our residents. Not to give people a free ride, but to make sure that our Zoning Ordinances or Building Codes are customer friendly. We can have a customer friendly relationship with the people to work with them. You saw it in the one case today where Land Use made a decision, well maybe there should be a process like that. Maybe we need to look at should certain types of organizations, such as Crete Fire District, it's a taxing body and they get all of their money from taxes. We're getting the money from them for this. We need to look and see that maybe that would be a situation where we're not charging fees or maybe we charge 50% of the fee. Those are kinds of things that we look at. Being on the Board, this is my 7th year now, Land Use is a big complicated thing. The things that these guys do are not simple and they're varied. They're varied in many different aspects. Land Use is a very large department because of the complexity of it. I would hope that you guys look towards doing something like that. Thank you.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I'd also like to add that, from the prospective of a resident and a taxpayer, the feedback that I get. One of the biggest concerns that I have, I don't know where to address this but, we have the home improvement designation. Everyone when you get to that period of time where you have to replace your toilet or redo your bathroom, all of a sudden it's not maintenance, it's home improvement. From the residents I've been told that as soon as they discover how that impacts the value of their home and the taxes, many of them just can't afford it so they rip it all out and put the basic in. They give up that dream of having a few more perks in their bathroom. From a contractor's perspective, I've had contractors tell me that they're losing business because people are saying I can't afford this so I'm just going to replace my toilet, replace my sink, and that's it. There are also contractors that come out now and they tell people that your project may have this impact. Then they go forward and they say well, I'd really like to have a nice bathroom but, because I can't afford it, I'm just going to have to pass. I feel that we need to re-evaluate that. I don't understand why an upgrade would penalize our homeowners and our residents. I would like to see if we could take a look at that and find out is it necessary for the fees that we're charging? Is it really necessary to penalize our homeowners and kind of take a look at it? A lot of our people, the values on their homes aren't necessarily rising. I think our responsibility is to actually be good stewards to our taxpayers. So, that's something that I wanted to add. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked anybody else?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said next month it will come back and we'll get a schedule.
Rachel Ventura asked will it be a listing of Codes or will you talk through them?
Brian Radner said there is a list of Codes, I can think of a few off the top of my head, but Owen knows them all. There are also Codes that are adopted by reference. For example, the State Energy Code and the Illinois Plumbing Code that the County follows. They're not a specific year but we're required to follow them.
Rachel Ventura asked you'll highlight the ones that are worth highlighting?
Brian Radner said absolutely, all of the ones that you will have before you for consideration.
Chairman Marcum said thank you.
3. Review Industrial Zoning Classifications
(Tyler Marcum) David Dubois said it's my understanding that there was a discussion about adding another Zoning District, light intensity, to the Zoning Ordinance.
It's going to be the Committee's direction that we will take.
I did have Brian real quick look up the past 3 or 4 years in the I-1 Zoning, light industrial, to find out how many requests we have had. This past year, we had more than usual, we had 7. Years prior we had 3 and maybe 1. Of all the different requests that we've had, it's not that great. Then we look at that and say how many of those have we had issues with, as far as whether or not that District is appropriate? Most recently is the one that occurred today. There was one most recently in Plainfield where the gentleman requested Industrial Zoning there. Historically, over the past few years, there hasn't been a substantial number of issues that have come out of the Industrial Zoning.
Something the Committee should probably consider when thinking whether they want to move forward on this is, is there an issue or problem that needs to be addressed with this? Also too, from our perspective, when you add another Zoning District, is it really something that's going to resolve the issue that's perceived to be there? When we look at a Zoning request or a Map Amendment, we look at the criteria within the Zoning Ordinance. If there is going to be occurring a spot zoning, that analysis is probably going to very similar whether it's I-1, I-2, or I-3, or a 4th Industrial Zoning District. The analysis is probably going to be very similar. If an area is predominantly Agricultural, it's not necessarily more appropriate to introduce a lesser intense zoning industrial classification there than it would be to introduce an I-1, for example. Will County has 3 Industrial classifications. A lot of the other collar counties only have 2. It's either light industrial or intense industrial.
These are just some thoughts that I'm having. I guess from our perspective, historically what we've seen, with introduction of the light Industrial Zoning District, there haven't been a lot of big issues except for 2 within the past year. The other question will be is, is adding another Zoning District going to solve what the issue is perceived to be? Again, in our view, that analysis is going to be very similar. I don't want to use the case that was today because it's still in process, but again, if you have an area that is predominantly agricultural, an area where I-1 may not be appropriate, introducing a Zoning District may have the similar type of analysis.
Amanda Koch said I actually talked to Mr. Moustis about this because he's been here a long time. I asked how this was handled in the past because we've noticed kind of a trend where this is increasing. He talked about Saunoris Brothers. I don't know if I just did a pre-application meeting or whatever. That used to be C-4 or C-5 or something like that. Though just a brief conversation with him, believe it or not, I wonder if Commercial Zoning might actually be the best route to go. We talk about these landscape businesses. Perhaps there was a time when that really wasn't needed. I'm wondering if we could actually go back to what we had. Saunoris Brothers was put up in the 70's, so we're talking like 50 years ago. That would preclude a business from selling, then raising the buildings and turning it into a warehouse. You really couldn't do that in Commercial Zoning. I think that the idea that it's like a neighborhood business and it's not a huge warehouse, it kind of fits the character and spirit of what we're trying to get towards as a Committee versus Industrial. I would urge the Committee if we could take a look at maybe adding in a different Commercial Zoning. That, as mentioned, could have a little bit of industrial flavor to it. You're allowing bigger, boxier buildings to accommodate a landscaping business or larger equipment. They would not be able to be a land-slide into huge industrial buildings and things that ruin the character of the County. That's my 2 cents. I'm speaking for Jim today so I feel like I should go on a little bit more. I'm really sad he's not here, I really am. We talked about it and I felt he had some really good knowledge. Hopefully he'll come next month.
Steve Balich said what you just said Amanda, sounds good. I was going to suggest that, but I like what you said better. The other thing that you can do too is the uses that are allowed in each of these classifications, we can add or take away from them easier than doing a text amendment. If we added something in and when we add something in we can also say this means only this, no warehouse. That might be an even easier way to keep the same zoning but say we're also including this with no changes, exactly this. Do you know what I mean? We can do a lot of things but we're all on the same page I think.
David Dubois said I know it wouldn't be an immediate impact. I had discussed this with Nick this week as we plan for the next fiscal year because the budget process starts in April and we actually start thinking about it in March. The magnitude of what we're talking about reviewing all the different Zoning Districts and all different uses within those may be more appropriate to fall within that type of project than an additional project leading up to it.
Rachel Ventura said a couple of things. This first is you mentioned will this have impact on future cases? I absolutely think so. We've already seen multiple cases go through just in the one year that I've been on the Board. This isn't going away. The change of how we zone things and the types of businesses that are coming to Will County, we're going to continue to see. I think this is looking forward and being proactive instead of being reactive. I mean it's a little bit reactive because of the stuff that has come before us. We can foresee that this is going to continue to be an issue. So, I do think from that standpoint it's going to be worthwhile. I'm looking at the Zoning. I'm not going to say I'm against Amanda's proposal of having some type of Commercial. Again, like I have mentioned before, it doesn't matter to me if it's an "A" Zoning, an "I" Zoning, or a "C" Zoning, but I do want to make sure that we're falling within the legal parameters of that. So for the Industrial, that's pretty clear that it's supposed to promote industrial, manufacturing, and employment generating uses. Commercial is to promote businesses and commercial uses between kind of mixed use, a development consisting of business uses and residential uses. My concern with the commercial one is that it doesn't particularly say agriculture. My idea is that if we have something in the middle of an agricultural area, throwing C-1 in there creates the same problem as throwing an I-1 in there. You're moving away from the agricultural uses. By having something like an A-I category, an agricultural- industrial type category, then you are keeping with the same type of feeling of that zoning category. It's still primarily agricultural with some type of industrial use that hinges on agricultural use. I don't know if you want to call it A-3 or whatever, but the idea is that you would keep it within the realms of that because that's where we are seeing these cases pop up. Or on farmland that is not typically being used for traditional farmland. Whether it's something like marijuana or cannabis, which is now a new thing that we never had to deal with before so, how is that going to be zoned? I do think that the I-1 initially, it says right in here low impact industrial uses and industrial park development that have very limited adverse visual and operational impacts. Tell me one warehouse that falls into that category, it just doesn't. The definition that we have versus what we're approving, it doesn't match up. You could call it an I-0, I suppose, where it's an industrial use that has even less impact. Limited adverse visual, the warehouse is 100 feet tall. It's not limited. I just feel the idea of having the industrial just doesn't fall into some of these categories like a landscaping business or even like a junkyard. Maybe that falls into different categories because of the pollutants. There are ways to create a category that allows for agricultural uses, industrial uses and does not allow for warehouse uses. I think that's something that we should consider. If it needs to be commercial, if that's the easier way to go, then I'm okay with that. I have concerns though because it specifically says residential and business. It seems to me that agriculture and some type of "A" zoning or "I" zoning would be more appropriate. The last thing that I would like to say is, and I encourage Nick or our Executive to attend or maybe we need to set a meeting with them, but it is the will of this Board that sets those policies. So, even though Nick doesn't necessarily think it is the best time, I understand he's your boss, but we need to sit down with Nick or Larry. I do think that the will of this Board sets those policies too. If we feel that this would help solve future cases, it's important that we open up those communications so that we don't have road blocks.
David Dubois said I'm not speaking for Nick. He did not say this was not an appropriate project or anything. I'm not trying to indicate any of that.
Rachel Ventura said ok, sorry. I misunderstood that then, sorry.
David Dubois said I do agree with what you say about introducing that commercial and maybe it just isn't appropriate as industrial. You're absolutely correct. What I really think it gets down to is when we're talking about what's the worst position on the agricultural character on the community. Not everything in the Agricultural Zoning is Special Use. We have an Agricultural Zoning and anything that deviates from the permitted uses and are somewhat compatible to the agricultural uses to maintain that character. Then the question becomes what kinds of uses would be appropriate that are agriculturally related for another Zoning District. Perhaps we look at expanding the Special Uses in the agricultural zoning. Maybe that's an avenue to look at.
Rachel Ventura said that's what we've been doing and then we run into problems like this that when the company wants to sell, we've given them a permanent solution. They have a building there, they're not going to tear that up. If something's permanent, in my opinion, it really shouldn't be a Special Use. It needs to fit into a more permanent category.
David Dubois said the other thing too is that we're giving a professional opinion, kind of my perspective and the history that I've had here for many, many years. Again, it is the Committee's discretion as to where you would like to go with this and then we'll follow through on it.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said I'm glad that you guys are going to look at that. Not only are we looking at new industrial and commercial things, but we're looking at ones that were zoned that in the past. Way back in the day it was zoned this but everything's changed now. If you're in I-1 20 or 30 years ago, now you purchased the property and it's still I-1 and you have this whole list of things to comply with. Although in I-1 back in the day is not what would be considered an I-1 today. I think that's a good thing to look at as far as that goes. I like that A-I or A-C, something that we could be very specific saying this would be the type of things we would allow in there. It's higher than agricultural use but you could do this type of thing. They're an I-1 now but maybe if they were given an A-I, they would not have to do all these other things that doesn't really apply because the application is such a different thing than a real I-1. We have our residents who own property and they want to do an upgrade to it, it has to be brought into compliance with all the other existing things today. I think you'll find some of that out there. If I could get you guys to send an email of the industrial zoning and commercial zoning to us separate so we don't have to go through the Land Use website that would be helpful.
Rachel Ventura said and agricultural. I know there's only 2 now but I don't have those in front of me.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said and agricultural. If we could get that and we could look at those specifically and have that conversation so that we could all understand. And maybe at the end we say hey, I think we're good with everything we have.
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm still liking the Moustis idea. I know, I'm sorry. I look at a landscaping business as a commercial business. It is a commercial business. I look at a truck repair place as a commercial business. I don't look at them as industrial. I don't really look at them as agriculture. I really think in order to preserve the integrity of those zones so that they don't put up the damn 20 foot high warehouse that we would be better suited to just add it on to the commercial. That's just my thought. They are businesses. People are coming in and buying a service from those proprietors.
Rachel Ventura said I guess that's where I would put up an argument. My brothers used to own a landscaping business. When I think of commercial, it is people going to a business to purchase. For a landscaping business, you're not going to them, they're coming to you. They were chopping trees that they took down and they would have piles of peat and fertilizer and they'd have different types of stuff like that. They'd have different flowers and plants. It is very much agriculture. It depends on what the landscaping business does or doesn't do and what they're storing. Some of that stuff, it does fall in a more agriculture type use.
Jacqueline Traynere said and if they are, like Johansen Farms used to be before they became the holiday capital of the world and Christmas tree sales of the world, they were literally just growing flowers at their greenhouse then I would say yeah, that's maybe more agricultural. It's still a business, they're still providing a service.
Rachel Ventura said farms are still businesses too. Sometime people could have others come out to their farms and purchase stuff.
Jacqueline Traynere said that's not their main, they're growing or raising. They don't have a cash register. They don't have a list of customers necessarily. I just look at it differently. I think the commercial might fit it better. The instances that we're talking about, and maybe there's more, I am only thinking about the more recent ones where there's a tractor trailer truck repair place and the other one was landscaping. I think there was one guy who was building pallets but he was doing stuff way out of line. Have you got another one?
Amanda Koch said I view it as kind of service based. Landscapers more frequently their service is outright, they come back to the home base. Truck repairs the same thing, they bring the stuff there to fix it and they leave. I do think that it is kind of commercial. It might be a commercial/agricultural thing. Perhaps we're looking at a hybrid but really, they're providing a service so I don't think that makes it industrial. Their goal is not to employ people. Their goal is to provide a service. I think we really need to look at the spirit of that. We can get into the weeds next month, if you want, I'll bring a snack.
Jacqueline Traynere said I'm trying to fast until noon every day so this is helping.
Rachel Ventura said it's 12:05.
David Dubois said there's a lot of good discussion going on but I think from the department standpoint, we need direction from the Committee as to, is this something that we would be looking at under a larger project holistically with the Zoning Ordinance? We're going to start talking about the budget for the next fiscal year. Or, is this something that is going to go forward now? We need direction. If this is something that's going forward now, specifically what is it you're asking us to do?
Chairman Marcum said I'm comfortable doing it holistically and looking at everything.
David Dubois said that would be our recommendation.
Chairman Marcum said it seems to make sense to look at everything as the big picture.
Amanda Koch said I like the idea of doing it all together. We start our budget talks in May, which is just a few short months away. In the meantime, can we get some of those supporting documents? As far as what are our zoning classifications are now and what the purpose of them is and perhaps maybe some of these historic zoning categories that have been dropped. A, what they were and B, why do we think that they disappeared? We don't want to go back to something that could be an error, but maybe it's cool again. We just need to know. I think that would be good leading up to this.
David Dubois said before we jump into the project, we need to start thinking about what are the issues that we have been experiencing as a department, what we're hearing and problems that we need to fix. That's part of the scope too.
Rachel Ventura said before I comment, could you answer a question? If we were to do it holistically, when are you thinking that this would be finished then?
David Dubois said that's a good question. It depends on scope and content of the project. Quite honestly, would it be finished by the end of Fiscal 2021? It's questionable. It could be going into FY 2022. It could be straddling 2 Fiscal Years. We're not saying that this project would be as intense as the one we did in 2012. That took 18 months but that was a comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance. I would not recommend doing a comprehensive re-zoning where you look at every single parcel in the County. I would not recommended doing that as part of this. Again, the last time we did do it, it was 18 months.
Rachel Ventura said my comment would be, I think there is no harm in working on adding a category now and including it with the holistic plan later. We're going to have more cases. I bet you next month we have a case on something like this. I do think that starting this conversation with trying to move forward on adding this zoning category so that we have the ability to do some of these. Then when it comes time to do the holistic, we will have some data to see, is this working? Is it not working? How many cases did we have in this zoning category? I think that could be added. You're talking 2 years out. We could have a lot of cases between now and then that could have been solved by adding a zoning category. The will of me and hopefully I can get some support on the Board is to do this before the holistic plan is done and then include that with the plan later.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said what I wanted to say is I was a Vice Chair in Land Use and prior to that for 2 years I sat as a member of it. When you have 1 large thing presented to you, it becomes very hard to really focus on it. Our Land Use team does the best that they can, comes up and describes the information. You're going through so many things at one time, if you can do it a little more narrow scoped I think that's a good thing. As far as working on an initiative outside of the County for Agricultural Sustainability Conservation Initiative, one of the things I think would be a benefit is to have some zoning classes so that there could be smaller parcels that could do some sort of Ag related business on them than what we currently have today. Something that I'm just looking into myself and hoping that there will be support. I know Rachel supports that. That's just my 2 cents. When we looked at it before, we had so much stuff go look through and read. To get through it all was a lot. They know it because they've been doing it. They went to school to do it.
Steve Balich said I know we have to do something. It might be the path of least resistance just to add a new category into the existing zoning classification. That would take way less time. Even though the definition doesn't fit, we add it and specify right then and there what it's going to be. It's a lot less time consuming and costs way less money just to change the category. Then when we do a zoning update, we're kind of covered. I don't know if you guys would agree with that but it might be a solution that we can handle now to get it fixed.
Rachel Ventura said that's what I'm suggesting too. I don't care what you call it. I would suggest a blend. That's why I say A-I.
Steve Balich said if we did it right now, we would just say, well not A-I, say A-1. We would say alright.
Rachel Ventura said not A-1 because it's already being used. It could be A-0.
Steve Balich said I don't know which one is the best fit. I'm trying to say that all we have to do is add a category to one of the existing zoning classifications. Then say yeah, it's okay to do this in that zoning classification, we just added something to it so it's going to be okay. Then, down the road, when we go through this big process, we can actually fix it all. For the time being, maybe we have a solution without making a new category. Just add it to one that's there. Would that make it easier on you guys?
Rachel Ventura said agriculture seems to be the one that all of these things have affected. If the Board said they wanted to make an A-3 and that has some of the things we talked about today, would that be enough moving forward?
Chairman Marcum said none of this is going to guarantee the municipalities aren't going to object anyway. That's where all of our problems are coming up, butting up against municipalities and their planning area. This isn't necessarily going to make them stop objecting to it. I think if we do it holistically, we can kind of include the municipalities.
Rachel Ventura said we have to do a public hearing regardless, right? I'm with Judy on this. I think by focusing on the problem at hand, it doesn't get washed up in all of the other stuff.
Chairman Marcum said for me, it's we're running into problems with the municipalities.
David Dubois said again, we're looking for the Committee's direction as to what the desire is.
Tom Weigel said I agree that we need to do a full blown study on the classifications.
Chairman Marcum said okay, here's what we are going to do. Who's in favor of creating a new zone? Raise your hands. Like right now. Who wants that? Okay, you have your direction there.
RESULT: CONTINUED Next: 3/10/2020 10:30 AM
TO: Will County Board
VI. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE
1. Chairman, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
None.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Amanda Koch said I've been thinking about the church situation today and the dynamic sign. I'm wondering if we could add a 5 foot grace, like a grace period on a library book that's due. This was 4 feet. I do agree with them that this was quite a process and fairly expensive for them. To go through this for 4 feet. I like the idea of the 300 feet. I stand behind it. I'm just wondering if somebody is within 5 feet, which is shorter than me even and I'm not that tall, that we might say if it fits all the other requirements and it's not going to bother anybody, Staff could make that determination.
Jacqueline Traynere said my only thought is what if the next one comes up and it's 6 feet.
Amanda Koch said 6 foot, you're going to have to come back. I do think 5, maybe 10 feet and I can let Staff maybe direct me on that a little bit, but I do think that 4 feet is pretty darn short.
Jacqueline Traynere said what if rather than a footage, you gave a 5% Variance?
Rachel Ventura said that could get really big if you have a large property.
Amanda Koch said let's see what Staff says though.
David Dubois said the Zoning Ordinance allows the maximum administrative discretion under State Law currently.
Rachel Ventura asked which is?
David Dubois said 10%.
Jacqueline Traynere said see I was saying 5%.
Rachel Ventura asked so why did this one come before us instead of Staff choosing it? Brian Radner said we don't choose any of these. The applicant chooses.
Rachel Ventura said what she's saying is that Staff can make that recommendation instead of putting it in front of the Board. David you're saying you have the ability to do so under State Law?
David Dubois said I don't know the specifics to this case. State Law allows a 10% Administrative Variance of the value, correct?
Brian Radner said correct.
Jacqueline Traynere said he could have gotten a 30 foot Variance.
Brian Radner said it's more complicated than that. In an Administrative Variance procedure, if 1 neighbor objects and submits an objection, because you still have to notify people, it's done. You don't get it and now you have to apply for the other thing. Now they've paid the fee for that and now they have to pay the fee for this.
Rachel Ventura said in this case nobody objected. Could you guys have made that call without putting it in front of us? Why did it come in front of us? Habit?
Brian Radner said we don't know if somebody's going to object before a case is.
Rachel Ventura said oh.
Chairman Marcum said they would have to determine that. It's a different process.
Amanda Koch said so from day 1 you would have to decide if it's an administrative decision. Back to my original point, is it possible for us as a Board to say, and I wouldn't do this for buildings, but I think with these sign displays that's less than 5 feet, are we really going to get that weird with it? I feel terrible that a church came in here and paid that money for 4 feet. It's unduly prohibited. It's a sign, a very movable object.
Janine Farrell said in this instance, you are correct, an administrative adjustment would have allowed for up to 270 feet for that Variance that we could have approved administratively in our office. There are situations though where the applicants are already requesting zoning action or they already need a standard Variance that we tack on an additional Variance and it's actually cheaper for them to do it that way. While they may be able to be approved administratively, it actually works out to their benefit to just go forward because you're already having a public hearing. For this instance, the applicant could have pursued just an administrative adjustment for that setback Variance. They were already going forward with the Special Use Permit so Staff had it going together at the same time as part of 1 Zoning Case.
Rachel Ventura asked is it cheaper, say they didn't need the Special Use, is it cheaper for them to do an administrative request? Or, is it cheaper to do the Variance request?
Janine Farrell said an Administrative Adjustment is $200. A Variance request is $550 for the first, but then it's $100 for each additional one.
Rachel Ventura said he was asking for $250.
Janine Farrell said I don't know what he was referring to for the $250. Their actual fees that they paid was like $1400. I don't really know off hand. I don't know what he was talking about regarding the $250 honestly. What he would be putting forward as part of his request for refund fees would be his application fee which was like. I don't know off hand.
Rachel Ventura said even if you can administratively adjust it, you're still paying $200.
Janine Farrell said exactly, correct.
David Dubois said in 2012, one of the things that we tried to do was remove barriers. Part of that process was making sure that the Ordinance allowed for administrative discretion as much as possible.
Jacqueline Traynere said I believe we still have a separation of church and state in this country. If we start giving special dispensation to churches, we are going down a very slippery slope. And, that being the case, then what's to say some other not for profit doesn't also deserve a Variance for free, refund of fees, or whatever. I get it, I do.
Amanda Koch said I will vote no for the refund. I'm just saying in the future if it's such a small amount, it's not the church that's pulling on my heart strings, it's the fact that it was less than 5 feet. It's crazy small.
Rachel Ventura said one would have argued that they could move their sign back 4 feet, but it's a stone one in this case. I think we did the right thing. The lawyer brought up earlier, this is a brought on hardship by the owner.
Jacqueline Traynere said it was. They made a decision to put in a dynamic sign versus their static one and there's a cost to upgrade stuff. Look at the County, we just got upgraded iPads, there's a cost to moving forward. It is what it is.
David Dubois said I'll be brief I know you want to get out of here. One of the reasons it's very hard and fast in the Zoning Ordinance and the administrative discretion, is to make sure everyone is treated equitably and fairly. That is just the way it is. If there's any deviation from that, that's what comes to the Board for the Board's discretion. You guys can make decisions that we can't.
Chairman Marcum asked any other Committee members?
No response.
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
None.
4. Other
Brian Radner said I'll try to be brief. In 2017, the County Board approved a Special Use Permit for 2 things. For exotic animals and animal care and boarding on a property out east in Will County. We've had several complaints since that time about the property owner not complying with their conditions. We tried to work with the property owner to get them to comply with the conditions which includes obtaining Building Permits. The main thing with those is electrical issues where the building is being occupied at times by school children and other organizations bringing "field trips" to the property. Also including it being open to the general public. They're running extension cords all over to run their electricity. We've had several complaints. We've tried to work with the property owner many times to get them to comply over the years. They have not complied. We're at a point where if they're going to not comply with the conditions of the Special Use that the County Board approved, we'd like to move for the reversion process and take the Special Use Permit away. What I'm asking you today is, are you okay to have that assigned to the Committee for next month to discuss removing the Special Use Permit? Eventually it would have to go to County Board for approval. If we do that then we would provide notice to the property owner that it would be happening.
Jacqueline Traynere said just one question. Do we need a super majority from the County Board on that?
Brian Radner said it would be an Ordinance so just a majority vote.
Rachel Ventura asked what District is this in?
Brian Radner said it's in Crete.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said District 1.
Rachel Ventura asked it's not a zoo? They have field trips?
Brian Radner said the schools come to the property from time to time during the Fall season, for like the Fall festival type stuff. In the winter, they also do Christmas tree sales.
Jacqueline Traynere said it's like Johansen's in Bolingbrook.
Rachel Ventura asked what's the compliance that they're not adhering to?
Brian Radner said they're supposed to obtain Building Permits for all the structures that they put up without permits.
Rachel Ventura said so it has nothing to do with the animals then?
Brian Radner said there's been some questions about the animal treatment but in every investigation that the Department has undertaken and talking to the agencies that are in charge of regulating those animals, mainly Will County Animal Control, they've all said they're not observing any animal abuse. I'm getting complaints about it but nobody is coming forward saying that they've observed it, an actual agency like USDA or Illinois Department of Agriculture, or Will County Animal Control. I've heard those allegations but nothing has panned out. They have their proper licenses that they need to operate their facility and be in compliance with the Special Use Permits but the Building Code stuff has not been addressed. I sent the certified letter in November saying that we have to wrap this up, we have to finish these inspections. That was after a couple rounds of complaints. When we tried to access the property, they wouldn't grant us access. Finally, we were able to get access, we pointed out everything that had to be corrected and gave them a deadline to correct it. They didn't correct it so we're just going down a road of non-compliance. It could be a hazard to children and to other people that are accessing the property if it's not meeting the Building Code.
County Board Member Judy Ogalla said it's my District. I'm fully aware of the organization there. They do animal rescue but they do not want to follow these things. Those are the things that they really should do. Not just for the benefit of the people, animals, and everybody there, they are difficult to work with. I have to agree with Brian on that.
Chairman Marcum said so it sounds like this will get assigned next month so we can start that process.
Brian Radner asked Mr. Chairman will you do that?
Chairman Marcum said I will talk to them.
Brian Radner said okay.
5. Public Comment
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Not needed.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion To Adjourn The Meeting
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 12:26 PM. Motion carried 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member
SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member
AYES: Marcum, Balich, Koch, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel
ABSENT: Ferry
IX. NEXT MEETING -MARCH 10, 2020
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3723&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up