Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met May 19.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Thomas White called the meeting to order at 6:38 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Thomas White | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Absent | |
| Barbara Peterson | Secretary | Present | |
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present |
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's office.
II. MINUTES APPROVAL
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - May 5, 2020 6:30 PM
Minutes were approved with no corrections or additions. Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
III. WILL COUNTY ZONING CASES
Secretary Barbara Peterson announced that all Variance cases will be heard to a conclusion by this Commission this evening. Map Amendments, Special Use Permits, etc. will be heard by this Commission and then go on to the Land Use Development Committee which is one week from today in the same way that we're doing it tonight. Am I correct?
Janine Farrell said the meeting will be on June 9th.
Barbara Peterson said June 9th. I didn't have anything in front of me.
1. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF Temporary Use Permit Pursuant to section 155-10.20 of the Will County Illinois Zoning Ordinance, Cole Morgan, Owner of Record, Cassie VanTassel of Vintage Faire LLC, Agent, requesting a Temporary Use Permit (TUP-20-007) , for a seasonal outdoor market called the Vintage Faire for Pin # 05-06-33-300-013-0010, 05-06- 33-300-013-0020, 05-06-33-300-006-0000, in Troy Township, commonly known as 24550, 24540, and vacant W. Shepley Road, Minooka, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # TUP-20-007.
This is a Temporary Use Permit for seasonal outdoor sales of handcrafted goods, antiques, and food. It is known as the Vintage Faire.
This is actually the 6th year for this Temporary Use Permit request. There are no known issues, complaints, or violations associated with it. This takes place over in Troy Township on 3 separate parcels.
There's no significant changes in this year’s event as opposed to last year’s event except the applicant has indicated that there may be selling of nursery stock. So, plants, fruits, vegetables, and items like that.
I have an aerial image up here on the screen for you. Like I said, it's taking place on 3 separate parcels as outlined in red.
This is the Site Concept Plan. You can see there are 2 entrances or accesses over to Shepley Road. One leads to the parking area and one leads to the vendor area.
This year the applicant is requesting May 31st as the start date and it will end on October 25th. The event would be on the last Sunday of every month from 8am to 3pm.
The applicant anticipates there to be 30 to 50 vendors at each event. The vendors would be setting up canopies over in that area noted on the Site Plan.
The applicant anticipates roughly from 300 to 500 attendees.
There is a parking lot that can accommodate those vehicles.
There's some images of the site for you. These are from current 2020 and then we also have images from previous site visits due to the conditions. It was a very rainy day.
We have a view looking at the vendor area. Then we have a view looking out towards the parking area. We have a view of the driveway which leads to the parking area and a view that leads to the vendor area.
These are views along north and south Shepley Road.
Staff is recommending approval of the Temporary Use Permit for seasonal outdoor sales of handcrafted goods, antiques, and food with 11 conditions.
1. The temporary use permit is only valid from May 2020 through October 2020 on the last Sunday of each month from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
2. Operation of this temporary use permit is subject to current and future Executive Orders by the Illinois Governor during the COVID-19 outbreak.
3. All parking for the temporary use shall be provided on the subject parcel(s). Off- site parking is prohibited within the right of way. Ingress and egress for emergency vehicles must be provided and kept clear at all times.
4. If necessary, traffic control shall be provided by the Will County Sheriff’s Office. 5. The site must be cleared of all debris, tents, and other temporary use material within 2 hours after closing of the event on each Sunday.
6. Temporary signs advertising the event must be on premise, placed no sooner than the day of the event, and removed within 2 hours after closing of the event on each Sunday.
7. Ingress and egress to the temporary use permit must be clearly designated and marked on the property for patrons of the event.
8. The temporary use shall comply with all requirements of the Will County Health Department.
9. The temporary use shall comply with all requirements of the Minooka Fire Protection District and/or Troy Fire Protection District.
10.The applicant shall furnish proof of insurance prior to issuance of full temporary use permit approval.
11.The sale/serving of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited.
These are the same conditions that we have added year after year. We've of course updated the dates from May through October.
We have also added #2. That operation is subject to current and future Executive Orders in regards to the COVID-19 outbreak. We have to re-enforce those State Executive Orders.
From the agencies that were notified, we did not receive any objections. And, we did not receive any objections or calls about this Temporary Use Permit request.
That concludes Staff's report.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked if anyone had any questions.
Barbara Peterson said I have none.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked is the applicant on the line?
Cassie VanTassel said I'm here. The only thing that I wanted to add is that we have our nursery certification. If the Governor does extend any sorts of decrees, I know that nurseries are part of the essential list of businesses that can be opened.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said ok, thank you. Is there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case on the line?
No response.
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously with 11 conditions.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
2. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-20-008, James P. Koski, Owner of Record, Richard Kavanagh of Kavanagh Grumley & Gorbold LLC, Attorney, Requesting (M-020-003) Map Amendment from A-2 to R-3, (V-20-003) Variance for Minimum Lot Area from 20,000 sq. ft. to 13,050 sq. ft. (V-20-009) Variance for Minimum Lot Frontage from 90 ft. to 0 ft. (V-20-010) Variance for Minimum Rear Yard Setback for Accessory Structures from 5 ft. to 1.65 ft. (V-20- 015) Variance for Minimum Side Yard Setback from 10 ft. to 4.20 ft. (south side), (V-20-016) Variance for Minimum Side Yard Setback from 10 ft. to 9.58 ft. (north side), for Pin #15-08-14-302-018-0000, in New Lenox Township, Commonly Known as 745 Bittersweet Lane, New Lenox, IL, County Board District #12
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-008 which takes place in New Lenox Township.
The owner is James Koski. The attorney in this case is Richard Kavanagh.
The applicant has 6 requests here. We have a Map Amendment from A-2 to R-3. Then we have 5 Variances to bring that proposed R-3 parcel into compliance with the R-3 Zoning District. We have a Variance for minimum lot area from 20,000 square feet to 13, 050 square feet. Variance for minimum lot frontage from 90 feet to 0 feet. Variance for rear yard setback for accessory structures from 5 feet to 1.65 feet. A Variance for minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.20 feet over on the south side. Then a Variance for minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 9.58 feet over on the north side.
The applicant is requesting this zoning action in order to bring the parcel into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance regulations by changing it to a Zoning District that is more appropriate for the area and also for the size of the parcel.
This is a Plat of Survey that I have here on the screen. I've actually reoriented it for you. North is facing up.
The parcel does not have lot frontage. So, right here would technically be the lot frontage access into the driveway.
The street, Bittersweet Lane, actually terminates over here and then it becomes a private road. The applicant accesses Bittersweet through an easement. It says the easement is recorded. There is a reference to it as well on this Plat of Survey.
The parcel is improved with a single family residence, way up here. We have the garage over here and the shed over there.
I'll walk through quickly the Map Amendment review criteria for this proposal.
Please note in regards to #6, a LESA Score was not calculated for this proposal.
Starting with criteria #1, the existing uses of the property within the general area. Staff used a half mile radius just because of the density of development that you can see along Route 30 in this area. Within a half mile, uses are primarily residential and commercial. We do have some institutional and recreational uses. Lincoln-Way High School is located basically at the cut-off there on the far eastern portion.
In regards to #2, the zoning classifications of the property in the general area. Again, we have residential and we have commercial. We also have a couple of agricultural properties. These are located within unincorporated Will County but then also within the Village of New Lenox. Predominantly there are residential uses.
In regards to criteria #3, the property is zoned A-2 currently. Actually, it is in Staff's professional opinion that it is really not suitable for those uses permitted under A-2. As you know, A-2 is our agricultural/residential zoning classification. You can see that due to the size of the property, there is not much room for agricultural uses. In you Staff Report, there is an example of farm animals that would be permitted. They would be permitted a quarter of an animal unit, which basically would limit them to 5 chickens which they would be permitted in the R-3
Zoning District regardless.
In regards to #4, the trend of development in the area. The property was put into the A-2 Zoning Classification back in 1978 when the comprehensive re-zoning occurred throughout the County. The properties that are surrounding it, for the most part, were also put into their existing Zoning District at that same time. We have some A-2. We have some commercial. Some R-3 as well. Since that time, and I've called out a couple of things for you, primarily the trend in development has been primarily properties being annexed for development into the Village of New Lenox either for commercial purposes or residential subdivisions. We have some subdivisions towards the northern portion of the half mile radius. In 2005 and 2006, they were re-zoned. We have some properties over in the 80's and 90's that were re-zoned commercial or residential as well.
In regards to #5, the proposal is in conformance with our Land Resource Management Plan. It's sort of fitting into 2 different categories. We have the Conventional Residential Suburban or Traditional Residential Suburban. In the use concept, it has elements of both. I have illustrated them there for you. Both of them are appropriate in the Suburban Form. In regards to the Village of New Lenox Comprehensive Plan from 2018, the parcel is designated as single family residential. So, it's also in conformance with that.
I'm illustrating here for you the Variance requests. We have lot frontage. As we discussed the parcel does not have frontage on a dedicated road. Bittersweet Lane becomes a private road and then there's an easement to access it.
The lot area and side yard setback along the north side for that shed.
The rear yard setback for that accessory structure towards the southern part of the screen.
Then also for that side yard setback for that frame garage.
These Variance requests are all to bring the parcel and the structures into conformance with that R-3 Zoning District.
I did affirm and provide full details in the Staff Report of all the Variance criteria for all of those different requests.
Just to kind of give you a summation of those, this is definitely a unique situation where we have a very small 13,000 square foot A-2 parcel. Again this is a legal, non-conforming situation. The applicant would like to change the zoning in order to bring it into a more appropriate Zoning District, which is R-3. There is R-3 in this area as I showed you on your Zoning Map. The parcel could meet an R-4 or R-5 standard. However, the closest R-4 or R-5 properties are over 4 miles away.
That's why the applicant is electing to go R-3 because that's what the surrounding area is. It's also characterized by these lower lots. We have these properties which are all R-3. You can see just by this map how they are all in very similar size to our parcel in question. So, they do not even meet the R-3 Zoning District lot area standard because they are part of an older subdivision.
I also confirmed those remaining Variance requests for you. Again, this is not generally applicable to other R-3 properties because we are actually changing an A-2 to an R-3 here.
This is addressing the structures that were built 27 years ago. The parcels been in this configuration for 57 years at this point.
These are some images of the residence on the site.
This is a view that is looking south, down that undedicated Bittersweet Lane. So, across the parcels access which is Bittersweet Lane.
This is an image of the side yard setback. You can see that garage in the rear.
That's the view of the shed on the site and the northern side yard setback would be behind it there. You can see that it's a heavily wooded area.
This is a view of adjacent properties looking west.
Staff is recommending approval of all of their requests, the Map Amendment and the 5 associated Variances to bring the parcel into compliance with the R-3 Zoning District.
From the agencies that were notified, none objected.
I did want to point out that the Village of New Lenox did review this case and they voted to not object to it.
I have not received any objections from concerned citizens. I can take any questions that you might have.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said thanks Janine. Does anybody have any questions?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked is the applicant or his agent on the line?
Richard Kavanagh said I am here on behalf of James Koski.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said carry on, Mr. Kavanagh. Did you want to present any information or what?
Richard Kavanagh said this was a lot that we split off. It was created in 1963. In 1978 when the County re-zoned, they re-zoned the larger portion of the lot to A-2 and then zoned this to A-2 also. As a result of that, it was existing in 1978 under the new Zoning Ordinance. The house had been built in 1963 or 1964 by the son and daughter in law of the owners of the larger parcel. Then, when my client bought it in 1988, it was an A-2 parcel. Not an R-2, R-3, or R-4 parcel. All we're trying to do is bring this into conformance with the County Zoning Ordinance.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said very good, sir. Do any of the Commissioners have a question for the applicant?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said hearing none, is there any objectors or concerned citizens on this case on the line?
No response.
Brian Radner said I just unmuted the call-in people. So, we can see if they have any objections.
Someone said no objections.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked have any objectors just jumped on for this case?
No response.
Someone said no objections.
3. Motion To Approve Map Amendment From A-2 to R-3
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
4. Motion To Approve A Variance For Minimum Lot Area From 20,000 Square Feet to 13,050 Square Feet
Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
5. Motion To Approve Minimum Lot Frontage From 90 Feet to 0 Feet
Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
6. Motion To Approve A Variance For Minimum Rear Yard Setback For Accessory Structures From 5 Feet to 1.65 Feet
Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
7. Motion To Approve A Variance For Minimum Side Yard Setback from 10 Feet to 4.20 Feet (south side)
Motion passed unanimously 6-0
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
8. Motion To Approve A Variance For Minimum Side Yard Setback from 10 Feet to 9.58 Feet (north side)
Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
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-20-014, Shawanda Barga, Owner of Record, Charles Barga, Agent, requesting (V-20-014) Variance for minimum separation distance for Adult-Use Cannabis Graft Grower from residential zone from 2500 feet to 285 feet, for Pin # 18-13-08-300-004-0000, in Green Garden Township, commonly known as 24405 S. LaGrange Road, Frankfort, IL
CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
10. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for zoning case ZC-20-022, First Midwest Trust Company 96-5892 dated 7/22/1996, Owner of Record; (Bruce Kordas and Paul A. Kordas, each 50% beneficiary); Richard Kavanagh of Kavanagh Grumley & Gorbold LLC , Attorney, requesting (M-20-006) Map Amendment from E-1 to I-1 for Pin # 19-09-06-226-003-0000 and 19-09-06-226- 004-0000, in Frankfort Township, commonly known as 11215 183rd Plance and vacant property on 183rd Place, Orland Park, IL
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-022, which takes place in Frankfort Township.
The subject property consists of 2 parcels that have recently been consolidated to form a 2.76 acre parcel.
The owner is the First Midwest Trust Company 96-5892 dated July 22, 1996 with Bruce Kordas and Paul Kordas each 50% beneficiary.
The attorney representing the property owners is Richard Kavanagh.
The subject property was previously annexed into the Village of Mokena and developed in accordance to Mokena's Codes and Ordinances back in 1992. Earlier this year, as a result between a boundary agreement between the Village of Orland Park and the Village of Mokena, the applicant petitioned Mokena to disconnect the subject property from Mokena granting de-annexation into our jurisdiction. Per our Zoning Ordinance, when parcels come back into Will County jurisdiction, they are zoned E-1, Estate Residential.
The applicant is seeking a Map Amendment to re-zone the property back to a similar Zoning District it had within the Village of Mokena to allow trailer repair, truck repair, and other I-1 permitted uses that would be permitted should the Map Amendment get approved.
I have on the screen the Map Amendment review criteria that this proposal was assessed with. Just looking at criteria #6, a LESA score was not calculated for this development proposal.
On the Connect Explorer aerial on the screen for you, this is looking south towards the property. You can see lots 3 and 4 within the Precision Industrial Complex, which is the subject properties. You also can see a couple other properties, lots 1 and 2, which is to the east or on your left hand side as well as other subdivisions across 183rd Place.
This is an image looking at lot 3 of the Precision Industrial Complex, so this is the eastern half of the subject property. It is improved with an industrial building that has 5 bay doors to service truck repair, trailer repair, as well as an existing parking lot. There are 23 regular parking spaces, 1 ADA compliant parking space and then 14 trailer parking spaces behind that fence line.
This is looking at lot 4 of the subject property, or the western half. It is currently vacant and unimproved. Should any improvements be made, in the time it's within unincorporated Will County's jurisdiction, a Building Permit and Site Development Permit will be required before any work could be started on this property.
Looking at criteria 1 and 4, the existing uses of the property and the trends in development within the area of the property, Staff used a half mile radius of the subject property. There are highly dense developments within the area. You have a lot of industrial subdivisions. You have the BP Oil Tank Farm across Wolf Road to the east. Then you also have residential subdivisions to the south of I-80 as well as to the north of 183rd Street.
The parcel was zoned previously in Mokena as an I-1 parcel to use as truck repair and trailer repair. You also have in the immediate surrounding area, you have the Orland Park Business Center which is directly west. You have the Distinctive Office Building Subdivision and Distinctive Office Park Subdivisions, which comprise of a vacant parcel as well as medical offices and financial service offices. Then you also have subdivision of lot 2 in Golden Eagle Park, which currently is a gas station. Directly north of 183rd Street we have subdivisions such as the Preserve at Marley Creek, Breckenridge and Fountain Hills within the Village of Orland Park. Then south of I-80, within the Village of Mokena, you have subdivisions such as Jennyglen and Quail's Crossing, which are mulit-phased developments within the Village.
So, this is looking at lots 1 and 2 within the Precision Industrial Complex. This was annexed into the Village of Orland Park back in 2004. It is currently an animal hospital daycare boarding facility. With talks with the Village, there is a parking problem within this property that does limit access along 183rd Place just due to the number of traffic. You can see their parking lot is full.
This is looking at lot 5 and towards lot 6, which is the detention pond for the subdivision. Lot 5 and 6 are within the Village of Orland Park. There are also currently some vacant gravel lots.
Looking north across 183rd Street, this is one of the Industrial Subdivisions. It is currently vacant unimproved.
This is the Distinctive Business Park which has those professional businesses within that development.
Looking south along the subdivision as well as the subject property, we have an R- 1 zoned property that is industrially used. We have a concrete recycler. We have truck parking on this property as well as a logistics company. These uses are not permitted in a Residential Zoning District. However, the County being complaint based, has yet to receive a complaint about this property with those uses.
As far as the zoning classification as well as suitability of the property in question, looking within this area, it is surrounded by municipalities. You have the Orland Park north of I-80. You also have the Village of Mokena south of I-80. Within those uses, you can see directly around the subject properties. We have the ORI, or mixed use category, which is a relatively new zoning category within the Village of Orland Park. This is to conform with the I-80 Employment District. That's part of their comprehensive plan. This area is geared towards corporate employment centers as well as compatible uses within similar industries. You have residential. You have multi-family to the north and then general business. You have, like I said, the BP Oil Tank Farm, which is I-3 across Wolf Road. You have the Mokena Farm Subdivision which is R-1, although the lots north of I-80 still are either unimproved or used industrially.
So, in terms of have an estate residential property that's already improved with industrial buildings that was formerly used industrially, that's not suitable for estate residential zoning.
Moving onto the compatibility with the officially adopted plans within the County, according to the Land Resource Management Plan, free-standing industry and office is a permitted use. So, with that, it would be conforming with the County's plan. However, there is talk of a Wolf Road interchange to access I-80 within this area which would then make it part of the Interstate Access Development Form where free-standing industry and office is not a permitted use. Due to financial constraints within the Illinois Department of Transportation, it's unknown when or if this would be built. Within the Village of Orland Park's Comprehensive Plan, the subject property, as was mentioned previously is part of the I-80 Employment District, which is envisioned to be corporate offices, light industrial uses with moderate amounts of truck and service traffic are seen as appropriate. However, more heavy industrial uses such as truck repair, are seen as unsupportable mainly due to the weight restrictions on 183rd Street and there's no direct access to I-80. So, the Village has a hard time with the infrastructure and the weight requirements of semi-trucks. As such, the Village of Orland Park has provided numerous emails and phone conversations with Staff. Since the publication of the Staff Report, Orland Park has produced a letter of objection to this Map Amendment request that I will be reading into the record at the conclusion of my presentation.
Staff also received an email from an abutting property owner concerned about some of the storm water issues that may occur in future development. This will also be read into the record at the conclusion.
As such, Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment request from E-1 to I-1 for the aforementioned reasons.
At this time, I will be reading into the record the 2 letters received today.
From the Law Office of Michael T. Huguelet, Attorneys at Law. Dated May 19, 2020. To Will County Land Use Department regarding Will County Zoning Application, property nearby Case # ZC-20-022. Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that I represent Lt 6 LLC, the owner of lot 6 in the Precision Industrial Complex. My client has been advised that an application has been submitted to the Will County Planning & Zoning Commission for a map amendment from E-1 to I-1. Please be advised that Lot 6 presently takes in storm sewer and sanitary detention from the mechanical sewers on lots 3 and 4. My client is concerned with the ambiguity surrounding the reason for the zoning change, and the negative impact on his property given that the use of the property may change or give rise to a significant increase in any storm water runoff onto my client's property. Please advise what steps are being taken to address this concern based on the current uses by the other owners in the Precision Industrial Complex. Lot 6 is presently in Orland Park due to annexation and my client requests that lots 3 and 4 hook into the city sanitary line and contain all of their required storm water on their own site. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Michael T. Huguelet P.C and Christopher S Fowler.
The second letter comes from the Village of Orland Park dated May 19, 2020 to Marguerite C. Kenny Will County Land Use Development Analyst I 58 E. Clinton St Suite 100 Joliet, Illinois 60432. Regarding ZC-20-022 Kordas Property Map Amendment. Dear Ms. Kenny, The Village of Orland Park is writing to object to the Map Amendment proposed by First Midwest Trust Company 96-5892 for the properties PIN 19-09-06-226-003 and 19-09-06-226-004. The proposed use is truck repair. The use does not match the vision as presented in the Village of Orland Park Comprehensive Plan. The I-80 Employment Planning District, identified in the Village's Comprehensive Plan, has been envisioned to provide corporate office employment and other complimentary uses. The Village believes that approval of the proposed land use will be detrimental to the ability to continue to promote and attract these types of uses in the future. In addition, parcel 19-09-06-226-003 is currently vacant. What is the proposed use for this site? Will this site be utilized for outdoor storage? The Village's code requirements are restrictive and should be adhered to, as they have been applied to other similar uses in the surrounding area. Please advise if any additional approvals are necessary to use the site as an additional truck repair facility or outdoor storage. Has the proposed traffic impact been analyzed for the increase/decrease of new trips being generated by the proposed use? Will the proposed use impact 183rd Place, a Village of Orland Park Road, causing the need for potentially additional or more frequent maintenance. The Village received correspondence from a property owner in the existing Orland Park Business Center and they have identified the following concerns: with parking on both sides of 183rd Place from the vet clinic, two vehicles presently cannot get by at the same time. How much traffic would be created from the anticipated use? Had a traffic study been performed? Given the anticipated use is trailer repair, would traffic of semi-trailers to get onto and off of Wolf Road be backed up even more? Is 183rd Place built to accommodate extensive semi traffic? Is storm drainage adequately addressed? The Village would appreciate a response to these comments so they can be forwarded to the property owner. Ultimately, the proposed use does not meet the vision for the I-80 Employment Planning District, as outline in the Village's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use may make it more difficult to promote and execute the Village's vision. Property owners in the surround area are concerned about the impact of the proposed use. The Village is requesting that the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission to deny this request or to table the request until such time that the Village has had an opportunity to work with the property owner in order to annex the property into the Village. Sincerely Edward R. Lelo Director of Development Services Village of Orland Park.
With that letter, Map Amendments are allowed to have legal objections. This letter is not the formal letter of objection from the Village. It would have to actually have something through an Ordinance and then have it recorded at the County Clerk's office. With conversations with Mr. Lelo, there is the possibility of a formal legal objection coming through the pipeline. At the time of this presentation, no formal legal objections have been submitted or accepted by the County.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said thank you Marguerite. Do any Commissioners have any questions?
John Kiefner said I would like to ask a couple I guess. Does that mean the current property is not tied into a commercial sewer and water supply?
Marguerite Kenny said that is correct. It was developed back in 1992 but within the Village of Mokena's requirements for a subdivision. The detention pond found on lot 6, from initial conversations with our engineering department and just basic knowledge of subdivisions not going further into the plat, it was sized for impervious surfacing that already existed. Any future development would have to be review against what that detention pond is sized for as well as what is proposed. There might be additional detention required on the site itself, but that would come forward with the reviews of a Site Development Permit or Building Permit that would come through our office.
John Kiefner asked does our County Ordinance for the proposed to I-1 have any restrictions on waste water that would come off of this site, say drains or something that are on the facility?
Marguerite Kenny said that, I don't know the answer to. I would say it would have to comply with our Water Resource Ordinance with regards to any types of drainage.
John Kiefner said there is an eco-system on the property, if I understood, right?
Marguerite Kenny said there should be.
John Kiefner said I'm done.
Roger Bettenhausen said with the letters that were just read into record Marguerite, would it still be Staff's recommendation for approval of this Map Amendment?
Marguerite Kenny said yes. In terms of I-1, whether it be within our Zoning Ordinance, truck repair and any repairs seen as motor vehicle repair which is a permitted use in I-1, but there are other I-1 uses that would be permitted as well similar to corporate office and things of that nature. The other thing too is, the suitability of the property as an E-1 property for estate residential. This area isn't more industrial, it's more office spaces where residential dwellings aren't appropriate for this area. So, it would be more appropriate as commercial or industrial as like a light industrial use, which is what the applicant is requesting.
Roger Bettenhausen said thank you.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked any further questions of Staff?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked is the owner or agent on the line?
Richard Kavanagh said I am on the line on behalf of Bruce Kordas, who may also be on the line.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked do you have anything to add Mr. Kavanagh?
Richard Kavanagh said yes, I do. I'd like to briefly go through the history of this if you will indulge me. This is property that was annexed by the Village of Mokena in early 1992. Evidently what Mokena did was it strip annexed going north of I-80 along Wolf Road and then west and picked up this entire subdivision, which was at that time, vacant land, probably farm land. Later in 1992, the Village of Mokena approved the Precision Industrial Complex which was, and still is, a 6 lot complex and zoned it I-1. 4 years later my clients purchased lot 3 from the owners of the Precision Industrial Complex and built the building that you saw on the site for their truck repair business. They were in the Village of Mokena. Mokena approved not only the design of the entire subdivision, the storm water run-off, etc. but they approved the building that my client's built on lot 3. My clients operated this business for more than 20 years. Toward the end of 2018, both of my clients, Bruce and Paul Kordas, were having physical health problems and so they shut down their business and sought to sell the property, as well as lot 4 which is to the west of lot 3, which they had purchased in 2000. That lot remained vacant, they never put any buildings or anything on it. This property was built in the Village of Mokena and Mokena approved all the plans for the building and everything else. There was a question, I believe, about the septic system. It's a sanitary sewage and mechanical septic system which is licensed by the Will County Health Department and inspected, I believe, quarterly by the Will County Health Department. What happened is when my clients went to sell the property, they had potential buyers and they went to Mokena, and Mokena said they won't approve anything, you shouldn't be in Mokena, we have a boundary agreement with Orland Park and this is on the Orland Park side. So, my clients then went to Orland Park and checked. Orland Park said we don't want a truck repair facility. We don't want a trailer repair facility there. So, my clients were left in limbo. What they did was, they said well, we met with Will County to see if the trailer repair facility would be appropriate for I-1 Zoning in Will County. We met with Staff and Staff said yes, but of course, if you disconnect from the Village of Mokena, you come in as E-1. We understood that and we told Mokena to disconnect us. They did. Then we filed this application for re-zoning from E-1, which is the highest residential district possible to I-1 so my clients could take the property that they had owned for 23 or 24 years and sell it to another company that would be doing something less intensive than truck repair i.e. truck trailer repair. So, that's where we are. That's how we got here. I will point out that I have sent a copy of this to Ms. Kenny. When we first filed an application with the County, the County says we want you to contact these bodies in order to see what they have to say about this particular application. So, we sent letters to the Village of Orland Park, the Village of Mokena, the Village of Homer Glen, and Frankfort Township. It was the same letter, a slight wording change for Frankfort Township because with respect to Frankfort Township, we said please let us know if you would like us to appear before your Township Board, knowing they don't have a Plan Commission, to discuss this. So, a letter went to the Village of Orland Park on April 3, 2020 describing what we were doing, describing why we were doing it, and the final paragraph, I will read to you, but Marguerite should have the letter. "We are writing to you today to see if you would like us to appear before your Plan Commission and Village Board with respect to this zoning request. I have enclosed a copy of the application to Will County for your review and information". I have never heard a word from the Village of Orland Park. So, we are asking you tonight if you would, to make the recommendation of the County Board that the property, which was zoned I-1 in Mokena, which was built in Mokena as to an I-1 use which meets the criteria for Will County's I-1 use. We're asking you to make a recommendation for the County Board to approve re- zoning from E-1 to I-1. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions that anyone has.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said thank you Mr. Kavanagh. Do any Commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked are there any objectors or concerned citizens on the line that would like to talk about this case?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked if there was anybody on hold that we are waiting on?
Brian Radner said all of the mutes are off. They can speak if they wanted to. Vice Chairman said last chance, does any concerned citizens or objectors? No response.
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
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-20-024, Klint Kessling, Owner of Record and Nick DeFrancesco, Agent, requesting (V-20-024) Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2, 379 square feet, for Pin # 14-12-12-104-004-0000, in Manhattan Township, commonly known as 23961 South Old Farm Road, Manhattan, IL
CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
12. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Pursuant to Section 155-10.20 of the Will county Illinois Zoning Ordinance, TUP-20-002, Roberta Kelley, Owner of Record is requesting TUP to have rural events on property for PIN # 21-14-18-100-020-0000, in Monee Township, commonly known as 24809 S. Harlem , Monee IL
THIS CASE HAS BEEN TABLED TO JUNE 16, 2020 MEETING.
Barbara Peterson said this is a Temporary Use Permit for Rural Events. Correct me if I'm wrong Janine, is there not a case scheduled for June 16th that is also a Special Use Permit relative to this applicant?
Janine Farrell said actually I will go over this with Commissioner White who is the acting chairman.
In regards to this Temporary Use, it is related to #7 on the Agenda, ZC-20-011. #7 will have to be tabled until June 16th.
Barb, did that answer your question?
Barbara Peterson said what I would like to put forth to the Commission is that we table this Temporary Use Permit until that time that we're going to hear the Special Use Permit because I believe that this venue has to be expanded for the applicant to thoroughly put forth her case and also the amount of people that are interested and the adjoining property owners, the objectors. I'm asking my Commission members to consider tabling this case to June 16th.
Janine Farrell said Barb was asking the Commission to table #6 on the Agenda, TUP-20-002, to June 16th as well. Then, it will be heard alongside #7 on the Agenda, ZC-20-011.
Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
13. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-20-011, Roberta J. Kelley, Owner of Record, Requesting (S-20-003) Special Use Permit for Rural Events, for Pin #21-14-18-100-020-0000, in Monee Township, Commonly Known as 24809 S. Harlem Ave., Monee, IL, County Board District #1
THIS CASE HAS BEEN TABLED TO JUNE 16, 2020.
Janine Farrell said actually I will go over this with Commissioner White who is the acting chairman.
#7 will have to be tabled until June 16th. Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/16/2020 6:30 PM
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
14. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF Appeal of Administrative Decision, for Case AAD-20-001, Trust NO. 558-78, Owner of Record, Horsemen Association Club of Joliet, Illinois, Adolfo Arias, Sr. Adolfo Arias, Jr., and Mario Arias eequal beneficiaries; Lorien Schoenstedt, Attorney, requesting the appeal of Administrative Decision denying temporary use permit TUPA-20-002 for outdoor concerts due to violation of previous temporary use Permit, for Pin # 11-04-36-300-025-0000 and 11-04-36-300-031-0000,in Lockport, Township, Commonly known as 18249 and 18261 S. Briggs, Joliet, IL
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # AAD-20-001. We have an Appeal of an Administrative Decision.
The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision and determination under Section 155.17.20 (D) (2) (c) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.
This takes place actually in Lockport Township on 2 separate parcels. They do have a Joliet address.
The applicant is the Horsemen Association Club of Joliet, which is represented by Lorien Schoenstedt.
This is an image of those 2 parcels on the screen. You can see they're over there on the northeast corner of Rosalind and Briggs.
I'm going to give you a timeline of events here. The parcels do have a legal nonconforming or grandfathered in rodeo.
The applicant was actually placed into violation back in October, 2018 for having outdoor concerts without a Temporary Use Permit. So, those outdoor concerts are not legal nonconforming or grandfathered in, they require that Temporary Use Permit.
The applicant did apply in March, 2019 for a Temporary Use Permit for outdoor concerts for last year’s season.
In August, 2019, we did receive a complaint about an outdoor concert that was held outside of those approved dates. Our Code Enforcement Officer addressed that situation with the applicant at that time.
In October of that year, we received a 2nd complaint about an outdoor concert held outside of the approved 2019 dates. The Temporary Use Permit was then revoked as a result of that 2nd violation.
The applicant did appeal the decision but it was not within that 10 calendar day period described under the Ordinance.
March of this year, the applicant applied for a Temporary Use Permit for outdoor concerts for this year’s season, for the 2020 season. That application was denied due to violations of that previous years Temporary Use Permit.
That is the applicant’s decision that is being appealed. I know we don't get many of these so I just wanted to refresh everyone's memory about the appeal process and what is actually at play here.
Within the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to hear appeals where it is alleged there has been an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator or any other Administrative Official and administration interpretation or enforcement of this Zoning Ordinance. In effect, the Planning & Zoning Commission is making a determination if the Zoning Administrator was incorrect in their determination and decision of the enforcement of that one Section of the Zoning Ordinance which is right here. As I mentioned in the beginning, it is Section 155.17.20 (D) (2) (c), the Zoning Administrator may deny or withhold temporary use permits on any land or structure or improvements owned or being developed by a person who owns, developed or otherwise caused a violation of a previous temporary use permit. The enforcement provision may be used regardless of whether the property for which the temporary use permit sought is for the property on which the previous violation occurred. In essence, the Zoning Administrator, which is me, denied the Temporary Use Permit based upon violation of that previous Temporary Use Permit.
The applicant is saying that the decision was an error and that the Zoning Administrator is hereby required to accept and approve the Temporary Use Permit, TUPA-20-002, which would permit outdoor concerts for this 2020 season as long as all the additional requirements are satisfied.
I can take any questions that you may have.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said thanks Janine. Do the Commissioners have any questions?
John Kiefner said I would like to ask a question. Is it my understanding that other events are legally happening on this property, aside from the conflict that they're asking for?
Janine Farrell said the property has been operating a rodeo. That is what we called grandfathered in. I believe it was back in the mid 90's there was an Administrative Special Use Permit sort of retroactively granted that rodeo and the ancillary liquor service. That is not part of this decision. This is specifically related to the concerts.
John Kiefner said so to verify, denial of this will not affect the current use. Janine Farrell said correct, the rodeo can still operate.
John Kiefner said thank you.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked does anyone else have any questions?
John Kiefner said I guess I should follow up with that. You have substantiated the violations of last year. We do have them, actual record or reports that prove errors did occur.
Janine Farrell said correct. We work with the Sheriff's Office on these types of violations because they do occur outside of our business hours, but they do have records.
John Kiefner said thank you.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked do any other Commissioners have any questions?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked is the applicant on the line?
Carl Buck said I am here on behalf of the applicant. I would also like to acknowledge that Mr. Adolfo Arias is here on behalf of the Horsemen's Association for any questions that the Commissioners might have. First off, thank you for hearing our appeal today. Under these circumstances, we certainly appreciate it and understand the effort that goes into scheduling meetings like this during COVID-19. So, thank you for that. To begin with, the recitation by Ms. Farrell is accurate. She did go through and recite what has occurred on this property. I do want to point out a few additional facts for the Commissioners to consider. The reason that we took this appeal for the Temporary Use Permit to have the concerts on the site is Commissioner Kiefner acknowledged that the rodeo had been operating for a number of years and does have other legal operations occurring on the site. They do hold a liquor license through the Illinois Liquor Control Commission. The events that caused the revocation of the Temporary Use Permit for the 2019 season were, I would suggest, somewhat administrative in nature. They weren't caused by failures to comply with the hours, or causing a disturbance, or something of that nature. The reason that those events occurred was because there were rain dates. The Temporary Use Permit that was issued to the Horsemen's Association was for fewer total events that has allowed for Temporary Use Permit. On the dates that were indicated, there were rain outs so they could not hold the event. What the Horsemen's Association did wrong was, they didn't correctly reschedule a rain event. They did go through all the other procedures to comply with the Temporary Use Permit. One of those procedures, they have an agreement with Lockport, for instance, if they have to run within a certain time. We have a copy of that agreement. There was no complaint from Lockport in what we did. They also have to coordinate with the Sheriff's Office. In some respects, there was communication with the County through the Sheriff's Office because there are deputies that work the event. For that particular event, there were approximately 12 deputies that worked the event. The cost of that was roughly $3,900 that was paid to them for that service. The reason that I bring that to the Commission's attention, is because within the Statutes for the County, it does say that the Zoning Administrator may deny it, not shall deny it. I certainly want to point out to the Commissioners that there is discretion here for the purpose of granting this Temporary Use Permit to the Horsemen's Association. That's #1. #2 is that the mistake that they made certainly more than a mistake in how they operated other than they incorrectly rescheduled the rain outs. I will acknowledge that there was communication through the County and there was communication back and forth between the Horsemen's Association. What we were hoping to do going forward was create a situation where a Temporary Use Permit, doesn't encompass the total number of events that you could otherwise have under a Temporary Use Permit would going forward, would include potential rain out dates. So we wouldn't have to go through this process and confusion going forward. We would know what those rain out dates were ahead of time and they would still be able to be contained within the limits of the Temporary Use Permit. That's the 2nd point I wanted to make. The 3rd point that I wanted to make was there was communication through the County in the scheduling of the deputies for the events. I understand the requirement to communicate through the Land Use Department as Ms. Farrell indicated to reschedule the events. It’s just they weren't on the exact date. That's the issue. They weren't on the exact date as contained in the Temporary Use Permit. In scheduling the security through the Sheriff's Department, certainly the Commission could draw the inference that it wasn't the intent of the Horsemen's Association to, in any way, not follow the rules of the Temporary Use Permit or comply with the restrictions of the Temporary Use Permit as it regards public safety, public health and so forth. Obviously by contacting the Sheriff's Department, they weren't trying to hide anything. That's the purpose of this appeal. It isn't to question or to say that Ms. Farrell or the County was wrong per say. It's to say that yes, we understand why they made their decision. That decision in itself was discretionary. Obviously the Horsemen's Association has come to the County and complied. They got a Temporary Use Permit. They're in compliance with the other legal requirements that they have. So, going forward, it's our hope that this Commission can see fit to grant them a Temporary Use Permit for 2020, identify the dates for the events and require that the rain dates be indicated in there as well. That is the thing that they did wrong, is schedule those rain dates. We do have the documents that support some of the other statements that I made in regard to hiring of the Sheriff's Office, contacting them, and working through the Sheriff's Office. We can provide them to the Commission as well. I'd certainly be happy to answer any questions that the Commission might have with regards to this appeal. Mr. Arias is also on the phone and he can answer any questions. In a nutshell, that's the reason for this appeal. We hope that you can consider these factors in allowing the Temporary Use Permit to proceed with those rain dates included so both parties know exactly what dates they can have the event.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said thank you sir. Does anybody on the Commission have any questions for the applicant?
John Kiefner said I do have a procedural question for the acting chairman and/or Staff. If we were to overturn the Administrative Decision, they would still be required to apply for the Temporary Use Permit for the year 2020, correct?
Janine Farrell said that is correct. If you were to approve this appeal before you tonight, you are basically saying that I, as the Zoning Administrator, must accept the Temporary Use Permit application and of course they have to follow all of the guidelines and submittal requirements as related to that.
John Kiefner said I thought I heard one thing, granting the permit. We're just allowing the applicant to proceed?
Carl Buck said that's correct.
Janine Farrell said yes. With these types of Temporary Use Permits, if they meeting the requirements of the application submittals and we don't get any sort of objections from agencies that are notified, like the road authority or the fire district, then I can approve it.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked does that answer your question John?
John Kiefner said the last part didn't come through too well so I got confused.
Barbara Peterson said Janine, I have a question. How many years has this group been doing these outdoor events? Do you have a record of how many years they have been doing this?
Janine Farrell asked for the concerts or for the rodeo?
Barbara Peterson said we're talking the concerts. How many years have they applied for the concerts?
Janine Farrell said they only applied in 2019. That was the first time. We do have complaints about previous years for concerts occurring on the property, but when we received the initial first complaint, that was 2018. So then 2019, they had applied for that season.
Barbara Peterson said ok. How many concerts will they be able to have on the property? If this is approved, if you are deemed in error as Zoning Administrator, how many concerts will they be able to have?
Janine Farrell said for the calendar year, they would be allowed to have up to 21.
Barbara Peterson said oh my God!
Carl Buck said if I can interject Commissioner Peterson, last year we had 10. We can't schedule as many events as we could possibly have under the Temporary Use Permit guidelines. I appreciate Ms. Farrell's answer. It's absolutely correct but there's no way that we could have that many. We would not be seeking that many. As it stands, even if you grant the Temporary Use Permit, we might not be able to have any because of the current status of our world. As recognized, we're looking for the opportunity to go through the process. Thank you.
Barbara Peterson said ok, thank you, you've answered my question. Continue, I'm done.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked do any other Commissioners have any questions of the applicant?
No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked are there any concerned citizens or objectors that are on the line that wish to speak?
No response.
Michael Carruthers said I have one question. Janine, how will we implement the rain dates if this is to go forward?
Janine Farrell said what the applicant would do as part of the Temporary Use Permit application is outline every single and all dates that they would want the event to occur, which would include the rain dates. So, we would know the cumulative total is going to be under 21, of course. Then if there's one date where the event doesn't occur, that's not an issue the event decides to go on the following weekend but we have that weekend approved as well.
Michael Carruthers asked going forward, is there any penalties if the applicant doesn't follow the law?
Janine Farrell said yes. This appeal is just saying that I accept this application and would approve it. Of course submittals are required. If there were any sort of violations for the 2020 Temporary Use Permit, we do have that revocation process. As the Zoning Administrator, should there be a violation of the conditions of the Temporary Use, I would still have that ability to go through the revocation process.
John Kiefner asked are you satisfied with Mr. Bucks reply here that they did indeed have the Sheriff's deputies there and they weren't completely going on the sly with the rescheduled rain events from last year? Can you concur with that statement?
Janine Farrell said our Code Enforcement Officer is on this meeting. I don't want to put her on the spot but we do have Megan Flanagan here as part of this that might be able to speak that more specifically.
Code Enforcement Megan Flanagan said I have been in contact with the Sheriff's Department through all of 2018 and 2019. I do know that the Sheriff Deputies are always there.
John Kiefner said my general theory here is do we give him a chance to get a Special Use Permit so that we at least can protect public safety with Sheriff's deputies there or risk going back to where they risk doing events on the sly like they might have been doing in 2018? I know this isn't exactly relevant but I know we heard another case a few months ago where there was some serious concerns about venues, which may have been this one, really operating outside of the law. I kind of lean towards giving them the chance to stay within the law and at least have the chance that we have law enforcement there. I'm satisfied that our County Staff at least has the chance to revoke the Special Use Permit if any grievances become apparent.
Barbara Peterson said to your question, this is a side job for the deputies. They are all hired and they get paid. They look forward to all of these side jobs. So, they're there. They are there all the time whenever they are hired.
John Kiefner said technically its better off if they are there.
Kimberly Mitchell said I'm going to interrupt here. Brian, can you remind us what we're doing with this case? Aren't we just determining whether or not the Zoning Administrator made a mistake?
Barbara Peterson said that's basically it. That's what we have to vote on.
Kimberly Mitchell said that's what we're supposed to be thinking about. Whether or not the Zoning Administrator was within his right in the decision that he made.
Barbara Peterson said that's what makes it so hard to really vote.
Kimberly Mitchell said I'm ready to vote.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked does anybody else have any questions? No response.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said to remind you, a yes vote means the Administrator was incorrect. A no vote means they were correct. Am I correct on that Brian?
Brian Radner said it's actually Janine that's the Zoning Administrator.
Vice Chairman Thomas White asked Janine, would that be correct?
Janine Farrell said that would be my interpretation. Chris Wise from the Will County State's Attorney’s office is on here but that would be my interpretation. Voting yes to the appeal would be granting that appeal.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said very good.
Roll call vote was taken. Motion failed 1-5.
RESULT: DEFEATED [1 TO 5]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: Kiefner
NAYS: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
VI. OTHER
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Not needed.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brian Radner said the only announcement that I would have at this point is what's going to happen with the June meeting is currently not known, whether we'll be meeting in person, partially in person or online. It all depends on what the Governor allows us to do.
Vice Chairman Thomas White said that should be interesting to see. Thank you.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
X. Visit www.willcountylanduse.com to view agendas and staff reports
1. Motion To Adjourn
Motion passed unanimously 6-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
ABSENT: Stipan
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3771&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up