Will County Gazette

Will County Land Use & Development Committee Met Sept. 8.

Here is the minutes provided by the committee:

I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM

Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:32 AM

Land Use Staff present on the Webex meeting were Kris Mazon, Dawn Tomczak, Marguerite Kenny, Lisa Napoles, Janine Farrell, Brian Radner, David Dubois, Colin Duesing, and Dean Olson.

Matt Guzman was present from the Will County State's Attorney's office..

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Tom Weigel led the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Aug 18, 2020 10:30 AM

Roll Call Vote was taken. Minutes approved unanimously, 4-0. Ferry, Koch, and Traynere were absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member

SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member

AYES: Marcum, Balich, Ventura, Weigel

ABSENT: Ferry, Koch, Traynere

IV. NEW BUSINESS

1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-20-027, Material Service Corporation d/b/a Hanson Material Service, Owner of Record, (HBMA Holdings LLC 100% Interest with Christopher Ward as President; Randall Boisvert of Lehigh Hanson, Inc., Agent, Requesting (S-20-008) Special Use Permit for Mining and Quarrying with a Request to Perform Blasting and Use Explosives, (V 20-35) Variance for Minimum Lot Area from 10 Acres to 0.5 Acres, (V-20-036) Variance for Minimum Lot Frontage from 300 Feet to 0 Feet, (V-2-037) Variance for the Location of Open Pits and Shafts from the Side Property Line from 50 Feet to 0 Feet (North), (V-20-038) Variance for the Location of Open Pits and Shafts from the Side Property Line from 50 Feet to 0 Feet (South), (V-20-039) Variance for the Location of Open Pits and Shafts from the Side Property Line from 50 Feet to 0 Feet (East), (V-20-040) Variance for the Location of Open Pits and Shafts from the Rear/Side Property Line from 50 Feet to 0 Feet (West) for Pin # 11-04-10-300-024-0000, in Lockport Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on Independence Blvd., Romeoville, IL, County Board District #3 (Janine Farrell)

Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-027, which takes place in Lockport Township.

This site is obviously restricted because it is an active quarry area.

The owner is Material Service Corp, which is doing business as Hanson Material Service.

The Zoning Case actually contains 7 requests. There is a Special Use request for mining with a request to use explosives that is before you today. The Variances were approved last week by the Planning & Zoning Commission.

The applicant would like to extend existing mining operations to his parcel that you see on your screen here in red. This whole site is within the Village of Romeoville and it is an active quarry. This red parcel right here is what we’re talking about today.

The parcel in question is only a half-acre site. It’s surrounded by approximately 187 acres within the Village of Romeoville and is an active limestone quarry.

I’m going to zoom in here so you can see, this here is actually a shadow. It kind of looks like water here, but that is just a shadow of the peak. This is the parcel in question and you can see the quarry operations surrounding it. This is our most recent image on file and it is from May of this year.

The parcel, as you can see from the Zoning Map is still unincorporated and surrounded by the Village of Romeoville. The Village of Romeoville is zoned M-2 or heavy manufacturing.

This parcel was originally a cemetery. Back in the mid 1990’s when Hanson Material Service decided to proceed with the mining, the territory was annexed into the Village of Romeoville and this half-acre parcel remained behind. The bodies were exhumed at that time and under the legal requirement, access had to be maintained for 20 years to this half-acre parcel which is why it remained unincorporated and had remained untouched since that time. The applicant satisfied that legal requirement. In December, 2019, they received a Judge’s Deed, so they received ownership of the parcel. Now they are looking to extend the mining operations onto this parcel. According to discussions with Romeoville, they are not interested in annexing this parcel so it remains before us today for the approval for the Special Use Permit.

Operations within this area will continue for the next 5-6 years until they reach the southern limit. This map actually gives you a good sense of where the southern limit actually is over here. This is another view, which again we are sort of looking in the opposite direction, so south is at the top of your screen. You can see this residential subdivision, the College View Subdivision over here. This is Route 53. This is our parcel in question, the half-acre parcel outlined in blue. You can see that mining operations have gone around it until it’s reaching the southern limit, right about here. This is a park so it’s basically reached the limit over there.

It’s important to mention that even if this Special Use Permit is denied, mining will continue to occur for the next 5-6 years all the way around this property. Denial of this request will not impact existing operations going on over here.

These are some more images of actually being inside the quarry to show you the site. This is the subject site right up here and you can see the operations occurring around it. Then this is a view of the other side, so we’re basically standing at the southern limit of the property looking north towards that half-acre which is right here. This is just an image to give you a sense of the operations as a whole. The operations as a whole, there are buffers, there are setbacks, there are berms and there are fences. This is the property in question. We have that former access that was maintained for 20 years to it. This is the future park down here as I mentioned. This here is the existing park that I showed. This is that College View Subdivision to the south.

Staff did recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with the associated Variances. With the criteria that we review the Special Use requests on, the full report is in your Staff Report. Staff does not believe that the activity occurring on this half-acre site would be more detrimental or be more impactful to the neighborhood than what is already occurring here. From discussions with Hanson Material Service, basically in one afternoon this half-acre parcel will cease to exist, it will be blasted away. As Staff mentioned, quarry operations are impactful to neighbors but the addition of this half-acre piece would not be more impactful or increase that extent beyond what is already occurring here at this site.

At the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting last week, there were a number of objectors that spoke out against this proposal. The Planning & Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the Special Use request with a vote of 5-1.

Of the agencies that were notified, none objected. I should say, the ones that did submit comments, none objected.

I can take any questions that you might have.

Chairman Marcum asked does anyone have any questions for Staff?

Rachel Ventura said in there you provided a list of recommendations or actually requirements in the Staff Report. One of them was for notification. I’m wondering if there is a way to add a little tweak to that where if they do not notify there is some type of a fine or will they lose their Special Permit? What happens if they don’t notify the neighbors that they’re going to be blasting?

Janine Farrell said as with any Special Use Permit, if you are found to be violating that condition, so you didn’t notify the neighbors, there’s a process that we go through to try to bring them into compliance. So, we try to work with them and have them obviously not repeat this offense. The Special Use could be revoked so it could go up for revocation. Again, in this instance it’s very difficult because it would really be one afternoon and this parcel would be gone. So, we’re looking only at this little half-acre site which makes it kind of difficult but we did want to keep that condition on there so that the applicants continue status quo, they do notify people already and we would like that to obviously occur when they work on this parcel, if approved.

Rachel Ventura asked are we able to add fines if they don’t notify the residents? Like you said, it’s probably not going to be ongoing? We want to make sure that they do their due diligence. Have we ever added that to a condition before?

Janine Farrell said I think I might defer to Brian or David. Do we have the ability to add like a monetary fine of some sort? Have we done that in the past?

David Dubois said I do not recall any conditions being levied on a Special Use Permit to incur fines.

Brian Radner said I was trying to talk to Matt Guzman, he is also here in the County Board Room with me. In the 20 years that I’ve worked here that has never been placed on the Special Use Permit as a condition. I will defer to Matt to determine if that’s even something that is legally possible. We do know that the Zoning Code itself allows fines for the violation of the Ordinance of, I believe, up to $500 a day per occurrence.

Matt Guzman said I think Brian’s right. First of all, the defined collection if there’s a violation, there’s a procedural and substantive due process that we have to comply with. A simple allegation for a violation of a Special Use Permit, you have to go through that process. You just can’t say you didn’t comply now we’re going to fine you. So, the proper way would be to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. There is a process if they violate it, you send them a notice, have the hearing and make a determination that way. Janine is correct, there’s also a procedure to do a revocation of the Special Use Permit. That’s also provided in our Zoning Ordinance. I know that this has worked, to my knowledge, in the past.

Rachel Ventura said if it’s a one-time thing and they don’t notify them, I understand you don’t just make that allegation because we have due process. If there’s no fine or anything, only negative consequences and they lose their special zoning but they’re already done with this, how is that…

Matt Guzman said you would still seek it after the fact if they violated it. You can also take them to court if you wanted to, Administrative Adjudication, for an Ordinance violation. There’s other remedies. You simply can’t put a monetary fine on a violation and have it take effect if they violate it right away, you still have to do it down the road.

Rachel Ventura said instead of them possibly losing the Special Permit that they would additionally have to pay a fine. That’s not something that we can dictate? I understand there’s still a due process.

Matt Guzman said a fine is not listed in the Zoning Ordinance for us to do whereas a revocation of the Special Use Permit is.

Rachel Ventura said so you’re say we cannot add that?

Matt Guzman said to my knowledge, and I haven’t researched any of this, but I have never seen it. I would suggest that we stick with what the Ordinances provide. Either adjudication of a Special Use Permit or if you think there’s a violation, issue an Ordinance violation subsequent to whatever violation they did. There’s nothing that I’m aware of that says you can issue or impose a fine for violating a Special Use Permit right away. You can’t use that as a deterrent.

Rachel Ventura said I’m not saying right away, I understand they sometimes do the process. What I’m saying is, instead of just having a consequence if they’re found guilty of the accusation, instead of the consequence just being that they lose their permit, but they would also have to pay a fine. I’m not saying it happens right away, they would still go through the process but then the deterrent was to make sure they do their due diligence before they start blasting.

Matt Guzman said I’ve never seen that. In all the years I’ve been doing this, to impose a fine for a violation that always comes after the fact. I get what you’re saying Rachel. To simply say if you do it, you’re going to be fined some money would be the same as saying if you committed an Ordinance violation now we’re going to site you and guess what, we’re going to take you to court and go through that process. Then if they find that you violated, we’re going to issue a fine then. So, it’s one in the same but I don’t know of any authority that we can list that as a condition that you’re going to be imposed with a fine if you violate it.

Rachel Ventura said ok, thank you.

Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have any questions regarding this case?

No response.

Chairman Marcum asked Brian, do we know if anybody from the public signed up to speak on this?

Brian Radner said I do see one caller-in user so I’m going to unmute that person and we’ll find out if that’s somebody that’s here to speak on this matter. That person is un-muted now.

Chairman Marcum said call-in user if you wanted to speak on this matter, you can go ahead now. Going once if you want to speak on this. Going twice. I guess nobody wants to speak on this matter.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 6-0 with 2 conditions. Koch was absent.

1. Upon fourteen (14) days of written notice to the owner of record at their last known address, Will County Land Use Department and Will County Sheriff’s Department employees are hereby granted the right of entry in and upon the premises for the purpose of inspection of the premises and uses thereon for compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use permit.

2. The applicant shall continue to notify those interested parties about the blasting activities prior to when they are scheduled to occur.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

TO: Will County Board

MOVER: Steve Balich, Member

SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member

AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel

ABSENT: Koch

2. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended Case ZC-20-029, Kathleen M. Cartolano TR 2016-0485, Owner of Record, (Kathleen M. Cartolano, Trustee); Crown Castle USA Inc. DBA CCTMO LLC, Applicant, (CCTM Holdings LLC is 100% Sole Member of CCTMO LLC; Jay A. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer; Kenneth J. Simon, Executive Vice President and General Counsel; Daniel K. Schlanger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Donald J. Reid, Secretary; and Masha Blankenship, Assistant Secretary), Fred Low of Chaille Tower Consultants obo Verizon Wireless, Agent; Requesting a (VWTV-20-001) Variance for East Side Yard Setback from 10 Feet to 3 Feet, for Pin # 19-09-14- 105-002-0000, in Frankfort Township, Commonly Known as 8444 W. St. Francis Road, Frankfort, IL, County Board District #2 (Marguerite Kenny)

Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-029, which takes place in Frankfort Township.

As you recall with our Land Use presentation a few months ago, this happens to be the one Variance request that the County Board has to decide on. It is for a wireless telecommunications facility. Per State Statute, it does require County Board approval.

On the screen you have the aerial image showing a quarter mile radius of the proposed location of the tower. Then the 2 images on the left show the existing monopole tower and the proposed location of where Verizon Wireless is looking to locate ground equipment on the existing site.

Verizon Wireless has stated within their Staff Report packet in their narrative statement that they have a need to improve their service in this area within US 30 and 191st Street. Their desire is to co-locate on the existing tower as opposed to finding a new site and constructing a new tower and wireless telecommunications facility. This facility in particular met their criteria so they were wishing to enter into a lease agreement with Crown Castle being the tower owner.

You can see the subject parcel itself is 2.31 acres. It is zoned R-2 and is surrounded by residential.

The wireless telecommunications facility is located on the northeast side of the property. This leased area is approximately 1,680 square feet of the subject property. You can see there is a little discrepancy with property lines but you’ll see within the Plat of Survey that the eastern boundary line of this lease agreement is the eastern property line of the subject property.

You can also see that there is an existing fence line within the wireless telecommunications facility. That red box indicates the area that Verizon would be locating their ground equipment. They would also be constructing antenna onto the existing monopole.

The surrounding area as you can see is predominantly residential.

We do have ComEd utility lines directly to the east of the subject property. Verizon’s lease area is roughly a 12’ x 20’ lease area on the ground.

Looking at the existing monopole tower, Verizon’s lease area will be located further down on the tower so the height of the existing tower will not be increased. It is 145’ tall. A previous Zoning Case allowed this tower to be 145’ tall and not the normal 75’ height.

Looking at the Variance request, you have the Plat of Survey on the screen. You can see the lease area is pushing on the property line. Per the Zoning Ordinance, there is a 10 foot setback requirement from all property lines for new ground equipment located within these facilities. The Verizon lease area from within the compounds will be 3 feet from the property line so Verizon, on behalf of the agent Fred Low, is requesting that to be able to co-locate on this property.

The Planning & Zoning Commission did not have any objectors present last Tuesday. They did unanimously recommend approval of this request.

I’m happy to answer any questions.

Rachel Ventura asked does Crown have any objections to Verizon? I’m assuming Verizon’s going to pay them some money to use their pole and then they’re adding their own antenna onto that pole and putting in some ground equipment, correct?

Marguerite Kenny said correct. Verizon Wireless has entered into a lease contract with Crown Castle who owns the tower and the overall facility lease area on the property.

Rachel Ventura said I’ve seen this in other areas where they paint them green and try to make them look like trees. I don’t even know if that’s the route to go. Have we required anything like that in Will County anywhere else?

Marguerite Kenny said one thing to mention with Variance requests, we cannot condition them, we’re not able to.

Rachel Ventura said ok, thank you.

Chairman Marcum asked does anybody else have any questions or comments? No response.

Chairman Marcum said we can check the call-in user then to see if they want to speak on this.

Brian Radner said that number has been un-muted so if they want to comment, they should be able to now.

Chairman Marcum said call-in user, if you want to speak on this matter go ahead now. Go ahead if you want to speak.

No response.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Koch was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

TO: Will County Board

MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member

SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member

AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel

ABSENT: Koch

V. OTHER BUSINESS

1. Request for Refund of Fees, REF-20-003, Enbridge Energy Line 14 6A Pipeline Maintenance Project; Will County Land Use Site Development Permit Application #SDP-20-PIP001 (Brian Radner)

Brian Radner said the situation is, back in February, they applied for this Site Development Permit. The fee is $2,500. Then, Enbridge Energy decided not to go through with the project after they had submitted and paid for the permit.

The County’s rules that the County Board has passed is that the Land Use Department cannot return fees unless they were collected in error. In this case, there wasn’t an error in the collection, it was the company’s decision not to move forward with the project. That’s why the matter’s here before you to decide if a refund’s appropriate in this situation.

Rachel Ventura said I can make a motion, but I will be a No.

Chairman Marcum said thank you. Does anyone have any questions?

No response.

Chairman Marcum asked does anybody want to speak on this?

Brian Radner said the call-in number has been un-muted.

Chairman Marcum said call-in user would you like to speak on this matter? Call-in user would you like to speak? Going once. Going twice. I will just say that we traditionally don’t refund these so I will also be a No. If nobody has any comments or questions, we will take a Roll Call.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 2-4. No’s were Marcum, Balich, Traynere, and Ventura.

RESULT: FAILED [2 TO 4]

TO: Will County Board

MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member

SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member

AYES: Ferry, Weigel

NAYS: Marcum, Balich, Traynere, Ventura

ABSENT: Koch

2. Disc Re: Compliance with Illinois Noxious Weed Law (David Dubois)

David Dubois said this matter is actually up for assignment this week at Executive Committee, so technically it has no yet been assigned.

I’ll just kind of give you a short synopsis of it if it’s assigned to Land Use Committee and what you might be discussing.

This is the Illinois Noxious Weed Law and it is a state law.

To my knowledge, we’ve had our first complaint of noxious weeds in 20 plus years. It also coincides that we’ve been advised by the Department of Agriculture that the County’s not in compliance with the Noxious Weed Law compliance program.

That can take a variety of shapes and forms depending on how much effort the County wants to put forward for it and how much in resources the County wants to put into it.

Also, there would have to be a decision at some point made on which County Department would be responsible for administering this law in the County. It can be the Highway Department, Health Department or it could be the Zoning Administrator. There’s not one particular office that deals with this in other counties.

When I got a call from the Department of Ag on it and I was discussing the complaint that we received, I inquired with them about compliance in other counties within the state. It’s about half the counties in the state that file reports into this law. Regardless, we’ve been advised by the state of this issue so we want to address it. That’s why we requested assignment.

Again, I just wanted to give you a synopsis of what you’ll be seeing for further discussion.

Chairman Marcum asked does anyone have any questions from David?

Rachel Ventura said I’d like to add something here. When it’s assigned, I think it would be good if we partnered with the Forest Preserve on this and ask Ralph to come in and give a report. We’ve recently been talking about the herbicides that we use at the Forest Preserve. Some of us County Board Members are interested in using something other than BT toxins, so that could be a part of the policy that we write. When we talk about departments, I don’t know if it’s feasible for us to pay the Forest Preserve to basically do that work for us since they already have contractors and are very familiar with this. Maybe we still have to have one of our departments oversee it and check to see that this was done and actually file the report with the State. I think that this is a good place to have an intergovernmental agreement where we’re working with the Forest Preserve on this. They are supposed to be presenting to us some alternatives for herbicide. They’re not doing their tests until the spring so I’m not sure if this is something that needs to be taken care of now. For long term policy, I think it would be best to work with the Forest Preserve on that. Thanks.

Chairman Marcum said I think it would be wise of us to invite the Highway Department too, just to see if anybody’s set up to do this to make it as little of a burden as possible for everybody. Once it gets assigned, we’ll discuss exactly what we need to do. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?

RESULT: INFORMATIONAL

TO: Will County Board

3. A-1 Special Use Update

(Colin Duesing)

Colin Duesing said as I mentioned in my memo, during the process of looking at the purpose section of this, there were a couple of Committee Members that expressed the desire to terminate the process. That’s one option that we need to discuss right now before we go any further. If there are a couple of Committee Members that want to stop, there might be others so we’ll discuss that in a little bit.

If we do decide to continue, there are options that we need to discuss as well. One would be to postpone this process altogether until the LRMP is updated. Primarily during the screening discussion in July, I took a lot of notes about future land uses and future desires. That is something that would require an update of the LRMP. We have been discussing that in the office and we were hoping to do that come 2021. Because of COVID and the lack of financial resources, that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. Although we would really, really like it, this would be my personal desire because I’m greedy and I want this but we understand that it’s not financially feasible nor would it be something that we could do immediately.

Next would be to review the Special Uses in the A-1. During the couple exercises that we’ve been conducting, that’s kind of what I’ve been seeing, that we need to actually look at the A-1 Special Uses instead of going through what’s being originally proposed, a brand new Zoning District.

If we cease the project altogether, the way I understood what the Committee Members were talking about is this process is either unnecessary and/or unnecessarily complex. This would mean for us to stop but again, it does not address those initial concerns. Just by doing nothing, this would be the least expensive and least time consuming option.

Next would be to postpone until we get the LRMP updated. This was from conversations with other County Board Members and yourselves. The idea of that is to increase agricultural preservation, decreasing the warehousing uses and addressing the additional housing options. Not all of those would fit this process but they are things that need to be discussed with an LRMP update. It would need to be a big update and would require a consulting firm to assist us. Again, this would not immediately address the Committee concerns but it would provide a much better foundation. It would give us clear guidance as to what the County as a whole would get to see. Because of this, it would be the most expensive and the most time consuming option.

For reviewing the Special Uses, this is our Staff recommendation. Between the 2 exercises that we’ve been doing, it shows that very few of the listed uses that have been popping up time and time again, they’re not prohibited in the A-1 at all. They are through the Special Use process. The historical data that we’ve done internally, also demonstrates that there’s not an immediate need for it in the district. Doing this would be working within the current Zoning Code format with major manipulations. We could also implement minor changes in the Planned Unit Development option of Special Uses to address those initial concerns of multiple uses within a particular area. This would be easily adjustable and adoptable in a relatively short period of time unlike the updating of the LRMP.

Lastly, pursuing our current course. This does provide a direct format to address those initial concerns and it does require new purposes and new regulations. This one is doable and it is more complex because we are completing new regulations rather than working on the existing ones.

What is our next step? Our Committee Members want to discuss the idea of stopping this process altogether. I want to make sure I didn't misrepresent their concerns. Then I will ask for a motion to vote to go forward. We've been doing this on a consensus basis. It looks like at this time we need to start having firm votes. I now open the floor to any Committee Members that wish to discuss the idea of ceasing this process altogether.

Chairman Marcum said I had expressed concerns that we were making this more complicated than it needed to be. I get the impression that we are trying to limit large footprint buildings and warehouses. I think that we’ve overcomplicated it. I think that getting more towards the heart of what we’re trying to do, reviewing the Special Uses in A-1, is what we should look at. Looking at the Planned Unit Development would probably be what I would favor. I think it would accomplish what we really wanted. I think that’s a more guided approach.

Steve Balich said when we started talking about this a long time ago I didn’t see any problem or whatever, but then last month when we got that sheet from Colin, it really clarified exactly what we’re talking about. To me, all this new zoning thing would have been was to say we’re not allowing warehouses. I don’t want to get into a box that says we don’t allow warehouses. When we go for a Special Use, that’s when we decide if we approve the Special Use or not. There’s going to be times when a small warehouse is ok, a medium one, and even a real large one, or a mega one would be ok. I think that the Special Use process that we have already, in place, is the answer. We don’t really need to change anything or go through any more time, effort and money to try to fix something that isn’t really broke. It’s just a matter of opinion whether or not you want to have any type of warehouse or a large one in an A-1 District. Depending where it is, that’s why you have to have a Special Use. I don’t want to change it. I think it’s a waste of time and a waste of everyone’s money.

Rachel Ventura said I want to be very clear that this Committee did take a vote a few months ago to direct Staff to do this. It is very irritating to come back now and say you were just doing it willy nilly. We were not. We made a vote to move forward with this. Now, if people have changed their minds, that’s one thing. That should have been brought to the Board before the work stopped. So, this delays it even further. Last month we were asking to do a workshop so that we could work through these issues all together and people were on board. Instead of us working together to move forward, this is full on brakes. I did not think that this is appropriate when the direction of this Board already voted to move this forward. They next thing is to Tyler’s point that it’s too complicated. I agree. Amanda and I both sent emails in that regard to Colin. I also spoke about this in the last 2 meetings that we are unnecessarily making this way too complicated, and I’m not sure why. Is it more stall tactics? Is it trying to confuse the matter? It’s not appropriate in my opinion. As to Steve’s point about allowing warehouses, this is not to never allow warehouses in Will County. We need to be very clear about that. The I-1, 2, and 3 categories allow for all of those things. This is to maintain and protect our farmland and agriculture so that it does allow for a more diverse use in our agriculture areas to allow for things like storage. This is to help petitioners make sure that they can get the needs that they have for their businesses met in the agriculture area without destroying the farmland areas that we have. This is to help residents and businesses. Please do not mistake this as an anti-warehouse thing. This is to protect our area but still allow I-1 to have as much warehousing as you want. That’s why the blend of this category is needed. I also do not think it’s appropriate to just throw it in the A-1 category. The idea of having this blend is to clearly identify those properties that go above and beyond the use of animals and farmland for food production. I think that this is an appropriate category and we do need to be forward thinking. We’re going to see a lot more changes as COVID changes things. We’re going to see how people store things differently. Warehousing is going to become more and more of a need. But also, local food supply is going to become more of a need. We didn’t see that with the meat issues and the COVID, we’re going to see it in other areas. We do need to be forward thinking in this. I’m very disappointed that Staff has not moved this forward due to a few concerns. To the last point of my fellow Committee Members, and I said this last month too, Steve. If you guys are not willing to do the work, I’m not sure why you’re on this Committee. It is one of the heaviest Committee’s when it comes to researching things, reading your packets, even going to some of the sites and looking at it to really understand, listening to your constituents, and following up with them. In a case like this, doing the hard work and doing a workshop, doing worksheets, looking at the law, listening to our State’s Attorney, it’s a heavy Committee. If you don’t want to do the work, you’re not helping your constituents. There are plenty of other Committee’s that have less work involved in them. I would hope that we do move this forward. I’m very disappointed.

Tom Weigel said I agree with Tyler. I think we should look at these Special Use Permits in A-1 and also the Planned Unit Development. I don’t think we need a new category. Industrial is industrial and it’s pretty evident what it should be. I don’t think we need another type of zoning where to put industrial properties.

David Dubois said I just wanted to address a few comments that were made regarding Staff. We are doing what the Committee has directed us to do and we follow the Committee’s direction. I don’t know if some of the comments were directed towards this department but I would categorically deny that there’s been any stalling or what that has not been done. Colin has been very attentive to this process. One of the reasons this has been brought up today is so we can move forward in the direction that the Committee desires. Sometimes things come up and we want further direction from the Committee. I just want to make that clear and to actually compliment Colin on the work that he has done in the process.

Rachel Ventura said I do think Colin has done a good job. That was not directed at Colin in general.

Steve Balich said I have been on every single Committee except Executive for the County Board in the last 8 years that I’ve been on the Board. Land Use, I’ve probably been on it about 6 years. It is my favorite Committee and there is a lot of work. Under no circumstances should anybody on this Committee be called out that they don’t want to do the work. That’s an insult. I have no problem doing the work. As a matter of fact, when we were talking about this in the past, I wasn’t saying yes of now, I was just saying it may be a good idea and maybe not. When our Land Use Department gave me more information on that spreadsheet, which was an excellent spreadsheet, by the way Colin thank you, I realized why are we changing anything? A Special Use Permit needs to have a vote from the Land Use Committee and the full Board and it starts with Planning & Zoning. We don’t need to do something that already exists. We will be able to protect the A-1 with the Special Use. I don’t think there’s going to be that many because we’ve had 3 or 4 in the last couple years and now we’re going to make a special zoning? Just because there’s 3 or 4 doesn’t mean we’re going to get 1,000. If there were 1,000 of the same thing then maybe we need to think about changing it. When it’s under 20, and I’m just using a number, we’re going to start making laws for 20 people or 20 incidences? It’s ridiculous. I really, really feel insulted when you’re taking a shot at me, Tom, Tyler, everybody. Oh, we’re too lazy to do the work to be on Land Use. I’ve been on this thing before you were even on the County Board.

Rachel Ventura asked did you do the worksheet Steve?

Steve Balich and Rachel Ventura were talking back and forth at the same time and some was inaudible.

Chairman Marcum said everybody just stop.

Steve Balich said you say that and I don’t appreciate it.

Chairman Marcum said everyone just needs to stay on point and stop attacking each other, or giving that impression. Just take a deep breath. We all understand that we get emotional. We get your point, Steve, and we appreciate it.

Jacqueline Traynere said my question is this and I want to make sure I understand what I think was presented. If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying we don’t have to change them to an “I”, we can leave them an “A” and they can get a Special Use Permit for their bigger, fancier building or whatever it is. We don’t have to allow them to have that “I” zoning. If that’s true, that’s interesting and that may change my position on things, I’m wondering why we didn’t get told that to begin with. I’m new to this Committee and it is a lot of work. That worksheet really confused the heck out of me. I would have preferred to do that in a workshop setting because it was almost impossible for me to figure out what I was doing. So, that’s my question. Are you saying that we can limit the use on an “A” and they don’t have to go to an “I”?

Colin Duesing said that is correct.

Jacqueline Traynere said they get a Special Use Permit to build their warehouse to do a roofing company and they can do that on an “A” zoned piece of property?

Colin Duesing said if we allow it yes. I don’t know if that is allowed off the top of my head. If we don’t, the idea to go forward is to actually address that. Is that something that we want to see going forward?

Jacqueline Traynere said I don’t know but it sounds like it kind of solves our problem. I just don’t understand why we had to get this far down the rabbit hole because this was a lot of work and it is very confusing. I’m not a Land Use expert.

Colin Duesing said part of the problem is that it is so confusing. It was discussed early on before COVID. Whether or not we made that presentation clear and the answer is obviously no. Yes, this is one of the options that we would like to go forward with.

Jacqueline Traynere said I would like to know how Rachel feels about that. I know that she was one of the people that was pretty intent about getting this done as was Amanda. I actually believed it was the right thing to do. If we can do this without changing any of our rules, I’m just wondering if we need to go forward, that’s all.

Rachel Ventura said I have similar concerns to Jackie. We’ve set through months of this and we have set laws. It’s not a matter of how many times it has happened in the past. Again, this has to be forward thinking. Where are we going as a County in the future? The past incidences may direct that and bring up the issue but it’s our decision of how we look at it going forward. Some of the issues in the past when they have come up, we were not given the option to have A-1. We were told that it was out of compliance. We were told they had to have I-1. We just forced our hand to go into a direction that we didn’t want to go into. The minute that we approve it to I-1, that opens up the door to a lot more things than just additional storage for roofing materials or cannabis uses or whatever. I understand Colin what you’re saying that if in the past A-1’s had allowed it then we need to add a certain category. The concern with that is I would want the Farm Bureau to come forward and talk about some of their concerns of addressing A-1 changes. That is why I don’t really understand why it is we cannot take the A 1 category and add the few things. We have given direction. I know Jackie, I, and Amanda all went through and sent things. I don’t know if Steve, Tom, Mark or Tyler have done so, but there was direction on what we needed to add for a new category. It is not unprecedented for County’s to have new zoning categories. In fact, the Republicans added a new zoning category when we got rid of the Estate stuff years ago. I don’t see why we can’t solve this problem by leaving A-1 alone and adding a new category. If the Farm Bureau has no objections to changing A-1 and the farmers have no objections to changing A-1 and we can somehow solve this problem, then sure, I’m open for discussion. David this is not an attack on any one person but it feels like some clear sabotage happening as opposed to all of us trying to move forward with the same goal in mind, it constantly feels like the goal post is moving. Maybe that’s just by happenstance that it’s happening, but it doesn’t feel like we’re moving the ball forward. The clear problem is there are people in this County who do not want to see the entirety of Will County paved over and put warehouses up. We want to maintain our farmland. We want to maintain the integrity of our communities and our residential areas. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. If there’s a way that this Staff and this Committee can make sure that we’re doing so, that we are pro-business, that we do plan a clear area for our warehousing that it’s appropriate, we can bring businesses in without hurting our residents or our farmland. That’s the goal. I would think everybody on this Committee wants to be part of that goal. I would like to work with everyone here to make sure that we’re making all of our residents are happy and we’re making our businesses happy but we’re doing it in a way that is a compromise so that everyone gets a little bit of what they want and that’s a quality of life.

Tyler Marcum said where I think this got confusing was, I think the goal is for people to be able to do more with agricultural property. I think if we review the Special Use Permits in A-1 and maybe allow more items to be permitted by Special Use and move them around, I think that is really what we’re trying to get at. I think it’s just confusing because we’re trying to explain things from the Committee’s perspective has confused everybody. I think it would be appropriate if we view A-1 and Special Use Permits and move some stuff there to allow people to use agricultural more. I think that will get to the point of what you’re trying to do Rachel. You can disagree with me but let me know. I think that’s what we’re trying to do is to allow agricultural uses to be kind of expanded.

David Dubois said I just want to make a few comments. Again, I want to just address some things that have been said regarding the terminology, sabotage the process. This was put forward to the Committee for direction. We take our direction from the Committee as to how we respond to the work we do in regards to things such as this. Colin has done that. That’s what we’re looking for today, direction from the Committee as a whole. Once the Committee has made a decision, we will move forward again and Colin will take direction. I just want to be clear on that.

Tom Weigel said I think 90% of these warehouses are in municipalities. No matter what we do, the warehouses are going to still come and we don’t have a voice on where they’re going to go by changing our Zoning Code because 90% of them are going into municipalities. I think it’s pretty much a waste of time for us to do that to try to control the warehouses.

County Board Member Jim Moustis said here's the questions that I would like to ask, because this is confusing. I've been a little confused in this whole process as to exactly what is the objective here. In part, if I'm understanding this correctly, the objective is to not necessarily expand agricultural zoning into industrial areas and I would agree with that. I always thought the wider spectrum with Special Use for A-1 was still always related to agriculture. In other words, you may have a large warehouse building but the building was associated somehow with agriculture and other large structures supported agriculture. You allow a broad based Special Use to support agriculture and not to create other types of zoning classifications. Over the years, it appears that some of this was perhaps used as not intended, in my opinion. Whether it was roofing operations or concrete operations or something that was truly industrial and not related to agriculture whatsoever then the problem became that over time they come in front of our Board and say well, this has been there for 20 years. We just want to come into compliance and give us the industrial zoning. This seems to be where some of the problem starts. I think we're all interested in some type of agricultural preservation. We've talked about this over the years. Quite frankly, we have one of the biggest and one of the largest areas that we have supported even though I think we should take another look at it. This 3rd airport site certainly affects agriculture in the area in Will County in a pretty dramatic level. Here again, I'm not exactly sure what we're trying to accomplish here. It seems to me that the current zoning got a little off track somehow and we need to bring that back in. I think we need to look at what we allow in A-1. This has been a concern of mine for some time, especially smaller parcels that are under 10 acres. Here again, I'm not exactly sure what we're trying to accomplish here but if it's to limit what goes in A-1, we should take a look at that.

Rachel Ventura said every single month we've been very clear, or at least I have been very clear, on the intent of this project and I just mentioned it a few months ago. I know Jim is a very intelligent man so I'm not going to repeat that. I think Jim does see the need for this. Going forward, I think I'm ok exploring the additions of A-1 as in purview of what we've already voted for. With that regard, I would ask that we wouldn't vote to undo what we've done so far. The reality is, we may have to go back to it if expanding the A-1 and the Special Use doesn't meet the requirements of what we're hoping to do, then we would still need a new zoning. In my opinion, how do we move forward with A or B, A being expanding A-1 and B being creating this new category. It's still in purview of this work so I would be fine if that's where we want to explore the next step as being. I do think we need to do this in a workshop setting. I think it would be easier for people to get the work done to carve out time for it and to ask questions that are appropriate as we go through each item. Doing it via email and doing it through a worksheet on our own doesn't seem to be the best way to move forward and it's a lot of time involved for each of us to do that on our own. Again, I think this is an area where we could have a special meeting or a special workshop and sit down with Land Use and go through each of these things so there's a clear understanding of what maybe needs to be added in that workshop. It might be very clear that yes, A-1 is appropriate for this or no, it's not and it's going to expand it too much. People may not want that. That's how I feel going forward. I don't know what motion needs to be made to do that.

County Board Member Jim Moustis said I agree with you Rachel on the workshop for sure.

Chairman Marcum said I think if we decide that we're going to review, then we will set up a workshop, hopefully in the next month or month in a half. It sounds like #3, which is review Special Uses in the A-1. If somebody wants to make a motion to go through with that route.

Jacqueline Traynere asked can we do both of these things at the same time, or no?

Chairman Marcum asked both of which things?

Coling Duesing said I would prefer one or the other. If one does not pan out then we will go to the other.

Rachel Ventura said also to clarify, the one that we are doing first is to explore A 1. Then you're saying if that doesn't work then we will go back to a blended new category.

Colin Duesing said correct. Kind of reverse of what we're doing.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 5-1 to review the Special Uses in the A-1. No was Balich. Koch was absent.

Chairman Marcum said Colin, I'll get in touch with you and David about setting something up so we can focus solely on this and walk everybody through in the next month or month and a half.

RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 1]

TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee

MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member

SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair

AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel

NAYS: Balich

ABSENT: Koch

VI. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE

1. Chairman, Will County Land Use and Development Committee Chairman Marcum said again, thank you to Staff for all the hard work in the unique circumstances that we all live in now. Hopefully at some point we'll be able to meet in person. I spend my whole day with a 4 month old so it would be nice to see some adults.

2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee Rachel Ventura said I just want to add that I do think Colin has done a very good job. My frustration is the fact that this is going on for over a year now and we can't seem to move forward. I'm hoping that the workshop will solve that and maybe the lack of communication that seems to be the problem here. This is not an attack on Colin.

Jacqueline Traynere said I feel the same frustration that Rachel feels and it's not against Staff. It's not against any one person, it's just the frustration that we can't seem to communicate what we're looking for and understand what the process is. I'm new to this Committee and really have no foundation. I've always lived in a municipality. I don't understand a lot of this Land Use stuff and it's a lot to read through and try to make a decision about. I appreciate that we're going to talk further about the options in the A-1 category. Thank you.

County Board Member Judy Ogalla said this is my perspective on it and I joined in late. I think the problem is, as Rachel said, there's frustration. The description as to what the purpose is of this has not been clearly described to others. I don't think everyone understands why there is no type of push for any different type of zoning allowing or not allowing things in different areas. I think that's where part of the confusion comes from. In addition to the fact that I totally agree Land Use is very confusing. Its very multi-faceted and to understand it all is difficult. I think a workshop for each individual type of thing makes more sense to try and understand everything at once today. More descriptive information should be given out because in my mind, the information is not descriptive enough. I think that I've been involved with Land Use quite a bit. I think it just needs to be better clarified as to why there's the push to seek for different types of zoning and get that understanding. I don't think that most people have an understanding. I don't even know if there's support by the full Board for it. I know that our caucus hasn't really talked about this specific thing either. I think there needs to be a better clarification on the information. Thanks.

3. Director, Will County Land Use Department

David Dubois said I just wanted to let the Committee know that the department has been providing all the services in the unique circumstances over the last several months. Again, I just wanted to compliment Staff.

4. Other

None.

5. Public Comment

None.

VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Not needed.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

1. Motion To Adjourn

Motion to adjourn was made at 11:47 am. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Steve Balich, Member

SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member

AYES: Marcum, Ferry, Balich, Traynere, Ventura, Weigel

ABSENT: Koch

IX. NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 13, 2020

https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3856&Inline=True