Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Feb. 4.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Thomas White | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Secretary | Present | |
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Kristine Mazon, Marguerite Kenny, Lisa Napoles, and Janine Farrell.
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 - Jan 7, 2020 6:30 PM
The motion carried unanimously. Minutes were approved with no corrections or additions.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
V. ZONING CASES
Secretary Barbara Peterson made an announcement that Variance Cases will be heard to a conclusion tonight by this Commission. Remaining cases after this hearing will advance to the Land Use Development Committee in this County Board Room on February 11, 2020 at 10:30 AM.
1. 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-19-079, Christopher Hovis, Owner of Record, requesting (V-19-080) Variance for minimum lot frontage from 300 feet to 0 feet, for Pin # 16-05-06-200-022-0000, in Homer Township, commonly known as 16339 135th Street, Lemont, IL
Chairman Stipan announced that this Zoning Case has been withdrawn.
2. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Minimum Lot Frontage From 300 Feet To 0 Feet
RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
3. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-19-080, St. John Ev. Lutheran Church, Owner of Record, Darceta Mueller, Agent, Requesting (S- 19-028) Special Use Permit for an On-Premise Dynamic Display in Agricultural and Residential Zoning Districts and (V-19-081) Variance for Minimum Setback of a Dynamic Display Sign Face from a Residential Structure from 300 feet to 296 feet for Pin #22-22-01-200-008-0000, in Washington Township, Commonly Known as 28054 S. Yates Avenue, Beecher, IL, County Board District #1
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-080, which takes place in Washington Township.
This is an application for a Special Use Permit for an on-premise dynamic display in agricultural and residential districts. Also, there is a Variance for minimum setback of a dynamic display sign face from a residential structure from 300 feet to 296 feet.
The applicant and owner is Kevin D. Garling, Chairman of the Board for St. John Lutheran Church with Darceta Mueller as Agent.
The subject parcel is located on South Yates Road in Washington Township.
The parcel measures 12.5 acres in lot area.
The property is improved with a Church building, a residence with attached garage, a shed, a cemetery, and a parking lot.
There are no identified wetlands or flood plains on the property.
The Zoning Map shows the property is zoned A-2, which has an existing Special Use Permit for religious assembly accompanied by a Variance for minimum street yard setback, which brought the Church into compliance in 2000.
The subject property borders A-1 parcels on the east, south and west and A-2 parcels on the north.
The applicant is seeking to replace the existing sign at the center of the brick structure with a dynamic display and add an illuminated identification sign to the top of the brick structure.
The dimensions of the sign itself and the percentage of the dynamic display all conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The residence on the property is behind the plane on the dynamic display and therefore is outside the radius of the required distance from the sign to the residential structure.
The adjacent property to the north is also setback behind the plane of the proposed dynamic display falling outside the radius of the required distance from the sign to the residential structure.
The structure that is across Yates Avenue to the east, is a structure to a Country Club. The structure has a Commercial, not Residential Use and is over 600 feet from the dynamic display. Therefore, it falls outside of the radius.
As previously mentioned, the 2 residences north and south of the Church are located behind the face of the dynamic display and therefore fall outside of the required radius. There is only one property that partially falls within the radius and that is a residence to the northeast of the Church.
Staff reviewed the Special Use request based on the above criteria.
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for an on-premise dynamic display in agricultural and residential districts.
Based upon the Variance criteria by which Staff and the Plan Commission are required by the Ordinance to evaluate, Staff finds that the religious assembly use of St. John is located within an agricultural and residential community which it serves, thereby creating a hardship that does not apply to dynamic displays normally located in Commercial Districts.
The Church has used an illuminated sign dating back to at least 2000, so changing the type of sign does not therefore alter the existing character of the locality.
Will County, Illinois Posted: 3/4/2020 Page 3
Minutes Will County Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2020
By these criteria, Staff recommends approval of a Variance for minimum setback of a dynamic display sign face from a residential structure from 300 feet to 296 feet.
Staff recommends approval of both requests.
Chairman Stipan asked does anyone have any questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much.
Lisa Napoles said thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stipan asked is the Applicant or Agent here?
Someone said I don't really need to say anything.
Chairman Stipan said they have recommended approval. Is there any objectors or concerned citizens about this sign here?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said we have a recommended approval so you don't have to come down if you don't want to.
Someone said that's fine.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.
4. Motion For Approval Of A Special Use Permit For An On-Premise Dynamic Display In Agricultural And Residential Zoning Districts
Motion carried 7-0.
Barbara Peterson said don't forget you've got a meeting next Tuesday here at 10:30.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
5. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Minimum Setback Of A Dynamic Display Sign Face From A Residential Structure From 300 Feet To 296 Feet
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
6. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-19-082, Michael E. Bethman, Christie L Bethman, and Walter E. Bethman (Each 33.33% Interest), Owners of Record, Michael E. Bethman, Agent, requesting (S-19-030) Special Use Permit for a Firearms Dealer, for Pin #14-12-11-200-022-0000, in Manhattan Township, Commonly Known as 12859 W. Baker Road, Manhattan, IL; County Board District #2
Chairman Stipan said we have been asked by the Village of Manhattan to table this so they can do their mile and a half review. Before we start, shall I just poll the Board here?
Thomas White said before you poll the Board, when were they notified of this? Have they been sitting on this for 60 days?
Marguerite Kenny said they were notified when the notifications went out. I want to say it was the first week of January.
John Kiefner said and I assume they have the same 2 weeks for the publication for the public hearing.
Marguerite Kenny said I believe so. I believe they're supposed to be hearing the case next week. So, in terms of getting comments and everything for Land Use and the County Board it would be a little bit more difficult for the Village Board to basically hear it, vote, and make those comments.
John Kiefner said I'm on the inclination to just table it. I want to see if it's ok to ask the Applicant if tabling it would cause a hardship. Is that an appropriate thing for me to ask?
Chairman Stipan said right now it's appropriate for us to determine amongst ourselves what we're going to do.
John Kiefner made a motion to table this case. Roger Bettenhausen seconded the motion.
John Kiefner asked would the applicant be able to answer that question?
Chairman Stipan asked would the Applicant come down?
Michael Bethman introduced himself to the Commission.
John Kiefner said sorry for the inconvenience of having to come back again. If this were to be delayed a couple weeks, would this cause any hardship?
Michael Bethman said it's okay with me just as long as it's okay with the ATF, which I'm sure it is.
Chairman Stipan said ok, that's makes it easy for everybody then.
John Kiefner said that's all the questions that I had.
Thomas White said it could be a month, we don't typically meet every 2 weeks.
Michael Bethman said the ATF just basically wants to make sure I'm able to do this.
Thomas White said they take longer.
Michael Bethman said yeah, right.
Barbara Peterson asked we're going to table it to when?
Thomas White said next month.
Chairman Stipan asked do we have a meeting the 18th of this month?
Janine Farrell said we do not. March 3rd will be our next meeting.
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 3/3/2020 6:30 PM
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
7. 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-19-084,(Companion case to ZC-19-085-north parcel and ZC-19-086-east parcel) Hatch Land Management LLC, Owner of Record, (The Randall Moore Hatch Trust dated December 15, 2017 28.69% interest and The David M. and Nancy L. Dusak Family Trust dated April 23, 2008 28.62% interest; Randall Moore Hatch 100% beneficiary in the Hatch Trust; David M. and Nancy L. Dusak each 50% beneficiaries in the Dusak Family Trust), Dustin Bjustrom of The Scotts Company, Agent ,Jodi Henninger of Clingen, Callow & McLean, LLC, Attorney, requesting (V-19-083) Variance for minimum lot frontage from 80 feet to 33 feet, Pin # 04- 10-15-20-005-0000, commonly known as 23559,23551, and 23565 W. Bluff Road, Channahon, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Cases ZC-19-084, ZC-19-085, and ZC-19-086 together since they are all companion cases.
These are 3 parcels that are all located at the dead end of Bluff Road in Channahon Township. They all have the same owners and it is basically the same zoning request for lot frontage.
The owner is Hatch Land Management LLC. The Agent for these cases is Dustin Bjustrom of the Scotts Company and the Attorney is Jodi Henninger.
The applicants are requesting this to bring these 3 parcels into compliance with Zoning Ordinance regulations.
The 3 parcels are all zoned I-3. In total, it is about 153 acres that we're talking about. There is I-3, A-1, and some federal land in the Village of Elwood, which is the Army Reserve Training facility.
The eastern parcel, which is ZC-19-086, is basically just a quarry pond. There is a small sort of barn there.
ZC-19-084 has a couple different industrial tenants and one of those is the Scotts Company.
ZC-19-085 is the Scotts Company, their office, and outdoor storage of soil and mulch on the property.
They have a shared entrance off the dead end of Bluff Road and it is gated.
Based upon the criteria that Staff and the Commission are to review for Variance requests, Staff does believe that the plight of the owner is due to a unique circumstance.
According to the 1961 aerial view of the property, Bluff Road kept going all the way up and all the way east basically following the river. In 1970, Bluff Road was actually vacated. According to the current Tax Map, you can see how the road used to be and that it was vacated.
In 1970, when Bluff Road was vacated, it absorbed into the parcels. At that time, the parcel was just a single parcel and it technically had 66 feet of frontage. At that time, it would have just been considered legal, non-conforming. The road was vacated and no longer had a road going through it.
In 1998, that one parcel was divided up into the 3 parcels that we see today, which are the subjects to the Zoning Cases. We have the northern and southern parcel which split the frontage of Bluff Road in half, 33 feet for each of those parcels. Then we have the eastern parcel which has 0 frontage. It's a landlocked parcel.
Staff does believe this vacation of Bluff Road has created this unique situation for these 3 parcels.
The extent of the non-conformity was increased when the parcel was divided in 1998, which is why the applicant is requesting these Variances to bring them into compliance. Even so, if these parcels were re-combined today, it would still be deficient for lot frontage for the I-3 Zoning District. 80 feet is the minimum and it would still only have 66 feet.
In regards to criterion b, Staff does not believe this will alter the essential character of the area. The vacation of Bluff Road occurred in 1970 and it has been that configuration ever since.
Staff did affirm all other criteria in your Staff Report, but I just wanted to call out to you just a couple of them here. The conditions upon which the Variance requests are based would not be generally applicable to other I-3 properties. This is a very specific situation related to these 3 specific properties with that road vacation that had occurred. The applicant cannot get lot frontage in any other way. There is no possibility for them to increase the lot frontage for those parcels.
Staff is recommending approval for these 3 Variance requests for each of these Zoning Cases.
Of the agencies that had responded, we did not receive any sort of objections from them.
That concludes Staff's analysis.
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 are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said we have no objectors or concerned citizens, if you care to stay there, we will just go ahead and vote since we have a recommendation to approve.
Someone said I'm good.
8. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Minimum Lot Frontage From 80 Feet to 33 Feet
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
9. 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-19-085, (Companion case to ZC-19-084-south parcel and ZC-19-086-east parcel); Hatch Land Management LLC, Owner of Record, (The Randall Moore Hatch Trust dated December 15, 2017 28.69% interest and The David M. and Nancy L. Dusak Family Trust dated April 23, 2008 28.62% interest; Randall Moore Hatch 100% beneficiary in the Hatch Trust; David M. and Nancy L. Dusak each 50% beneficiaries in the Dusak Family Trust) Dustin Bjustrom of The Scotts Company, Agent ,Jodi Henninger of Clingen, Callow & McLean, LLC, Attorney; requesting a (V-19-084) Variance for minimum lot frontage from 80 feet to 33 feet, for Pin # 04-10-10-400-007-0000, in Channahon Township, commonly known as 23560 and 23580 W. Bluff Road,, Channahon,, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Cases ZC-19-084, ZC-19-085, and ZC-19-086 together since they are all companion cases.
These are 3 parcels that are all located at the dead end of Bluff Road in Channahon Township. They all have the same owners and it is basically the same zoning request for lot frontage.
The owner is Hatch Land Management LLC. The Agent for these cases is Dustin Bjustrom of the Scotts Company and the Attorney is Jodi Henninger.
The applicants are requesting this to bring these 3 parcels into compliance with Zoning Ordinance regulations.
The 3 parcels are all zoned I-3. In total, it is about 153 acres that we're talking about. There is I-3, A-1, and some federal land in the Village of Elwood, which is the Army Reserve Training facility.
The eastern parcel, which is ZC-19-086, is basically just a quarry pond. There is a small sort of barn there.
ZC-19-084 has a couple different industrial tenants and one of those is the Scotts Company.
ZC-19-085 is the Scotts Company, their office, and outdoor storage of soil and mulch on the property.
They have a shared entrance off the dead end of Bluff Road and it is gated.
Based upon the criteria that Staff and the Commission are to review for Variance requests, Staff does believe that the plight of the owner is due to a unique circumstance.
According to the 1961 aerial view of the property, Bluff Road kept going all the way up and all the way east basically following the river. In 1970, Bluff Road was actually vacated. According to the current Tax Map, you can see how the road used to be and that it was vacated.
In 1970, when Bluff Road was vacated, it absorbed into the parcels. At that time, the parcel was just a single parcel and it technically had 66 feet of frontage. At that time, it would have just been considered legal, non-conforming. The road was vacated and no longer had a road going through it.
In 1998, that one parcel was divided up into the 3 parcels that we see today, which are the subjects to the Zoning Cases. We have the northern and southern parcel which split the frontage of Bluff Road in half, 33 feet for each of those parcels. Then we have the eastern parcel which has 0 frontage. It's a landlocked parcel.
Staff does believe this vacation of Bluff Road has created this unique situation for these 3 parcels.
The extent of the non-conformity was increased when the parcel was divided in 1998, which is why the applicant is requesting these Variances to bring them into compliance. Even so, if these parcels were re-combined today, it would still be deficient for lot frontage for the I-3 Zoning District. 80 feet is the minimum and it would still only have 66 feet.
In regards to criterion b, Staff does not believe this will alter the essential character of the area. The vacation of Bluff Road occurred in 1970 and it has been that configuration ever since.
Staff did affirm all other criteria in your Staff Report, but I just wanted to call out to you just a couple of them here. The conditions upon which the Variance requests are based would not be generally applicable to other I-3 properties. This is a very specific situation related to these 3 specific properties with that road vacation that had occurred. The applicant cannot get lot frontage in any other way. There is no possibility for them to increase the lot frontage for those parcels.
Staff is recommending approval for these 3 Variance requests for each of these Zoning Cases.
Of the agencies that had responded, we did not receive any sort of objections from them.
That concludes Staff's analysis.
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 are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said we have no objectors or concerned citizens, if you care to stay there, we will just go ahead and vote since we have a recommendation to approve.
Someone said I'm good.
10. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Minimum Lot Frontage From 80 Feet To 33 Feet
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
11. 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-19-086, (Companion case to ZC-19-084-south parcel and ZC-19-085-north parcel), Hatch Land Management LLC, Owner of Record, (The Randall Moore Hatch Trust dated December 15, 2017 28.69% interest and The David M. and Nancy L. Dusak Family Trust dated April 23, 2008 28.62% interest; Randall Moore Hatch 100% beneficiary in the Hatch Trust; David M. and Nancy L. Dusak each 50% beneficiaries in the Dusak Family Trust) ,Dustin Bjustrom of The Scotts Company, Agent ,Jodi Henninger of Clingen, Callow & McLean, LLC, Attorney, requesting (V-19-085) Variance for minimum lot frontage from 80 feet to 0 feet, Pin # 04- 10-10-400-006-0000, in Channahon Township, commonly known as V (vacant) W. Bluff Road, Channahon, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Cases ZC-19-084, ZC-19-085, and ZC-19-086 together since they are all companion cases.
These are 3 parcels that are all located at the dead end of Bluff Road in Channahon Township. They all have the same owners and it is basically the same zoning request for lot frontage.
The owner is Hatch Land Management LLC. The Agent for these cases is Dustin Bjustrom of the Scotts Company and the Attorney is Jodi Henninger.
The applicants are requesting this to bring these 3 parcels into compliance with Zoning Ordinance regulations.
The 3 parcels are all zoned I-3. In total, it is about 153 acres that we're talking about. There is I-3, A-1, and some federal land in the Village of Elwood, which is the Army Reserve Training facility.
The eastern parcel, which is ZC-19-086, is basically just a quarry pond. There is a small sort of barn there.
ZC-19-084 has a couple different industrial tenants and one of those is the Scotts Company.
ZC-19-085 is the Scotts Company, their office, and outdoor storage of soil and mulch on the property.
They have a shared entrance off the dead end of Bluff Road and it is gated.
Based upon the criteria that Staff and the Commission are to review for Variance requests, Staff does believe that the plight of the owner is due to a unique circumstance.
According to the 1961 aerial view of the property, Bluff Road kept going all the way up and all the way east basically following the river. In 1970, Bluff Road was actually vacated. According to the current Tax Map, you can see how the road used to be and that it was vacated.
In 1970, when Bluff Road was vacated, it absorbed into the parcels. At that time, the parcel was just a single parcel and it technically had 66 feet of frontage. At that time, it would have just been considered legal, non-conforming. The road was vacated and no longer had a road going through it.
In 1998, that one parcel was divided up into the 3 parcels that we see today, which are the subjects to the Zoning Cases. We have the northern and southern parcel which split the frontage of Bluff Road in half, 33 feet for each of those parcels. Then we have the eastern parcel which has 0 frontage. It's a landlocked parcel.
Staff does believe this vacation of Bluff Road has created this unique situation for these 3 parcels.
The extent of the non-conformity was increased when the parcel was divided in 1998, which is why the applicant is requesting these Variances to bring them into compliance. Even so, if these parcels were re-combined today, it would still be deficient for lot frontage for the I-3 Zoning District. 80 feet is the minimum and it would still only have 66 feet.
In regards to criterion b, Staff does not believe this will alter the essential character of the area. The vacation of Bluff Road occurred in 1970 and it has been that configuration ever since.
Staff did affirm all other criteria in your Staff Report, but I just wanted to call out to you just a couple of them here. The conditions upon which the Variance requests are based would not be generally applicable to other I-3 properties. This is a very specific situation related to these 3 specific properties with that road vacation that had occurred. The applicant cannot get lot frontage in any other way. There is no possibility for them to increase the lot frontage for those parcels.
Staff is recommending approval for these 3 Variance requests for each of these Zoning Cases.
Of the agencies that had responded, we did not receive any sort of objections from them.
That concludes Staff's analysis.
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 are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said we have no objectors or concerned citizens, if you care to stay there, we will just go ahead and vote since we have a recommendation to approve.
Someone said I'm good.
12. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Minimum Lot Frontage From 80 Feet To 0 Feet
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
13. 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-19-087, Nicholas Cryer, Owner of Record, T. J. Somer of O'Brien & Somer, Attorney; requesting (V-19- 086) Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,200 square feet to 1, 678 square feet, Pin # 14-12-07-203-012-0000, in Manhattan Township, commonly known as 24240 S. Susan Lane, Manhattan, IL
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-087, which takes place in Manhattan Township.
This is an application for a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,200 square feet to 1,678 square feet.
The applicant and owner is Nicholas Cryer with T.J Somer with the offices of O'Brien & Somer as the Attorney.
The subject parcel is located on South Susan Lane in Manhattan Township.
The parcel measures approximately 23,760 square feet in lot area.
The property is improved with a residence and attached garage measuring 616.21 square feet and a garden shed measuring 162.61 square feet.
There are no identified wetlands or flood plains identified on the property.
The Zoning Map shows the property is zoned R-4 as are the surrounding parcels in the Ranch Oaks Subdivision.
The applicant is looking to increase the size of the garage by extending it to the east and to the rear of the property.
With the garage and the garden shed, the total accessory building area is 778.82 square feet.
While the addition for the accessory building area requires a Variance, the proposed garage addition meets the setback requirements.
Based upon the criteria by which Staff and the Plan Commission are required by Ordinance to evaluate, Staff finds that the owners request is used for a preference for additional storage space and not unique circumstances. Staff finds that because the proposed addition will extend largely to the rear of the property and the aerial photos show other large garages elsewhere in the subdivision, it will not alter the essential character of the locality.
By these criteria, Staff recommends denial of the Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,200 square feet to 1,678 square feet.
Chairman Stipan asked does anyone have any questions from Staff?
John Kiefner asked is this within a mile and a half of the Village of Manhattan?
Lisa Napoles said I don't believe so. Lisa Napoles said the Manhattan Township Board, in a letter dated January 16, 2020 stated: "On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, the Manhattan Township Board, along with representatives of the Manhattan Township Planning Commission, conducted its monthly meeting during which Nick Cryer was in attendance seeking a recommendation from the board for a variance to increase the size of his accessory building from 1,200 square feet to 1,678 square feet. At the conclusion of discussion, Trustee McGrath made a motion of no objection to Mr. Cryer’s request since the new addition to the building will be within the current lot lines, using an existing driveway to access the building and be for personal use. The motion was seconded by Trustee Woodcock and carried by a unanimous vote".
John Kiefner said that's the Township. I'm certain this is within a mile and a half of Manhattan, and they have been notified.
Lisa Napoles said they're not required to notify them since this is a Variance.
Barbara Peterson said I've always believed that everybody should be notified of everything, including a Variance.
John Kiefner said ok.
Lisa Napoles said but they did. While they were not required to.
John Kiefner said you're talking this was the Township that voted.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Thomas White said it's not actually the Village.
Lisa Napoles said exactly. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked any other questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Is the Applicant or Attorney here?
Someone raised their hand.
Chairman Stipan said okay. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens here for this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked would you care to come down sir?
Nicholas Cryer introduced himself to the Commission.
As you've heard, Staff has issued a recommendation of denial. Would you like to state your case for us?
Nicholas Cryer said I started this process a few years ago and didn't make it to this point because I was still working on finances. At the time, the allotted space was 1,500 square foot. At the time, I also intended to tear down my existing shed, accessory building, which then would have created the space. Since then, once I got closer, it got reduced to 1,200. So, instead of trying to tear down the shed as well, I just want to get back to where I was when I was designing it. I'm not using it for any business or anything like that. Me and my dad restore a lot of cars and have a collection of cars. I'm just trying to get them in 1 area.
Chairman Stipan said okay, and out of the weather.
Nicholas Cryer said yes, out of the weather.
John Kiefner asked do we know the neighbors were notified?
Kristine Mazon said yes.
John Kiefner said Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion to approve this case.
Barbara Peterson said I would go along with you too on that.
John Kiefner asked are you done taling?
Nicholas Cryer said I'm done.
John Kiefner said I don't want to cut you off.
14. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Maximum Accessory Building Area From 1,200 Square Feet To 1,678 Square Feet
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
15. 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-19-089, KBM Steffes Group LLC, Owner of Record, (Howard Steffes 100% interest), Howard Steffes, Agent, John Germanier of Sisul & Germanier LLC, Attorney , requesting (V-19- 088) Variance for minimum street yard setback from 30 feet to 11.17 feet ( Route 59), Pin # 07-01-27-101-005-0000, Wheatland Township, commonly known as 11962 Aero Drive, Plainfield, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-19-089, which takes place in Wheatland Township.
The owner is KBM Steffes Group LLC with Howard Steffes as 100% interest and the Agent is Howard Steffes as well.
The Applicant is requesting a Variance for minimum street yard setback from 30 feet to 11.17 feet along Route 59 in order to construct a new building on the property with the same setback as the buildings to the south of it.
The parcel is zoned I-1 and it is Lot 5 of the Wolf Creek Industrial Park. We have some commercial over there within the Village of Plainfield, across Route 59.
The parcel is currently vacant unimproved.
Both of the parcels to the south are also owned by the Applicant. The Applicant constructed those buildings many years ago and is looking to now make improvements on this parcel. The applicant would like it to be in line with those existing structures.
The Applicant is meeting the minimum street yard setback along Aero Drive. Route 59 is where the Variance request is.
In review of criterion a, Staff does believe that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances in this situation.
There was a portion of the property, about 26-27 feet, which was taken along Route 59. That occurred in 2002. It was after those 2 southern parcels were already approved with the existing structures. So, those structures were built to meet the minimum street yard setback along Route 59. Later on a portion of the property was taken and now they do not meet the street yard setback. So, they are deemed to be legal nonconforming at this point.
The Applicant would like to make improvements to this parcel and to have those buildings line up and look similar in design and layout so that it's a cohesive development on that side.
In regards to criterion b, Staff does not believe that this will alter the essential character of the area mainly because this strip of property has had all of that land, about 26 or 27 feet, taken for Route 59. All of the parcels in that line has had the land taken away. There is one structure to the south that is almost on the property line. There is one development that occupies 3 parcels to the north. It's a little bit of a different development. It's more of an outdoor storage yard with an ancillary office use. So, Staff does not believe that this will be out of character. You can see those other parcels have already been developed and have structures that do not meet that minimum street setback.
Staff does not feel that this Variance will be detrimental to the public's welfare or safety mainly because there will not be any access to Route 59. There is a utility easement there that prevents access and all of the access for that subdivision is through Aero Drive.
As I mentioned, I affirmed the other criteria in the Staff report and just wanted to mention that 1, that there will not be any access to Route 59. So, Staff does not believe there will be any sort of detriment to the area.
From the agencies that responded, we did not receive any sort of objections.
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance for minimum street yard setback along Route 59 from 30 feet to 11.17 feet.
I can take any questions you might have.
Chairman Stipan asked does anyone have any questions of Staff?
John Kiefner said I will verify this one point then. The 11.17 feet setback, that's not to the edge of the road, it's to the edge of the state right of way?
Janine Farrell said correct.
John Kiefner said according to the map it does look like it's 40 feet plus, you have the road ditch and you have the utility right of way.
Janine Farrell said correct. We have the proposed building here outlined, we have the setback to the right of way line, and then we have the utility line beyond that.
So, we have sufficient right of way. So, from these structures you can see the actual distance from the buildings to the road itself.
Chairman Stipan asked any other questions for Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Is the agent or attorney present?
Someone raised their hand.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens here about this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said they have recommended approval to this case. Unless you have something else that you would care to add, you don't have to come down.
Someone said no thank you.
16. Motion For Approval Of A Variance For Minimum Street Yard Setback From 30 Feet To 11.17 Feet
Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
VI. OTHER
John Kiefner said I was taking part in the OMA, Open Meetings Act, training online recently. Thankfully we haven't had any real contentious cases, but one thing I had asked Staff for some guidance on. One thing that I learned on there was that if we were to have a large gallery that wanted to speak, from what I understand, we could not, the day of the meeting, make rules that apply to that meeting. We would have to make them ahead of time and have them published. If you were going to make such rules, you would have to put them on the Agenda so they would be part of the public notice so that people know we're going to make such rules. I would like to know if that's something that we need to do or if anybody else has done the training and maybe I'm over thinking here.
Chairman Stipan said we've all done the training. We always want to do things the simplest way. The simplest way, is to see if there's a large group that wants to speak, if you can get someone to be the master speaker. That doesn't always work. If it does work, it shortens your time considerably. So, using that criteria, I don't get too excited unless the Illinois State's Attorney happens to walk into the room. What we do is just handle the cases with logic. As long as you're always logical, you're usually forgiven if you make a mistake. It's when you're not logical or you do something vindictive then you catch holy hell.
John Kiefner said in clarifying, it even has in there when people become repetitive, you have the right to cut them off. My one point was about the setting of the time limit.
Chairman Stipan said you don't have to set the same time limit for every meeting. If I see 65 speakers up there, I can give them 3 minutes. If I see 15 speakers up there, I can give them 3 minutes. If I see 10 speakers up there, I'll probably give them 5.
John Kiefner said and we will make that decision at the time?
Chairman Stipan said right.
John Kiefner said that's not exactly the way I interpreted it. The thing I did see that was interesting, whenever there was a change they made sure to highlight that.
Chairman Stipan said I just responded to Lisa Madigan in a different incident when I was a Township Administrator. 6 weeks and finally they said ok, you didn't do anything wrong but don't ever do it again. It's a case where you lose no matter what you do. But, if you can prove you didn't do anything wrong, or your intent wasn't malicious, there's no problem.
John Kiefner said I just wouldn't want us to not exactly follow the rules and something comes back.
Chairman Stipan said if we put something in writing that we were going to give everyone 5 minutes to speak, we would have to give everybody 5 minutes to speak. What if 50 or 60 objectors show up?
Chris Wise said you obviously didn't talk to me about it, I don't know who at the State's Attorney's Office you talked to.
John Kiefner said no, I just said Staff. It says we must have these rules that are supposed to be available. I asked Staff if we had any such rules.
Chris Wise said I have to do my annual OMA too, so when I get around to that I will take a look at it.
Chairman Stipan said what happens when you do all these things is that you have to do this all with common sense. If I do something maliciously or with ill-intent because I'm angry or I have a personal interest in the case or something, that's different. If we sit here neutral, listening to both sides of the case and make a determination, if they don't like my determination, that doesn't make it invalid under the law.
John Kiefner said okay, I'm good.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Not needed.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion To Adjourn The Meeting
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made at 7:22 PM. Motion carried 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
X. Visit www.willcountylanduse.com to view agendas and staff reports
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3714&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up