Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met May 5.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the WebEx meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Due to having to have the meeting done via WebEx, we were unable to participate in the 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 |
Chris Wise from the Will County State's Attorney's office was also present at the WebEx meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Mar 3, 2020 6:30 PM
Minutes were approved with no corrections or additions. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
V. ZONING CASES
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-19-083 (Companion case to ZC-19-090 West Parcel) Sana Hasan, Owner of Record, and Ashraf Hasan, Agent, requesting (V-19-082) Variance for fence height within street setback (W. Taylor Road) from 5 feet to 7 feet and (V-20-004) Variance for fence height within street setback (Budler Road) from 5 feet to 7 feet), for Pin # 06-03-01-300- 016-0000, in Plainfield Township, commonly known as 22252 and 22210 W. Taylor Road, Plainfield, IL
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case ZC-19-083 and ZC-19-090 together.
Both cases take place in Plainfield Township and concern a 3.373 acre parcel and a 1.743 acre parcel.
Each case is requesting a Variance for the fence height in the street setback from 5 feet to 7 feet. Each request will be voted upon separately, although they are the same requests.
Before I get too far into my presentation, I just wanted to remind you that I will make a brief presentation to the Commissioners. The Commission will then be asking questions of Staff. Then, the applicant being online as well will have his chance to communicate with the Commission. Then the public, if there is any objectors, would be invited to make their comments to the Commission as well. With that, I will continue with my presentation.
The owner is Sana Hasan. The agent is Ashraf Hasan.
The subject parcels of the Zoning Cases are currently improved with 3 single family residences and accessory structures. Both parcels were originally combined as a larger 5 acre, A-1 parcel, that was previously an air field after which the land was improved for residential purposes, until last Fall when the applicant began to cultivate industrial hemp.
Pursuant to the Illinois Department of Agriculture, hemp cultivation is considered a crop and with the properties being Zoned A-1, it is considered a permitted use. While hemp cultivation consists of growing a cannabis plant, the state requires hemp cultivators to be licensed through the state and comply with strict regulations.
Going back to the parcel, the parcel is divided into its current configuration since 1991, which resulted in deficient A-1 parcels. Both lots are considered illegal lots. The parcel identified by ZC-19-090, also violates the County's subdivision as it is smaller than what was permitted at the time.
The applicant's preference is to address these complicated violations at a later time.
The applicant’s here tonight to resolve the citation that was issued for the 7 foot high fence constructed along the perimeter of both parcels in order to secure the hemp cultivation occurring onsite. The fence is located on both parcels within the street setback. While permits for fences are not required, the Zoning Ordinance has height restrictions for fences in all Zoning Districts. Fences that encroach into street setbacks are limited to 4 feet in height except for A-1 Districts, where 5 feet is permitted by right.
On the screen, I have the visual of both parcels. As was previously mentioned, both parcels are zoned A-1 despite the development of residential subdivisions occurring to the north and south.
On the screen, I have just the review criteria of the parcels that the Variance request would be evaluated upon. Your Staff Report contains an in-depth analysis of both of these criteria.
On the screen is a Zoning Map showing the Lakewood Falls Subdivision to the north of the subject property as well as the Village of Romeoville lying directly south of the subdivision. Within the Village of Romeoville, their fence requests within the street setback are limited to 3 feet in height as well as having to maintain an open face material
In the Weslake Subdivision, you will notice there are fences and they are open face material and they appear to be less than 3 feet.
On the screen you have the Plat of Survey from the applicant. Within each parcel, you have the designated Zoning Cases. The magenta triangles show what is the vision clearance triangle so it is a 75 foot triangle from each entrance to the property. The existing fence is encroaching into the vision clearance triangle. The applicant has proposed to make modifications to the fences to address the vision clearance so that he comes into compliance. With the existing house, the house was created before the vision clearance standards came into adoption and will be allowed to remain. However, the fence has to comply with present day regulations and needs to be re-configured. The applicant is currently working on accomplishing this.
Looking at the subject property for ZC-19-083, the applicant has a fence that is along both Taylor and Budler Roads. So, the request is for fence height within the street setback along both streets. Tonight you will be voting on 2 separate zoning requests.
Zooming in, you can see the 3 differences in fence height.
Staff finds that within the existing neighborhoods, approving a Variance for 7 feet might alter the character of the neighborhood. Next to the 7 foot fence there is a buffer fence that appears to be about 6 feet tall that separates the Lakewood Falls Subdivision from the subject property. Then you have the rear fence within the Lakewood Falls residential lots that is even less than 6 feet.
Looking within the subject property, this property is using about 1-1/2 acres for the hemp cultivation.
Should the applicant decide to relocate the fence outside of the street setback, the A-1 District requires 100 feet from the center line of the road, the applicant still could meet the state's requirement of 1/4 acre of cultivation to keep his license. He would also be permitted, as right, to keep the 7 foot tall fence. However, the applicant would like to keep the 1-1/2 acres being used for hemp cultivation.
As such, Staff does not find there is a unique circumstance present for the variance request.
Looking at ZC-19-090, this property abuts I-55. You can see the buffer fence along the interstate towards the rear of the picture. This is just a zoomed in photo of that 7 foot tall fence that encroaches into the street setback on this property.
As with this property, the applicant uses about an acre of the property to cultivate hemp.
The applicant could relocate the fence outside of the setback requirement of the street and stay in conformance with the state's requirements as well as be in conformance with Will County's Zoning Ordinance as well. However, the applicant would like to maintain the 1 acre field for the hemp out of preference.
Outside of the Village of Romeoville submitting a letter of objection, which has been included in the Staff packet, Staff received an email that was also included in the packet from a resident across the street on Taylor, also objecting to the Variances.
With that, Staff has recommended denial of all 3 Variances with the aforementioned reasons for tonight's PowerPoint as well as the Staff packet.
With that, that completes Staff's analysis.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions for Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked no questions?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked Mr. Hasan, would you care to respond? No response but the applicant was talking.
Brian Radner said we're not hearing you Mr. Hasan.
****A LOT OF THE STATEMENT OF MR. HASAN WAS VERY GARBLED AND YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT, DUE TO A BAD INTERNET CONNECTION****
Mr. Hasan said I am going to make a long story short so I don't take up all your time. My father actually owned this property since 2005. We started growing pumpkins for several years. We did corn, I guess, 1 time. We started seeing some theft instances and that's why we went to Will County to get a permit for this fence. The fence company told me that I could go up to 7 feet high. I talked to John, I don't remember his last name at the fence company. Will County is asking me to move the fence back. We are planning to change over the north fence to 7 feet high as well to match. Just to give an idea of what we are doing. There's a lot of guys and a lot of neighbors who think we are making millions of dollars, which is totally wrong. With all due respect, that is not correct. We are growing industrial hemp on almost 2-1/2 acres. We are planting 60 plants in each line. We get about 55 lines on both sides of the property.
Chairman Stipan asked Mr. Hasan, might I interrupt you? We don't really care what you're planting. It doesn't matter whether you're planting pumpkins or tomatoes or hemp or whatever. We are concerned about the fence.
Mr. Hasan said I understand, but I am just trying to make a point here about what we're doing and what we get back. If I go back to 100 feet wide inside my property, my income will go from $20,000 per year for the whole property to $14,000 per year. $14,000 per year is not going to be enough to feed 3 families on this property. Especially with what’s going on with the COVID-19. There is no other source of income. Thank you very much.
Michael Carruthers asked everything that you've done from the cameras and everything, you've had permits for them, right?
Mr. Hasan asked are you asking me if I had a permit?
Michael Carruthers said for the cameras, normally you have to have permits for the cameras and the fence. This hemp, is this marijuana? Are we talking about hemp?
Mr. Hasan said yes.
Michael Carruthers said ok. My question is did you contact Romeoville? Plainfield butts up to Romeoville right? Isn't that why the submitted the information?
Mr. Hasan said I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
Michael Carruthers said Romeoville submitted, by request, that possibly violated, I guess, contacting your neighbors and everything. Knowing that you were going to do this, and you wanted to profit from this, you didn't go through the proper procedures, right?
Mr. Hasan said we're not in Romeoville, we're in Will County.
Michael Carruthers said I just wanted to ask that question. Thank you.
Mr. Hasan said we did check with Will County. Romeoville has nothing to do with it. We are not connected to Plainfield or Romeoville. We're not zoned in either Romeoville or Plainfield either.
Michael Carruthers asked the state issues this license to you, correct?
Mr. Hasan said correct, yes.
Chairman Stipan said I will explain the last comment. They can object to what you're doing there because somewhere along the line they are going to annex that area or that property. It's the only reason that they have that mile and a half objection. Never mind the villages. Never mind the objection. We have to concern ourselves with County Code. County Code says that you can't go any higher than 5 feet. You say you're planning to go to 7 feet on the other side, you'll be compounding your problem. We have to have a view for the roads. That corner which I understand you have agreed to cutting off the corner of the fence so that nobody will have an accident because of your fence. That is probably wise because that is a legal complication. The second thing is, we still have to come to a conclusion of variance to the height and our code says 5 feet maximum. You're applying for a Variance to that, I'm just suggesting that it's going to be a tough Variance to get.
Chairman Stipan asked is there anybody else online that is a concerned citizen or an objector?
Brian Radner said Mr. Chairman there are 4 people that are signed up as attendees. I'm going to bring them in as panelists and see if they would like to speak to this case.
Chairman Stipan said yes, please. Maybe you can find out if they want to speak to this case before you bring them in. If they're not concerned to this case, we can go ahead and move to a vote.
Brian Radner asked the attendees that had signed up, are you interested in speaking to this case?
Chairman Stipan said ok. Please bring them in one at a time or all at once and we'll talk to them one at a time.
A woman said no.
Brian asked was that Thomas or Sharon?
A woman said that was Devries.
Josh Potter said I would like to make some comments.
Brian Radner said Mr. Chairman, Josh Potter is here to make some comments on this case.
Chairman Stipan said please make some comments Mr. Potter.
Josh Potter said thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Josh Potter and I'm the Community Development Director with the Village of Romeoville. This property is in the planning jurisdiction for Romeoville as you had correctly stated. Its unincorporated Will County. However, Taylor Road is under Romeoville's jurisdiction. We also have single family homes located to the south. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I also wanted to thank Miss Kenny for including the letter that we sent out. My understanding is it was in the packet that they distributed tonight where we outlined a number of concerns that we had. I'm not going to go through each one of those since you have the letter in the record. I will just say that we do object to the request. The fence, in our opinion, is grossly out of character that you would see in a residential area or a comprehensive plan for this property and detached single family homes. When a property is annexed at some point, it would be zoned Residential according to our plan. The 7 foot fence, where it's located, creates a barricade for any type of clearance along Taylor Road. It's much taller than any other fences in the area. It obstructs the visibility along Taylor Road and Budler Road. In addition, we have concerns about the vision clearance within our section of Budler and Taylor. That's it. I'd be happy to answer any questions but again, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Chairman Stipan said you're more than welcome sir. Does anyone have any more questions? Does any of the panelists have any questions for Mr. Potter?
John Kiefner said I have some questions for Staff and Josh Potter.
Chairman Stipan said go ahead John.
John Kiefner said Mr. Potter, the subdivisions that surround this that are in Romeoville, do you know the date that they were built or annexed or construction started?
Josh Potter said I'm sorry, should I speak or does Staff want to speak? Marguerite Kenny said you can go ahead and answer for Romeoville. John Kiefner said for the Romeoville portion, yes, I'm asking you.
Josh Potter said south of Taylor Road, the Westlake Subdivision that was built by Neumann Homes approximately in the late 90 to the early 2000. So, the homes are almost 20 years old at this point.
John Kiefner said and if you addressed the site triangle with Bundler Road and the applicant if the fence were to remain, it's my understanding the site triangle is not there for safety of traffic at that intersection. Has that been addressed?
Marguerite Kenny said I can take the Taylor and Bundler Road vision clearance. For the County's regulations, it does meet our line of site vision clearance provisions. However, within Romeoville, it does not, they have stricter provisions. It does fall north of Romeoville's boundary.
Mr. Hasan asked it isn't blocking the vision, correct?
Marguerite Kenny said correct. The fence is outside of 75 feet from the center of Taylor and Bundler Roads.
Mr. Hasan asked so it doesn't cause any safety problems?
Chairman Stipan said he's saying it does not. Are you understanding that?
Marguerite Kenny said that's correct. Staff's measurements based on the Plat of Survey that was submitted, indicating where the fence line was, was located outside of that 75 foot vision and clearance triangle.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, it clears that up.
Brian Radner said there is one other person that has concerns about this case. Their name is Julie and they are available to speak if they want to. I do know that they have a question if the new fence is going to replace the old fence in the same spot that butts up to their property. If Julie wants to come on and you're ready to hear from her, she is here as well.
Chairman Stipan said I'm ready to hear from her.
Brian Radner said Julie's audio is not available so I am communicating on the chat with her. Julie, I know you can hear me. Do you know what part of the area your yard backs up to the fence? Hold on a minute, I am waiting for a response.
Chairman Stipan said surely.
Brian Radner said Margie if you happen to know Julie, maybe you could share that information.
Marguerite Kenny said I do not, but if she's in the Lakewood Falls, it would probably be the 6 foot high fence that she would abut against. Those are the closest residential properties that I am aware of.
Brian Radner said she's off of Napa Circle, in the middle of the block.
Mr. Hasan said I know Julie, she's my neighbor. She is to the north side of our property.
Brian Radner said she is asking if you're going to replace the old fence in the same spot that butts up to her back yard.
Mr. Hasan said yes, we are willing to put a new fence that will be the same height as the other one. It will be a brand new fence within 30 to 60 days, if this is approved.
Brian Radner said I'm going to see if that answers her question. Brian Radner said she wrote that she's lived here for 20 years and she has a garden and wiring running and needed to be prepared.
Mr. Hasan said before we do any fencing, we have to call Julie first. We're going to hire someone to do the fence.
Brian Radner asked Julie is there anything else? Wondering if you're here to object to this request or you're just asking questions. Hold on for a response.
Brian Radner said she is not objecting, just asking questions.
Chairman Stipan said a concerned citizen. Brian Radner said concerned citizen.
John Kiefner said I have a question for Mr. Potter and County Staff. It's my understanding this fence is already up in the front.
Mr. Hasan said yes.
Marguerite Kenny said that is correct.
John Kiefner asked has the County received complaints about the fence. Has Romeoville as well?
Marguerite Kenny said the property is in active violation for the fence height. The Variance request is an attempt to address bringing the parcels into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
John Kiefner said more specifically though, has the County fielded questions from neighbors complaining about the fence? I'm trying to figure whether they'd rather see a tall fence or see the hemp plants standing. It would be my understanding that the hemp plants would be there anyway. If we shorten the fence, then we have the plants showing. I understand why the fence is there.
Marguerite Kenny said the applicants have had theft issues in the past. The 7 foot fence is to address the security of the crops so there's no mistaken identity for the cannabis plants being mistaken for the recreational variety, instead of the hemp that's used for the CBD Oil.
Kimberly Mitchell asked has there been any complaints from neighbors?
Marguerite Kenny said aside from the 1 email that was included in your Staff Report, Staff has not received any additional objections.
Kimberly Mitchell said ok.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Thank you very much.
Dawn Tomczak announced for the Applicants, your Variance will be mailed to you as far as the signed Ordinance.
2. Variance For Fence Height Within Street Setback (W. Taylor Road) From 5 Feet To 7 Feet
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed 4-3. No's were White, Stipan, and Peterson.
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 3]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
NAYS: White, Stipan, Peterson
3. Variance For Fence Height Within Street Setback (Budler Road) From 5 Feet To 7 Feet
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed 4-3. No's were White, Stipan, and Peterson.
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 3]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner
AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
NAYS: White, Stipan, Peterson
4. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-19-090, (Companion case to ZC-19-083 East Parcel) Sana Hasan, Owner of Record, Ashraf Hasan, Agent, requesting (V-19-089) Variance for fence height within street setback (W. Taylor Road) from 5 feet to 7 feet, for Pin # 06-03-01-300-015-0000, in Plainfield Township, commonly known as 22310 W. Taylor Road, Plainfield, IL
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case ZC-19-083 and ZC-19-090 together.
Both cases take place in Plainfield Township and concern a 3.373 acre parcel and a 1.743 acre parcel.
Each case is requesting a Variance for the fence height in the street setback from 5 feet to 7 feet. Each request will be voted upon separately, although they are the same requests.
Before I get too far into my presentation, I just wanted to remind you that I will make a brief presentation to the Commissioners. The Commission will then be asking questions of Staff. Then, the applicant being online as well will have his chance to communicate with the Commission. Then the public, if there is any objectors, would be invited to make their comments to the Commission as well.
With that, I will continue with my presentation.
The owner is Sana Hasan. The agent is Ashraf Hasan.
The subject parcels of the Zoning Cases are currently improved with 3 single family residences and accessory structures. Both parcels were originally combined as a larger 5 acre, A-1 parcel, that was previously an air field after which the land was improved for residential purposes, until last Fall when the applicant began to cultivate industrial hemp.
Pursuant to the Illinois Department of Agriculture, hemp cultivation is considered a crop and with the properties being Zoned A-1, it is considered a permitted use. While hemp cultivation consists of growing a cannabis plant, the state requires hemp cultivators to be licensed through the state and comply with strict regulations.
Going back to the parcel, the parcel is divided into its current configuration since 1991, which resulted in deficient A-1 parcels. Both lots are considered illegal lots. The parcel identified by ZC-19-090, also violates the County's subdivision as it is smaller than what was permitted at the time.
The applicant's preference is to address these complicated violations at a later time.
The applicant’s here tonight to resolve the citation that was issued for the 7 foot high fence constructed along the perimeter of both parcels in order to secure the hemp cultivation occurring onsite. The fence is located on both parcels within the street setback. While permits for fences are not required, the Zoning Ordinance has height restrictions for fences in all Zoning Districts. Fences that encroach into street setbacks are limited to 4 feet in height except for A-1 Districts, where 5 feet is permitted by right.
On the screen, I have the visual of both parcels. As was previously mentioned, both parcels are zoned A-1 despite the development of residential subdivisions occurring to the north and south.
On the screen, I have just the review criteria of the parcels that the Variance request would be evaluated upon. Your Staff Report contains an in-depth analysis of both of these criteria.
On the screen is a Zoning Map showing the Lakewood Falls Subdivision to the north of the subject property as well as the Village of Romeoville lying directly south of the subdivision. Within the Village of Romeoville, their fence requests within the street setback are limited to 3 feet in height as well as having to maintain an open face material
In the Weslake Subdivision, you will notice there are fences and they are open face material and they appear to be less than 3 feet.
On the screen you have the Plat of Survey from the applicant. Within each parcel, you have the designated Zoning Cases. The magenta triangles show what is the vision clearance triangle so it is a 75 foot triangle from each entrance to the property. The existing fence is encroaching into the vision clearance triangle. The applicant has proposed to make modifications to the fences to address the vision clearance so that he comes into compliance. With the existing house, the house was created before the vision clearance standards came into adoption and will be allowed to remain. However, the fence has to comply with present day regulations and needs to be re-configured. The applicant is currently working on accomplishing this.
Looking at the subject property for ZC-19-083, the applicant has a fence that is along both Taylor and Budler Roads. So, the request is for fence height within the street setback along both streets. Tonight you will be voting on 2 separate zoning requests.
Zooming in, you can see the 3 differences in fence height.
Staff finds that within the existing neighborhoods, approving a Variance for 7 feet might alter the character of the neighborhood. Next to the 7 foot fence there is a buffer fence that appears to be about 6 feet tall that separates the Lakewood Falls Subdivision from the subject property. Then you have the rear fence within the Lakewood Falls residential lots that is even less than 6 feet.
Looking within the subject property, this property is using about 1-1/2 acres for the hemp cultivation.
Should the applicant decide to relocate the fence outside of the street setback, the A-1 District requires 100 feet from the center line of the road, the applicant still could meet the state's requirement of 1/4 acre of cultivation to keep his license. He would also be permitted, as right, to keep the 7 foot tall fence. However, the applicant would like to keep the 1-1/2 acres being used for hemp cultivation.
As such, Staff does not find there is a unique circumstance present for the variance request.
Looking at ZC-19-090, this property abuts I-55. You can see the buffer fence along the interstate towards the rear of the picture. This is just a zoomed in photo of that 7 foot tall fence that encroaches into the street setback on this property.
As with this property, the applicant uses about an acre of the property to cultivate hemp.
The applicant could relocate the fence outside of the setback requirement of the street and stay in conformance with the state's requirements as well as be in conformance with Will County's Zoning Ordinance as well. However, the applicant would like to maintain the 1 acre field for the hemp out of preference.
Outside of the Village of Romeoville submitting a letter of objection, which has been included in the Staff packet, Staff received an email that was also included in the packet from a resident across the street on Taylor, also objecting to the Variances.
With that, Staff has recommended denial of all 3 Variances with the aforementioned reasons for tonight's PowerPoint as well as the Staff packet.
With that, that completes Staff's analysis.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions for Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked no questions?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked Mr. Hasan, would you care to respond? No response but the applicant was talking.
Brian Radner said we're not hearing you Mr. Hasan.
****A LOT OF THE STATEMENT OF MR. HASAN WAS VERY GARBLED AND YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT, DUE TO A BAD INTERNET CONNECTION****
Mr. Hasan said I am going to make a long story short so I don't take up all your time. My father actually owned this property since 2005. We started growing pumpkins for several years. We did corn, I guess, 1 time. We started seeing some theft instances and that's why we went to Will County to get a permit for this fence. The fence company told me that I could go up to 7 feet high. I talked to John, I don't remember his last name at the fence company. Will County is asking me to move the fence back. We are planning to change over the north fence to 7 feet high as well to match. Just to give an idea of what we are doing. There's a lot of guys and a lot of neighbors who think we are making millions of dollars, which is totally wrong. With all due respect, that is not correct. We are growing industrial hemp on almost 2-1/2 acres. We are planting 60 plants in each line. We get about 55 lines on both sides of the property.
Chairman Stipan asked Mr. Hasan, might I interrupt you? We don't really care what you're planting. It doesn't matter whether you're planting pumpkins or tomatoes or hemp or whatever. We are concerned about the fence.
Mr. Hasan said I understand, but I am just trying to make a point here about what we're doing and what we get back. If I go back to 100 feet wide inside my property, my income will go from $20,000 per year for the whole property to $14,000 per year. $14,000 per year is not going to be enough to feed 3 families on this property. Especially with what’s going on with the COVID-19. There is no other source of income. Thank you very much.
Michael Carruthers asked everything that you've done from the cameras and everything, you've had permits for them, right?
Mr. Hasan asked are you asking me if I had a permit?
Michael Carruthers said for the cameras, normally you have to have permits for the cameras and the fence. This hemp, is this marijuana? Are we talking about hemp?
Mr. Hasan said yes.
Michael Carruthers said ok. My question is did you contact Romeoville? Plainfield butts up to Romeoville right? Isn't that why the submitted the information?
Mr. Hasan said I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
Michael Carruthers said Romeoville submitted, by request, that possibly violated, I guess, contacting your neighbors and everything. Knowing that you were going to do this, and you wanted to profit from this, you didn't go through the proper procedures, right?
Mr. Hasan said we're not in Romeoville, we're in Will County.
Michael Carruthers said I just wanted to ask that question. Thank you.
Mr. Hasan said we did check with Will County. Romeoville has nothing to do with it. We are not connected to Plainfield or Romeoville. We're not zoned in either Romeoville or Plainfield either.
Michael Carruthers asked the state issues this license to you, correct?
Mr. Hasan said correct, yes.
Chairman Stipan said I will explain the last comment. They can object to what you're doing there because somewhere along the line they are going to annex that area or that property. It's the only reason that they have that mile and a half objection. Never mind the villages. Never mind the objection. We have to concern ourselves with County Code. County Code says that you can't go any higher than 5 feet. You say you're planning to go to 7 feet on the other side, you'll be compounding your problem. We have to have a view for the roads. That corner which I understand you have agreed to cutting off the corner of the fence so that nobody will have an accident because of your fence. That is probably wise because that is a legal complication. The second thing is, we still have to come to a conclusion of variance to the height and our code says 5 feet maximum. You're applying for a Variance to that, I'm just suggesting that it's going to be a tough Variance to get.
Chairman Stipan asked is there anybody else online that is a concerned citizen or an objector?
Brian Radner said Mr. Chairman there are 4 people that are signed up as attendees. I'm going to bring them in as panelists and see if they would like to speak to this case.
Chairman Stipan said yes, please. Maybe you can find out if they want to speak to this case before you bring them in. If they're not concerned to this case, we can go ahead and move to a vote.
Brian Radner asked the attendees that had signed up, are you interested in speaking to this case?
Chairman Stipan said ok. Please bring them in one at a time or all at once and we'll talk to them one at a time.
A woman said no.
Brian asked was that Thomas or Sharon?
A woman said that was Devries.
Josh Potter said I would like to make some comments.
Brian Radner said Mr. Chairman, Josh Potter is here to make some comments on this case.
Chairman Stipan said please make some comments Mr. Potter.
Josh Potter said thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Josh Potter and I'm the Community Development Director with the Village of Romeoville. This property is in the planning jurisdiction for Romeoville as you had correctly stated. Its unincorporated Will County. However, Taylor Road is under Romeoville's jurisdiction. We also have single family homes located to the south. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I also wanted to thank Miss Kenny for including the letter that we sent out. My understanding is it was in the packet that they distributed tonight where we outlined a number of concerns that we had. I'm not going to go through each one of those since you have the letter in the record. I will just say that we do object to the request. The fence, in our opinion, is grossly out of character that you would see in a residential area or a comprehensive plan for this property and detached single family homes. When a property is annexed at some point, it would be zoned Residential according to our plan. The 7 foot fence, where it's located, creates a barricade for any type of clearance along Taylor Road. It's much taller than any other fences in the area. It obstructs the visibility along Taylor Road and Budler Road. In addition, we have concerns about the vision clearance within our section of Budler and Taylor. That's it. I'd be happy to answer any questions but again, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Chairman Stipan said you're more than welcome sir. Does anyone have any more questions? Does any of the panelists have any questions for Mr. Potter?
John Kiefner said I have some questions for Staff and Josh Potter.
Chairman Stipan said go ahead John.
John Kiefner said Mr. Potter, the subdivisions that surround this that are in Romeoville, do you know the date that they were built or annexed or construction started?
Josh Potter said I'm sorry, should I speak or does Staff want to speak? Marguerite Kenny said you can go ahead and answer for Romeoville. John Kiefner said for the Romeoville portion, yes, I'm asking you.
Josh Potter said south of Taylor Road, the Westlake Subdivision that was built by Neumann Homes approximately in the late 90 to the early 2000. So, the homes are almost 20 years old at this point.
John Kiefner said and if you addressed the site triangle with Bundler Road and the applicant if the fence were to remain, it's my understanding the site triangle is not there for safety of traffic at that intersection. Has that been addressed?
Marguerite Kenny said I can take the Taylor and Bundler Road vision clearance. For the County's regulations, it does meet our line of site vision clearance provisions. However, within Romeoville, it does not, they have stricter provisions. It does fall north of Romeoville's boundary.
Mr. Hasan asked it isn't blocking the vision, correct?
Marguerite Kenny said correct. The fence is outside of 75 feet from the center of Taylor and Bundler Roads.
Mr. Hasan asked so it doesn't cause any safety problems?
Chairman Stipan said he's saying it does not. Are you understanding that?
Marguerite Kenny said that's correct. Staff's measurements based on the Plat of Survey that was submitted, indicating where the fence line was, was located outside of that 75 foot vision and clearance triangle.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, it clears that up.
Brian Radner said there is one other person that has concerns about this case. Their name is Julie and they are available to speak if they want to. I do know that they have a question if the new fence is going to replace the old fence in the same spot that butts up to their property. If Julie wants to come on and you're ready to hear from her, she is here as well.
Chairman Stipan said I'm ready to hear from her.
Brian Radner said Julie's audio is not available so I am communicating on the chat with her. Julie, I know you can hear me. Do you know what part of the area your yard backs up to the fence? Hold on a minute, I am waiting for a response.
Chairman Stipan said surely.
Brian Radner said Margie if you happen to know Julie, maybe you could share that information.
Marguerite Kenny said I do not, but if she's in the Lakewood Falls, it would probably be the 6 foot high fence that she would abut against. Those are the closest residential properties that I am aware of.Brian Radner said she's off of Napa Circle, in the middle of the block.
Mr. Hasan said I know Julie, she's my neighbor. She is to the north side of our property.
Brian Radner said she is asking if you're going to replace the old fence in the same spot that butts up to her back yard.
Mr. Hasan said yes, we are willing to put a new fence that will be the same height as the other one. It will be a brand new fence within 30 to 60 days, if this is approved.
Brian Radner said I'm going to see if that answers her question. Brian Radner said she wrote that she's lived here for 20 years and she has a garden and wiring running and needed to be prepared.
Mr. Hasan said before we do any fencing, we have to call Julie first. We're going to hire someone to do the fence.
Brian Radner asked Julie is there anything else? Wondering if you're here to object to this request or you're just asking questions. Hold on for a response.
Brian Radner said she is not objecting, just asking questions.
Chairman Stipan said a concerned citizen.
Brian Radner said concerned citizen.
John Kiefner said I have a question for Mr. Potter and County Staff. It's my understanding this fence is already up in the front.
Mr. Hasan said yes.
Marguerite Kenny said that is correct.
John Kiefner asked has the County received complaints about the fence. Has Romeoville as well?
Marguerite Kenny said the property is in active violation for the fence height. The Variance request is an attempt to address bringing the parcels into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
John Kiefner said more specifically though, has the County fielded questions from neighbors complaining about the fence? I'm trying to figure whether they'd rather see a tall fence or see the hemp plants standing. It would be my understanding that the hemp plants would be there anyway. If we shorten the fence, then we have the plants showing. I understand why the fence is there.
Marguerite Kenny said the applicants have had theft issues in the past. The 7 foot fence is to address the security of the crops so there's no mistaken identity for the cannabis plants being mistaken for the recreational variety, instead of the hemp that's used for the CBD Oil.
Kimberly Mitchell asked has there been any complaints from neighbors?
Marguerite Kenny said aside from the 1 email that was included in your Staff Report, Staff has not received any additional objections.
Kimberly Mitchell said ok.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Thank you very much.
Dawn Tomczak announced for the Applicants, your Variance will be mailed to you as far as the signed Ordinance.
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed 4-3.
RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 3]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman
SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
NAYS: White, Stipan, Peterson
5. 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-20-001, Craig and Diane DeVries, Owners of Record and Craig DeVries, Agent; requesting (V-20-001) Variance for minimum street yard setback from 57 feet to 20.71 feet, for Pin # 15-08-16-101-024-0000, in New Lenox Township, commonly known as 1164 S. Green Street, New Lenox, IL
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-001, which takes place in New Lenox Township.
This is a Variance for a minimum street yard setback from 57 feet to 20.71 feet.
The applicants and owners are Craig and Diane Devries.
The subject parcel is located on South Green Street in New Lenox Township.
The parcel measures 1.28 acres in lot area. The property is improved with a residence with a detached garage and a garden shed.
There are no inventoried wetlands or identified flood plain on the parcel.
In July, 2018, the applicant was placed in violation, #18LU00605, for building a new front porch without a permit. Because of that, the owner applied for a Building Permit, #1801438, in August, 2018. Staff initially understood that the owner intended to make minor modifications to the front porch. The applicant was notified in November that the Building Permit application was still open and plans were needed by the Building Division for review. The applicant submitted documents in January, 2020 showing that an entirely new front porch had been constructed. This Variance that you're hearing tonight is to bring the completed porch into compliance.
The Zoning Map shows the property is zoned R-1. Neighboring properties are zoned R-1 on the north, east and south and E-2 to the west.
The minimum street yard setback in the residential district is 57 feet. The current porch is 20.71 feet from the right of way, encroaching on the required setback.
An updated plat was not submitted with this application.
Based upon the criteria by which Staff and the Plan Commission are required by Ordinance to evaluate, Staff finds that while the original front porch did not meet the required street yard setback, the residence had been constructed prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the original porch was legal, non-conforming. The owner demolished the original porch and built a new porch which further encroached into the required street yard setback, increasing the non-conformity. This increase in the non-conformity of the residence makes it a requirement for a Variance to be approved before the Building Permit can be issued.
Staff recommends denial of the request.
I'm happy to take any questions you may have.
Chairman Stipan said I would like to know why Staff is recommending denial.
Lisa Napoles said because the porch was constructed without a permit and it further increases the non-conformity from the previous porch.
Chairman Stipan asked, is that irregular in that area? Or, is that common in that area?
Lisa Napoles said there’s houses in the area that do encroach into the setback, yes.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.
John Kiefner said I would like to expand on that a little. I think the picture sort of shows it. The porch we're talking about is only a foot or two wider than originally. It's very close to the same size. It wasn't like they doubled it or tripled it.
Lisa Napoles said that's correct.
John Kiefner said ok.
Michael Carruthers asked was the fine paid for not having a permit?
Chairman Stipan said I do not know the answer, we will have to ask the Staff.
Lisa Napoles said the violation fee was added to the Zoning Case application fee.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Are there any other questions for Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said I would like to hear from the applicant. Would the applicant care to speak?
Craig DeVries introduced himself. I just want to add that the one picture, we went 2 feet wider because the 2nd floor of the houses cantilever is 2 feet. So we actually only built the porch out an extra 2 feet. You can see in the picture up where that gutter goes, that's a 2 foot cantilever on the 2nd story. So, we just widened the porch to match that cantilever. Also, the overhang is now a 2 foot overhang, just like the 2nd story overhang. I know the picture you have makes it look a lot wider but it's actually matching the 2 foot on the 2nd story and the cantilever. So, it's not any wider than the house. It's a little bit closer to the street because of an extra 2 x 10 on the front and 6 x 6 posts. From the street, it's the same 8 foot deck as it was. If you look at the original picture, there's an enclosed area which was just a really poor built room. That's what I wanted to get rid of. I just wanted to improve the look of the house. We actually have less square footage from the street. There's actually less living area from the street because it's more open. We just wanted to balance out the look of the house. It's a 1930's house. This was the original farm house on 40 acres in the area. I think the Green Street extension was after this house was built. That's just the way it was. The 2nd story was also an addition to the original house that was done well before we purchased the house.
Chairman Stipan said there are a lot of homes in that area and all throughout Frankfort, New Lenox, and Green Garden that have had extensions and additions to the old farm house. Thank you. Mr. Radner is there anyone here that would like to speak about this case other than the owners?
Brian Radner said there are no other people that would have identified themselves as wanting to speak on any remaining cases, at least to this point. So, the answer is no.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Do any of the other panelists have questions of the owners?
No response.
Roll Call vote was taken. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
6. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-20-007, Jennifer and Joseph Maly, Owners of Record, Jennifer Maly, Agent, requesting (V-20-007) Variance for animal confinement setback from 50 feet to 26 feet, for Pin # 21-14- 34-300-020-0000, in Monee Township, commonly known as 27724 S. Kuersten Road, Monee, IL
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-007, which takes place in Monee Township.
This is an application for a variance for minimum side yard setback for an animal confinement building from 50 feet to 26 feet.
The applicants and owners are Jennifer and Joseph Maly.
The parcel is located on South Kuersten Road in Monee Township.
The parcel shown here on the GIS aerial, outline in red, measures 5.03 acres in lot area.
The property is improved with a residence with an attached garage, a metal accessory building and a garden shed.
There are no inventoried wetlands or identified flood plain located on the parcel. In late 2019, the applicants began erecting a barn to stable horses near the south property line without having obtained a building permit. After completing the frame structure for the barn, the applicants applied for building permit # 1902809 in October, 2019. During review, it was found that the building encroached upon the 50 foot setback for an animal confinement building. The A-1 District requires animal confinement buildings to be located 50 feet from all property lines. As the animal confinement building was already in progress, the applicant initiated a zoning request to bring the building into compliance and have the Building Permit issued. While the owners did begin construction on the barn without the owners obtaining a building permit, the property was never placed in violation. The owners stopped construction on the barn and applied for a Building Permit on their own. In conversations with Staff that took place early in the pre-application meeting, the owners were advised of the 50 foot setback requirement for animal confinement buildings.
This Variance you're hearing tonight is to bring the partially completed barn into compliance.
The Zoning Map shows that the property is zoned A-1 with neighboring properties zoned A-1 on the north and east, A-1 and A-2 to the south, and A-1 to the west.
Based upon the criteria by which Staff and the Plan Commission are required by Ordinance to evaluate, Staff finds that the owners request is due to their preference to have the animal confinement building 26 feet from the south property line. Staff finds that the barn currently under construction measures 48 feet in width. The parcel is 165 feet wide. The parcel has adequate space to construct a barn that conforms to the required 50 foot setbacks for animal confinement buildings. The owners chose to site the building near the north property line. After being advised of the required 50 foot setback, they preferred to leave it in that location and complete construction. This preference is to keep it in the current location and seek the need for a Variance in order for the permit to be issued.
Staff recommends denial of the request. I'm happy to take your questions. Barbara Peterson asked what is your complete reason for denial?
Lisa Napoles said because the property can accommodate a 48 foot wide barn and the setback with the property they have.
Barbara Peterson said once the applicant speaks, my question will help me make this decision. Would you make adjustments in the Staff Report? This is not New Lenox Township in any shape or form. It is Monee Township.
Lisa Napoles said I apologize for the error. I do have letters of support of the applicants and I'm happy to read those into the record when you're ready.
Barbara Peterson said I would like that. Are they the adjoining property owners? Lisa Napoles said yes, some of them are.
Barbara Peterson said ok, I would like those read into the record.
Lisa Napoles said the first one reads: Regarding Zoning Case # ZC-20-007. Dear Will County Land Use, I am the property owner and primary resident of 27614 S Kuersten Road, Monee, Illinois 60449. My property is north of the property referenced in this case. I have no concerns as to the construction of the barn in question that will be used to stable horses. I fully understand that this barn will be at 26 feet from the said property line, less than 50 feet. In fact, I welcome this construction and see it as an improvement to our street and neighborhood. It's refreshing to see property owners take an active role in improvement, upkeep, and maintenance of their home. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any further clarification on my comments. Sincerely, Amy Kolinski. 27614 S Kuersten Road, Monee, Illinois 60449.
Barbara Peterson said ok, so they're north of the property.
Lisa Napoles said ok, the next one. Hello my name is Colleen Buche I live at 4508 W Offner Road, Monee, Illinois. I have no problem with the construction of a pole barn at the address of 27724 South Kuersten Road, Monee, IL. I have no problem with the barn being 26 feet from the property line instead of 50 feet and the barn will house horses. The Zoning Case # is ZC-20-007. Any questions, you can contact me.
Barbara Peterson said thank you.
John Kiefner asked is that all for the letters of support? Lisa Napoles said no, I believe I have 3 more.
The next is Will County Land Use. My property at 27752 S. Kuersten Road, Monee connects from the south to Joe Maley's property at 27724 South Kuersten Road, Monee Il 60449. I understand a barn is scheduled to be construction 26 feet away from our adjoining property line instead of 50 feet. The Maley's are conscientious people that care for their property, pets, and neighbors. I want it know that I am in favor of the location of their barn regardless of the zoning restriction of 50 feet from the property line. Please permit these honest, caring homeowners to build their barn 26 feet from my property. Feel free to contact me with any further queries. I can be reached via e-mail. Cheryl Carstens.
Lisa Napoles said the next one. Regarding Zoning Case # ZC-20-007. To Whom It May Concern We are the owners of 4452 W. Offner Road, Monee, Illinois. This property is located directly south of and adjacent to the property owned by Joe Maly at 27724 S. Kuersten Rd, Monee, Illinois. We realize that Joe Maly is constructing a pole barn that is 26' (instead of 50') from the property line, and that this pole barn is intended to house livestock. As state above, we are aware of the pole barn's construction, intended usage, and proximity to our property and we have no objections. Sincerely Kurt & Suzanne Kaiser.
Lisa Napoles said the next one. To Whom It May Concern. We are neighbors to the south end of the property owned by Joe and Jen Maly at 27724 S. Kuersten Rd, Monee, IL 60449. Our address is 27816 S. Kuersten Rd, Monee, IL 60449. We have no problem at this time that the barn is 26 feet from the property line instead of 50 feet. We do not mind the barn is housing horses. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Brooks and Ronda Warren.
Lisa Napoles said next and final letter, I believe. To Whom It May Concern, Residents at 27725 S. Kuersten Road, Monee, Illinois 60449 George and Angie Garcia. We are the neighbors to the east we have no problem or objections to the building of a pole barn on property 27724 S Kuersten Road, Monee, IL 60449. We also have no problem with the pole barn being 26 feet from the property line instead of 50 feet. The barn purpose is to house horses at this time. Zoning Case # ZC-20-007. George and Angie Garcia 27725 S. Kuersten Road, Monee, Illinois 60449.
That concludes the letters of support.
Barbara Peterson said Lisa, thank you so very much. Please make sure that they're part of any permanent record.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
John Kiefner said I have a question for Staff. If this were not a livestock building, what would the side yard setback be?
Chairman Stipan said 20 feet. Lisa Napoles said 20 feet, yeah.
John Kiefner said so it's the livestock housing building that puts them needing the Variance.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
John Kiefner said I also saw in your pictures that there was another building that appeared to be right up against the lot line, correct?
Lisa Napoles said there is not another building that is right up against the other lot line. There is a building that is approximately the same distance, about 26 feet away. There is a bit of brush that obscures exactly where the property line is. I believe the intention is to align this building with that building.
John Kiefner said so the plan is so that it's consistent with that other building. Ok. Pretty much all the neighbors adjoining this property have sent you letters of support from what I got from all the addresses. Thank you.
Lisa Napoles said thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked any other questions of Staff?
Several Commissioners said no.
Chairman Stipan said thank you Lisa. May I hear from the applicants, Jennifer and Joseph Maly?
Jennifer Maly introduced herself and her husband Joseph Maly. Can you guys hear us ok?
Barbara Peterson said yes.
Chairman Stipan said we see you too.
Jennifer Maly said ok, perfect. I just first wanted to thank you guys for all your consideration and your time tonight. With applying for this Variance, just like Lisa said, once we found out that we did need a permit, we stopped all construction and have been doing everything possible to make sure everything is in accordance with Will County law and regulations. I know you guys talked about a question before and I am definitely going to answer that for you guys as to why we chose to put the barn in that location. Like you've heard from other people, the reason you start construction on the layout of your property is for many different reasons. A couple of the main reasons we're definitely applying for the Variance. The first and foremost reason we picked construction of the barn in that location, is it's more up on a hill. It is again for a horse barn. We have the big main building of the horse barn. Can we zoom back in on the pictures? Perfect that picture right there. Thank you so much. Like they said originally, all that brush is obscuring some of the property lines. The property line is actually set back further in that brush. Once we finish construction of the pole barn itself, we plan on cleaning up our adjacent property lines between the neighbors also. So, like they've said, you can see a little lean-to there in the gravel area. So, the reason we set the barn off to the side of our property line was 1, to keep it in compliance with our other barn as they set so it establishes the flow of our property. Our first barn that was pre-existing on the property, it's like 30 feet or 29 feet or something like that.
Joseph Maly said it's to keep those barns in line. Then, on the left side of the property, you can see the rest of the horse pasture. With having the horses there on the left more, you can see down to keep an eye on them to make sure they're ok, nothing gets in there, and you can see throughout the whole property. If we put it in the middle, 50 feet over, you won't be able to see any of the horses in the back if something's wrong with them or with them getting out of the fence you won't be able to see them. So, we kind of kept it inline on the left side so you can see everything as well.
Jennifer Maly said so like he said, it keeps our property line very open but helps with the aesthetic view of our property plus it helps with the health and concern of our horses being out in pastures. If one of them ever had a health issue where they're laying down or have their leg hung up in a fence, I can see them from my house. It keeps our whole property line open. Plus, I don't have an arena like most people do so I use the pastures to ride in. So, if I'm out riding in the pasture and I happen to fall or something happens, my husband can see me from the house. If we move the barn 25 feet over, it doesn't seem like you have very much room. It does obstruct quite a bit of the view of our pasture line and the view of our actual property.
Joseph Maly said you won't be able to see her riding back there either.
Jennifer Maly said the other thing is just the slope of the property itself. We did have somebody come out and survey the property. The barn actually sits up more on a hill and the drainage of our property slopes away from the barn which is important to us so we don't have any flooding issues. As Lisa mentioned, with all the letters from our neighbors, we've had a lot of support from our community and our neighbors with building this barn and getting everything in compliance and helping our property out.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Barbara Peterson asked can I just make a statement?
Jennifer Maly said oh yes.
Barbara Peterson said Jennifer, you said the secret word, compliance, compliance with the Will County Land Use Department and all of the rules which are made for everyone. Fortunately, let's hope that this will go according to the way that both of you would like.
Chairman Stipan asked does anyone else have any questions?
Roll Call vote was taken. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
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-20-009, Wind Trust dated January 5, 2015, Owner of Record; (Peter Wiatr 100% beneficiary), Tony Wiatr, Trustee of Wind Trust , Agent, requesting (V-20-011) Variance for minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet (south side), for Pin # 18-13- 09-200-023-0000 and 18-13-09-200-018-0000 consolidated per petition # 2019- 47, in Green Garden Township, commonly known as 24018 S. Center Road and Vacant property on S. Center Road, Frankfort, IL
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-009, which takes place in Green Garden Township.
This is a property that this Commission is well aware of. There have been numerous requests in the last couple years regarding this property. I just want to bring to the attention of the Commission that a letter of objection was received. That will be entered into record at the end of my PowerPoint tonight.
The agent is Tony Wiatr, the Trustee of Wind Trust who is the owner of the property.
Tonight, the applicant is requesting 1 Variance request in order to construct a 5,000 square foot pole building that is located 15 feet off the southern property line.
As I mentioned, this property has been the subject of 2 Temporary Use Permits for semi-trailers to be used as storage on the property. There was also a Map Amendment with associated Variances, which was then withdrawn. Last December, the applicant came to this Commission to request 2 Variances. This past December, 1 of the Variances this Commission approved for Maximum Accessory Building area. The other Variance request was for minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet, which was denied. The applicant filed an appeal with the County Board which was actually denied. The applicant is here again tonight to try again with this side yard setback along the southern property line from 20 feet to 15 feet.
As a reminder, the applicant has filed a petition for consolidation for both these properties. The Mapping & Platting Department has yet to execute that. After that is executed, 1 PIN# will be issued for this property.
The combined property is 9.73 acres.
There is an existing 4,000 square feet of accessory building area on the property. As a reminder, this Commission approved a maximum accessory building Variance for an additional 5,000 square feet for hay storage.
The applicant has submitted a building permit as of last year. He is just hoping a Variance will grant him the encroachment into that southern property setback. There are 2 proposed garage doors that the applicant is focusing on using to get his farm implements in and out so that he can harvest the hay that grows on the property.
Looking at the site plan, you can see that the proposed building is located along the southern property line. The property has an existing fence line that is roughly 100 feet off this southern property line.
The proposed building is 50 feet wide by 100 feet long. In order to fit between the fence and the property line, it would need to be 15 feet from the property line. With that existing fence line, due to the 15 feet and the 50 foot wide building, Staff measures about 35 feet of available room for the applicant to use for a turning radius for any type of truck or tractor pulling a tractor bed or wagon full of hay into this pole building. With that, the applicant has provided a statement of hardship listing the lengths of equipment to be utilized in these northern doors. The truck being 24 feet long generally needs a minimum turn radius of 30 feet. When you add a flatbed wagon, or one of the trailers that are potentially 21 feet long, the turn radius will be very similar to that of a 45 foot long semi-truck, which requires a 40 foot turn radius to make a 90 degree turn. Staff finds that the trailer and the truck would probably need a similar turn radius, so the applicant is most likely looking at moving that fence that exists to accommodate the turn radius.
On the screen, I have the list of criteria for the Commission and any public that has joined that Variances are reviewed against. Based upon the criteria for Variances, Staff does not find a unique circumstance. Staff finds that the property being over 300 feet wide can accommodate a 50 foot wide building as well as meet the amount required in setbacks. That leaves about 200 feet available for the location of the building. Staff also finds that 35 feet between the existing fence line as well as where the building’s set, it’s going to be tight in terms of a turn radius for a truck pulling a trailer to make it safely into the garage. Staff also finds that if the Variance were to be approved, that the Variance request may impact the character of the locality. Of the parcels that have accessory buildings within the area, the majority appear to meet minimum setback except for the properties along Stuenkel Road. On the screen, I have those properties shown.
Additionally, I have further criteria that is provided further detail within the Staff Report.
I do want to mention to you, the last time this case was before you, the semi- trucks were still on the property. The semi-trucks have been removed and the violation associated with the Temporary Use Permits has been closed.
With that, Staff is wanting to notify you that of the agencies that were notified, none of them have objected to this Variance request. However, Staff has received a letter of objection from the adjacent property owner to the south.
At this time, I would like to read it into the record. It is dated May 4, 2020 to the Will County Planning & Zoning Commission, 302 North Chicago Street Joliet, Illinois 60432. Regarding Zoning Case # ZC-20-009. As adjoining land owners to the south, 24028 S. Center Road, we, Thomas and Sharon Stack oppose the request for a 15 foot side setback. The applicant has 29.7 acres of property to build a pole barn without a Variance. No major obstructions, overhead powerlines, 100 year old trees, etc. are in the way that would deter building 20 feet off of the property line. Standard 20 foot setback is necessary for infiltration of runoff water that would run onto our property and affect property values. Applicant has argued in the past that he needed a 12ft setback to be able to get into door of planned pole barn. We suggest applicant works with the rules of the 20 ft. set back and PLAN the pole barn with doors he can access. Applicant has argued he planned for a camper and would not be able to make a turn into the door of the planned site of the barn. We suggest all the more reason to choose another location on the property. Applicants land is accessed from CENTER RD, a STATE RD in Green Garden. Driveways on applicants both parcels of land, are on a limited view, DOUBLE LINE section of this rd. Traffic travels at a minimum of 55 mph. It would be safest for the public and for applicant to pull into one driveway, rather and back in, and circle around the 2nd drive. Regards, Thomas and Sharon Stack 24028 S Center Rd Frankfort, IL 60423.
It is my understanding that this neighbor is present tonight. I'm not sure if technology will allow them to address this Commission or not. They definitely want me to read their objection letter.
With that, Staff is recommending denial of the setback request for that was presented in tonight's presentation as well as what was included in the Staff Report.
That concludes my presentation.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Staff? Roger, John, anybody?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said I would like to hear from the applicant.
Peter Wiatr introduce himself to the Commission. Mr. Radner, can you give me permission to share the screen please?
Brian Radner said give us a sec and we will get that done for you.
Peter Wiatr said I do ask if I'm speaking too quickly, please let me know. I know I speak very fast. If you can't hear me, please let me know. I wanted to touch on a couple points that Margie Kenny had touched on in her Staff Report as well as the neighbor’s opposition and their letter. Throughout the many cases that we have put before this Commission and the County Board, many things have come up. The Temporary Use Permits that the Commission has granted for us twice, one of the stipulations that Staff had recommended was not being able to drive over a septic tank or a septic field. I have several things to share with you. Please let me know if you can see them. First I would like to start off with the measurements so you guys can get an idea of what we're talking about. When we're talking about measurements, just some single measurements, the pick-up truck that we're talking about is 24 feet long. I just want that number to kind of regulate in your minds. A tractor is 25 feet long and a 14 foot tractor. These are just tractors and/or pickup trucks. We're not talking about anything attached to it, being a flat back hay wagon, mower, or just a normal pickup truck trailer. That being said, I've spent some time and I made a couple different pieces to show you with. This is an aerial image zoomed in to show the area of where the proposed building is to go. The actual measurement like Ms. Kenny mentioned was approximately 100 feet. It's actually only 93.17 feet that is from existing fence to the property line. The proposed building is going to go right here currently with the site plan that has been presented. Originally we had asked for 12 feet. When that was denied at this Commission and we went to the Will County Board, just to clarify, that vote was actually the popular vote. We were in success at that vote. That vote was 13- 12, however, that needed a super majority. It is my understanding that it is very difficult to do with Will County. In all fairness, we did get a positive review from the Will County Board but ultimately we were not successful since we didn't meet the super majority. From this picture, I went ahead and did some drawings just to give you an idea. The black box here on the left, now this is not to scale, is the proposed location of the building. Like Ms. Kenny had presented, the proposed door locations are here in yellow. There are 2 north side doors and an east side door. The orange box that you see here is a representation of a 48 foot RV attached to the pick-up truck, which needs to access this door. The farther that we move this building to the north, it makes it harder to make this angle to go around the existing building. We have heard many times that we have 300 feet in width and, if we so chose, we could put this building anywhere. That's why we're here for the Variance. I find that to be oddly incorrect. Anybody that has any experience in construction, architecture, land planning, or farming, I think would agree with me when I say that you don't just put stuff where you have room for it. There has to be some kind of rhyme and reason to what someone is doing. For example, if someone were wanting a pool for their residence, they wouldn't put it at the back of the property just because they have 300 feet. They would put that pool somewhere near their home. No different than a garage. You would put the garage somewhere within reason. That is what land use and planning is all about, I believe. That being said, I'd like to shoot over to the aerial of the site plan. This is a Plat of Survey and also our Site Plan. If we look at this and if we go back to the Temporary Permits that were issued, and the restrictions that were put on, there's currently 2 ways to access this property. There is a septic tank and field in this area? It is impossible to bring anything onto this driveway and access the back of the property without crossing that septic field and septic tank. This way does not allow us any room because there is a hill here with the radius of the ground. The only way to access the back of the property from the street is this driveway that's currently there. That's something that was done back in 2012, I believe, and that is the driveway. The reason for the place in the building is several reasons.
There's an existing garage building here. The property owners prior to my father purchasing this property had, for the lack of a better wording, had set this area up as a staging area. All of this area here, this is all field where the farming goes on. This is all the existing fencing. In addition to that, there is a gate right here, where the red circle is. This is the only gate which enters the 2 field pastures in the back. When we talk about moving the building, it’s not so easy to put it anywhere. As you saw in the pictures of the semi-trailers that have now been removed, the reason that they were put in this area is because of the neighbor’s objection and to keep them as far away as possible. This is not where we prefer to have them. When we had the semi-trailer, we would have put them in this same position as the building. So, I wanted to address that. In addition to that, the RV that we have is 23,999 pounds. If a building were to get built here, that rig would have to come in down this road and cross the entire property. With the weather that we have there and as moist as the ground gets, that would require a full-on driveway to be put along the middle of where the hay is being farmed. It’s kind of like putting a driveway right down the middle of a cornfield. That logistically does not make any sense. I hope that gives you a better idea of the lay of the land. The existing driveway goes to here. There’s gravel here with a driveway going all the way down. This is already done, it’s completed. The proposed building would not only improve the property, but it would also minimize any disruption of land that is currently there. When talking about the fence is so easy to move because it’s just a wire fence, it is not that easy. If that fence here were to have to get moved, not only is it going to take out and encroach into this space, but there’s also a gate here. When entering the field through a gate, you’re now going to be hitting a building. Again, when we talk about we have a lot of room, we do but not all of it makes sense to do. From there, I’d like to move onto this photo here. There is another one that I drew up. This shows again, the RV. Again, let’s talk about moving the building back to the west. Again, all that’s doing is encroaching on the hay. The further back it goes would theoretically help with this corner, but it doesn’t help with taking out more useable land and for no good reason in our opinion. This is to give you a good idea of this building. The yellow being the garage doors again. The orange marks would be paths of travel. These orange arrows are where a pick-up truck or farm implement would be entering the proposed building. This is that angle of swing that we’re talking about. The green lines currently represent, on the top, is existing fence, and on the bottom, is property line. This is that dimensional area that’s why we keep asking for the offset, because realistically, anything less than 20 feet is going to help us to maneuver into these top 2 doors as well as having this swing into the building. I would just like to add again, the reason the fence is not so easy to move is because there’s a gate here. This is the only gate to access both of those prairies in the back. The last thing that I’d like to leave you with is, the last time that we were in front of this Commission, representative Kiefner had made a comment just prior to the vote that he had done a Google Maps measurement. I think it was an honest mistake, but he had mentioned 60 feet leftover from the north side of the building to the existing fence. That’s no accurate. That measurement there, if we do the math, which we have done here, the measurement from the existing fence to the property line is a total of 93.17 feet. If we remove the building width, that leaves us 43.17 feet. That is the dimension that we’re left with on both sides for the setback as well as the acceptable use. A 20 foot setback would obviously leave us with 23.17 feet. Like we have seen from Staff and myself, that’s less than the pickup truck alone requires. A 15 foot setback would allow us an additional 5 feet, giving us 28.17 feet. To be honest, in all reality, we would love to have 10 feet. With the neighbor’s contention of this, this is why we originally planned for 12 feet. Now, we have re-submitted it to 15 feet. Any foot that is given to us is appreciated and is what will be well utilized. Again, I don’t know how much of the Commission has ever driven any truck or trailer. These are the large things that we’re talking about. We’re not talking about a small Home Depot trailer. With a 20 foot trailer and a pickup truck or a 48 foot RV, you need room in order to manage. At the end of the day, like we had discussed with the Will County Board, trailers have been removed. This is an improvement. This will be a brand new building. We feel that this is not harming anybody. The last thing that I’ll leave you with is the comment that was made in the letter about water drainage. Miss Farrell can attest, I believe, that the Building Permit does require engineering plans for water drainage to be submitted. We are using a local engineer which will be providing that because there is absolutely zero impact to any kind of water drainage. After the outcome of today’s meeting, the final site plan will be submitted. A Building Permit cannot be issued for this kind of a building without engineering plans. The Building Permit would not get approved unless the drainage was sufficient for the area. Again, in this particular case, there’s absolutely zero chance. I’d love to know if anybody has any questions or if there’s anything else that I can answer. That would conclude my presentation. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does any of our panelists have any questions? No response.
A woman said she would like to take a moment to address. Do I have the floor? Chairman Stipan said yes, please.
Sharon Stack introduced herself. Thomas Stack is with me. I know that Marguerite has read our letter. We of course oppose to the 15 feet. If everyone else can mute, please. I’m getting a lot of feedback. I just wanted to make sure everybody else is muted. We do have concerns about weather and moisture. Mr. Peter did mention that the property there is very wet. There’s a lot of moisture there. We are concerned about property damage to our property with that 15 yard. We understand that there might be some hardship for him in order to place that building into another location, putting the building back 10 feet or 15 feet to allow him to make the swing that he needs. Although he would lose a small piece of his property, that’s his choice to have exactly what he needs to make his vehicles work for him. I don’t feel that we should have to give up that 5 feet for small inconveniences to him. If he goes ahead with the building, he’s going to have equipment onsite. I realize its moving a fence, but if that’s what you need to do to improve your property, that’s what you need to do to improve your property. I would just like to let you all know that we encourage you to vote against and object to the 15 foot Variance. I thank you for your time. I know that you guys have given us a lot of your time over the last year and a half. Thank you. Brian Radner said the Plan Commissioners are all muted so if you would like to speak, make sure you unmute yourself.
Chairman Stipan said yes, I would like to speak first. I asked the Commissioners and apparently I didn’t get a response, or they didn’t hear me. Does anyone has anything to say about this speaker and/or the land owner or representative of the land owner? Does anybody have a response to the 2nd speaker?
John Kiefner said I would like to make a couple points, I guess. If we go with the corrected measurement of 93 feet from the lot line to the fence, the way the building is drawn if it got a 15 foot setback and a 50 foot wide building, there would only be 28 feet then to make that turn. It’s my belief that the building could be built 20 feet away and the applicant just has to deal with it. I suppose it’s also possible though for the neighbor to the south that the applicant could decide to push that building all the way up next to the fence and put what’s the north doors on the south side. If you take that 93 feet minus 50, they now have a lot more room to come in and out. That would put the doors facing south which they may not want, maybe the applicant to the south wouldn’t want. I look at this and the building can fit. I guess in my original statement of 60 feet wasn’t accurate through Google Maps, I still think it works no matter if it’s 60 feet or 43 feet. The building could be slid to the north and the fence could be moved. They could even move the building into the pasture 10 feet and just cut the fence out where it is. I don’t think that should be the neighbor’s burden to bear for this applicant. Chairman Stipan said thank you. Anyone else from the panel want to speak?
Peter Wiatr said I have a question.
Chairman Stipan said excuse me, I’m asking for my panelists. You will have to wait until you’re recognized. Does any other panelist care to speak?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said Mr. Wiatr, you may speak for a short time.
Peter Wiatr said Mr. Kiefner, I would just like to respond to your comment about that. The reason that the doors were put on the north side is exactly like you mentioned, the back in forth with the neighbors. We didn’t feel that for 2 reasons, that it would be wise in this particular case. One of the obvious reasons is that where the doors are, that is where the action is going to be. Whether coming in and out, noise, visual nuisance. That is one and second is security. Looking where the house is placed, if you we back, the doors will be facing away. Anybody breaking in will typically enter through the overhead doors or door window. So, for those 2 reasons, that’s why we did not decide to do that. That was it. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir.
Sharon Stack said excuse me, if I may make another statement. Mr. Stack is here and he said he does not oppose to the doors being on the south side of the building.
Chairman Stipan said excuse me, who is speaking?
Sharon Stack said it was her.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Why are you speaking again?
Sharon Stack said Mr. Peter asked about the doors to the south side and that we would be opposed. I just wanted to make sure that it’s noted we are not opposed to the doors being to the south side of the building.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you very much.
Sharon Stack said you’re welcome.
Barbara Peterson asked if she could talk.
Chairman Stipan said yes, please. I’m asking people to speak up.
Barbara Peterson said I think to settle everything, the proposed building should be made smaller. Period. So you know which way I’m going.
Chairman Stipan said ok. I thing we’ve brought ourselves to a point where we can vote on this. I’m going to ask for a roll call vote on this one again. I would also ask that I be called last.
Motion failed 0-7.
RESULT: DEFEATED [0 TO 7]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
NAYS: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
8. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-20-003, LMJ Real Estate, LLC, Owner of Record (Larry R. Schrage, Mary Ann Burdick and Janet Lee Cellarius each 33.33% Interest), Larry R. Schrage, Managing Member of LMJ Real Estate, LLC, Agent; Requesting (M-20-001) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2 and (V-20-003) Variance for Maximum Accessory Building Area from 3,000 Square Feet to 4,340 Square Feet, for Part of Pin #22-22-32-200-011-0000, in Washington Township, Commonly Known as 839 W. Kentucky Road, Beecher, IL, County Board District #1
Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-003, which takes place in Washington Township.
This is 2 requests. It is a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2 and a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 4,340 square feet.
The applicant in this case is Larry Schrage, who is 1/3 owner of LMJ Real Estate, who is the property owner.
The applicant is looking to divide off 3.514 acres from a 132. 32 acre parcel.
This is the Plat of Survey showing you the full parcel. As I mentioned, it is 132.32 acres. The applicant is looking to divide off that little portion up there in the corner. So, that is 3.514 acres if you are measuring to the center line of the road, or 3.205 acres if there's a portion to be dedicated. This does require a minor subdivision and the applicant is currently going through that process. The road dedication will be determined through the subdivision process.
The parcel is currently improved with a single family residence which has an attached garage, a small wooden shed, and then a metal pole building.
This proposed parcel does meet the E-2 Zoning District standards in terms of lot frontage and lot area and in setbacks for those existing structures. The accessory building area is in excess of what's allowed in the E-2 Zoning District, so that's the Variance request.
I'm going to walk through very quickly here the Map Amendment criteria. It's sort of out of order here.
In regards to #6, a LESA score was not calculated.
Looking at the existing uses in the general area of the property, I used a mile radius and we're actually dipping a little bit into Kankakee County down there. As you can see, the use is primarily agricultural and then there are also some residential. There is a construction company which is located in this far northern corner, and that's an industrial parcel.
In looking at the suitability of the property in question for uses permitted under the current zoning classification. Like I said, this property is zoned A-1. Both agricultural and residential uses are permitted. You can see a portion of this property is farmed. These uses are also permitted in the E-2 Zoning District.
In regards to the Zoning Classification of properties in the general area, again I used a 1 mile radius and we do dip into Kankakee County there. So, we have some E-2, Estate Residential, actually located predominantly along Kentucky to where our site is here in red. We also have 1 parcel up here to the north. We have that industrial parcel and also a commercial parcel down here in the sort of southern portion.
In regards to criteria 4, the trend of developments. This has actually been towards Estate Residential. So, E-2, what the applicant is requesting and I've called out the estate residential zoning cases from the different years. You can see those are the most recent trend of development starting in the 90's, into the 2000's just before the down turn of the real estate market. That industrial parcel and that commercial parcel were re-zoned back in the 70's and 80's. It's Staff's assessment that it would not really constitute any sort of a trend of development. Really the trend of development has been towards that estate residential. The parcel that is located in closest proximity, right here that's estate residential, is only 500 feet away.
The applicant's request to Estate Zoning is in conformance with our Land Resource Management Plan. The density created is in line with our Conservation Design Use Concept, which is a permitted use in the Rural Areas Development Forms.
The attached garage measures 668 square feet. The pole building measures 3240.9 square feet. There is a small frame shed that is 330.2 square feet.
In regards to the criteria that we review Variance requests by, Staff does believe that this is due to a unique circumstance. This is re-zoning of a parcel that already contains existing structures. This is something that we typically don't see. It's also important to note that in the E-2 Zoning District, if that metal pole barn, for example, is being used to stable horses, then a Variance would not be required at all because stables do not count towards that 3,000 square foot maximum.
In regards to criterion b, Staff does not believe that this request would alter the essential character of the locality. It is a very rural area, and it is characterized by large accessory buildings. To the south of the subject parcel, we have 2 large metal pole buildings, a metal structure and also a detached garage. Large accessory buildings are not out of character in this area.
This is a property that is A-1 re-zoning to E-2 and addressing its existing conditions that are on the site.
Staff does not believe the zoning request would be detrimental to any surrounding property.
Staff is recommending approval of both the Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2 and approval of the Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 4,340 square feet.
From the agencies that were notified, nobody objected.
Staff did not receive any objections or comments from any of the surrounding property owners or neighbors.
That concludes Staff's report.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Staff? Several Commissioners said no.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Are the owners available to speak? Or the agent? Larry Schrage is he available?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said no.
Janine Farrell said Mr. Schrage was on here earlier. Brian and I do not see him on here currently though.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Seeing that you recommend approval and we have no other people calling in as concerned citizens, then I will go ahead and accept a motion.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
9. Approval For A Map Amendment From A-1 to E-2
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
10. Approval For Variance For Maximum Accessory Building Area From 3,000 Square Feet to 4,340 Square Feet
Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
11. Revocation of Case ZC-16-006 including the following two Special Use Permits:
S-16-009 and S-16-010, filed by Ronald L. Janota and Airocolina Janota , Owners of Record; PIN # 22-22-02-200-005-0000, Washington Township, commonly known as 1301 E. Offner Road, Beecher, IL
Brian Radner said Staff was hoping to move this to the June 2nd meeting.
Roll Call vote was taken. Motion passed 7-0.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/2/2020 6:30 PM
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
VI. OTHER
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brian Radner said there is enough cases to have another meeting on May 19, 2020. Our intent would be to have another meeting like this. I think this went okay overall. I definitely would like some feedback on how we could do things better. There will be another Plan Commission hearing on the 19th.
John Kiefner asked have you ruled out the possibility to have this meeting in the building there using social distancing? I see several of you appear to be in there.
Brian Radner said Janine and I are the only ones in here at the chambers and that was because in case anybody showed up to comment. Nobody did show up here. The Sheriff is very bored. I guess it could be an option but it may be that maybe a handful of people could be there so that we keep our numbers low.
Roger Bettenhausen said I kind of like this meeting better than our normal meeting. I'd like to compliment Brian and also Staff and everybody else. I think this went very well. My only question Brian is how difficult was it to get the objectors or attendees organized.
Brian Radner said I say its not hard. We had to put up information on where they could comment. A phone number was provided. An email address was provided. Then, the link to the meeting is provided. Because they're not a registered panelist like an applicant or a commissioner or a staff member, they show up on my list as attendee's. It shows their name so I am able to click on them and then make them a panelist at the right time during the hearing. That way they can hear everything that's being said but they can't contribute until the Commission is ready to hear from them. I can also take their comments in the chat box. I had asked to do that. It worked okay. We had multiple options for people to comment. Some people provided them in advance and that was good too.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion To Adjourn the Meeting
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 PM.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner
SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner
AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen
X. Visit www.willcountylanduse.com to view agendas and staff reports
XI. Statement
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3755&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up