Will County Gazette

Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Sept. 1.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Due to this being a Webex meeting the Pledge of Allegiance was not recited.

III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM

Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:44 PM

Attendee Name	Title	Status	Arrived
Thomas White	Vice Chairman	Present
Michael Carruthers	Commissioner	Present	6:46 PM
Kimberly Mitchell	Commissioner	Present
Hugh Stipan	Chairman	Present
Barbara Peterson	Secretary	Present
John Kiefner	Commissioner	Present
Roger Bettenhausen	Commissioner	Present

A quorum was declared.

Land Use Staff present were Kris Mazon, Dawn Tomczak, Marguerite Kenny, Lisa Napoles, and Janine Farrell.

Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Aug 4, 2020 6:30 PM

Minutes were approved as presented. Motion passed 5-0. White and Mitchell abstained due to their absence at the previous meeting.

RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 0]

MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner

AYES: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSTAIN: White, Mitchell

V. ZONING CASES

1. Revocation of Special Use Permits S-16-009 (Case ZC-16-006) for Exotic Animals with four (4) conditions and case S-16-010 (ZC-16-006) for Animal Care/Boarding with four (4) conditions, Roland and Airocolina Janota, Owners of record, for Pin 22-22-02-200-005-0000, commonly known as 1301 East Offner Road, Beecher, IL, County Board District 1

Janine Farrell said I'm going to read into the record a Memo that was sent to you late today from Brian Radner.

He states, “The Department received a request to continue the revocation matter for one month. The property owner has made substantial progress in completing the required building improvements to comply with the terms of the Special Use Permit. The property owner has also made progress in complying with the requirements of the Beecher Fire Department. The property owner has ordered the necessary building supplies to complete the remaining improvements and has indicated that they should be completed within the next couple of weeks”.

Just as a side note to that, after speaking to Brian today, he actually would like to request 2 months. So pushing this, instead of to October, to November’s meeting. The Fire Protection District is coming out on September 26th, so just in case there are some issues that might be remaining from that, our October meeting is October 6th, and this would allow for more time for compliance.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0, to table this to November 17, 2020.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 11/17/2020 6:30 PM

TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner

AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

2. 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, (V20-35) 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 presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-027, which takes place in Lockport Township.

It has a number of requests that you see here on your screen. We have a Special Use Permit for mining and quarrying with the request to perform blasting and use explosives. Then we have associated Variances regarding the lot itself. Lot area and lot frontage from 10 acres to .5 acres and then 300 feet to 0 feet. Then we have 4 other Variances that are regarding the location of the open pits and shafts from the side property lines. This will become more apparent as I go and present this to you and when you actually see a map to the property.

The owner of the property is Material service Corporation, d/b/a Hanson Material Service. I have a whole list of officers on file here. The agent representing the case tonight is Randall Boisvert of Lehigh Hanson.

The applicant would like to extend the quarrying operations for the subject site.

We’re going to start off here with an aerial for you. You can see in red we have the parcel right there on your screen, the half-acre site. The overall quarry area in this portion, because they do have other quarry sites located to the east of Route 53, this area is about 187 acres. We’re just focused on this half acre site within here outlined in red.

You can see to the north we have some residential. Then we also have Romeoville High School. We have Lewis University Airport. College View Subdivision to the south. Other quarry operations are located across Route 53.

This is a detail aerial and I am just zooming in to this half acre parcel. It looks like water here, but this is actually a shadow, so don’t be fooled by that. This half acre site is right on the point of this land mass that’s over here. This is a 2019 aerial that I have for you. I do have a CONNECTExplorer image for you which is the most current. From that aerial image, you really wouldn’t know any different from one parcel to the next. When you look at the Zoning Map you can see that there is this tiny parcel within the City of Romeoville. All of this area is incorporated into the Village of Romeoville and everything that you see on this map that’s colored is also the Village of Romeoville. The subdivision down here is unincorporated and of course this half acre parcel is unincorporated. Surrounding the parcel is, of course, Village of Romeoville M-2, which is heavy manufacturing.

I want to give you some background on how this actually came about here. Between 1948 and 1954, Material Service Corp starts to acquire this site. This half acre site was actually a family cemetery. There were less than 10 people who were buried here. In the mid 1990’s, the bodies were exhumed and relocated to a cemetery that’s within the City of Lockport. In 1995, the operations as you see currently, that 187 acre site, were annexed into the Village of Romeoville, but the half acre site remained unincorporated. Access to this cemetery had to be maintained for 20 years, it was a legal requirement. So, it wasn’t annexed in and just basically stayed the way it was for those 20 years. In 2019, that legal obligation had been fulfilled and the applicant now wishes to pursue the mining and quarrying operation on that half acre property. As of this year, they submitted their application to undertake that, so that’s what is before you tonight. The Village of Romeoville, in discussions with Staff there, stated they are not interested in entertaining the annexation at this time.

I have the Special Use Permit criteria up here on the screen for you for that Special Use Permit for the mining and quarrying with the request to perform blasting and use explosives.

This is that CONNECTExplorer image that I mentioned earlier. This is as of May 6, 2020. This is a view looking south. We’re looking at the half acre parcel right here. Route 53 is over here and we’re looking towards that residential subdivision. You can see that the mining and quarrying operations have continued southward and have stretched beyond the parcel here towards what we call the southern limit of the mining operation. I’ll show you a map of that in a minute.

In terms of the Special Use criteria, 1, 2, and 3 about the operation of the use and its effect on the public’s health, safety, morals, comfort, general welfare, property within the area and also developments within the area, it’s Staff’s professional opinion that extending operations to this half acre site is not going to be more detrimental than what is already occurring. I don’t think anyone here would argue that mining and quarrying and using explosives for blasting doesn’t have an impact. It is part of a larger plan to not leave this as an island. The applicant will continue operations all the way around it. They will go to that southern limit. In about 5-6 years, they will reach that and they will be done quarrying in this area.

This is an older image but it still shows you our site here, the little cemetery, within the quarry here. It also shows the cemetery access as well. Within this plan, is the future park and basically the southern limits. If we look back here, we can see the residential neighborhood and this is an existing park. That future park is basically going into this area down here. When we go back to this, you can see that those mining operations have gone further south beyond the property.

The applicant does notify certain neighbors who have asked to be notified about the blasting activities prior to them occurring. Some of those neighbors include the High School, for example, and other residential neighbors.

At the end of the 5-6 years, the applicant will basically remove the pumping of the groundwater from the site and allow the site to fill back up with water.

In terms of the other Special Use criteria, 4 and 5, about adequate utilities, access roads, and traffic. Access to this site is obviously prohibited to the public. It is actually underground, underneath Route 53, that you access it. Material Service or Hanson Material Service has access off of East Material Road. That’s sort of their main entrance to their office then you go underneath Route 53 to access this site. Access to this site is existing obviously for the existing quarry operations that have been going on since the 1990’s.

In terms of #6 here, we do have some regulations regarding quarrying and mining and they are right here for you. I’m going to pull out just a couple here. The Special Use will have to conform with all of these requirements. Letter A, this is where the Variance requests come in so we’ll talk about that in a minute. Letter C, that it must be surrounded by a fence or wall at least 6 feet in height or by a six foot tall berm or chain link fence. That is already existing around the entire site. So, that’s already been taken care of. Letter D, we do have a land reclamation plan on file. Then the other regulations, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, they are really regarding the blasting. The applicant will have to be in compliance with those as well.

Now onto those Variance requests. Like I mentioned, there are 6 of them and we’re going to kind of separate them out here. The first 2, the Variances for lot area and lot frontage, obviously this parcel is landmarked as you saw. It’s surrounded by the Village of Romeoville. They’re not willing to entertain the annexation of this property. It’s A-1. It’s a half acre. These are required in order to bring the property into compliance because it was created in the 1990’s. It was left behind when the rest of the property was annexed into Romeoville. In regards to the criteria that we review the Variances by, we do find that this is a unique situation. I can’t think of another parcel that is in this situation. This will not alter the essential character of the locality. This goes back to what I previously said. You wouldn’t believe this was a different jurisdiction until you look at the Zoning Map. In terms of those other criteria, I did go in depth in those within your report. Again, the other property is within the Village of Romeoville. The applicant cannot gain frontage or area without de-annexing property, re-zoning it and bringing it into the County’s jurisdiction. So, this is a situation that’s definitely not applicable to other A-1 Zoned properties.

The Variances regarding those open pits and shafts, again that’s a supplemental use regulation, at least 200 feet from any public road and at least 50 feet from any side and rear property line.

This is actually a snip of the Plat of Survey so you can see its 190 feet by 110 feet. Obviously, the intent is to remove this property. So, the open pits and shafts, there is not going to be a setback because the property is intended to not exist. It is intended to be completely gone and removed from this area. In terms of the Variance request, again, this is a unique situation here. The setback of the open shafts and pits, you can see they have a 100 foot setback marked. We have a 300 foot setback from Taylor Road. 100 foot setback from the property line along the airport and then there’s the future park down here as well. There is commercial planned over here so it is a 40 foot setback but then it goes back to 160 to 100 along the road. So, there are setbacks along the property lines. Again, those are in the Village of Romeoville, so not our jurisdiction.

Here are some images of the site. This is our half acre property, more or less. There is a certain buffer around the property that the applicant has had to maintain. This is a view from the other direction. Here we’re standing at basically the southern limit and we’re looking north. This is a view on the other side of the property, so the east side of the property plus there’s Route 53. Looking towards that southern limit where that future park is proposed and our half acre site would be behind me. This is a view on the other side, the west side of the southern limit. Again, that half acre property would be behind me at this point. This is a view of that old gated entrance to the cemetery. Again, the applicant had to fulfill this legal obligation to maintain access for 20 years. If someone had wanted to go there, they would have asked for information and would have been guided to this gated area to the site. Here are just some images on the southern portion of the mining site when we’re in the residential subdivision. So, we’re looking along John Kirkham Drive, both north and south and then towards the residential properties on the other side of the street. This is a view looking at that berm and that fence looking towards the quarry itself.

Staff is recommending approval of the Special Use Permit with 2 conditions.

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.

Again, these are existing mining operations so they are held to different regulations regarding State requirements, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and they do have a land reclamation plan on file. They have to get permitting through the State as well as be approved for this. Really, we’ve only added our standard one condition and then just where they need to notify those interested parties about the blasting activities. Again, the blasting activities on this site would be a one day deal and then the property would be gone.

Then we have the remaining of the Variances that I had talked about earlier and Staff is recommending approval of those Variances as well for those aforementioned reasons.

The agencies that were notified, none of them objected. We did receive phone calls from concerned citizens. I also have a couple of emails to read into the record, that we received objecting to this.

We have one email here from Dawn Ehrenerg. It says “I am writing to register my and my family’s objection to Hanson Material Services’ proposed expansion of their stone quarry operation. Our area has endured substantial damage already from the blasting that has already taken place. The damage from the proposed blasting will probably be irreversible. More important is the negative effect the expansion will have on the availability of water. Many communities are already searching for alternative water sources or trying to add to those who tap into Lake Michigan. We don’t need to join them just so a business can have free reign with our water. At some point the PEOPLE in this County should be the first consideration. We shouldn’t be pushed aside again just because another business wants its interests put above ours. The negative fallout from the expansion far exceeds any benefit to the community. What is more important- one business making even more money or the lives of the people in the community? The land use department is not supposed to be a rubberstamp for every business. We need viable residential areas and the quarry expansion will harm current and future residential use”.

The next one is a text message so I’m not going to give out that person’s phone number. It says “Hello. My family and I have lived in Will County since 1970.We are against allowing Hanson Material to expand their operation. We live in Mikan Estates, and we already feel the effects of their blasting. Increasing their operation would mean increased damages to our homes, to the environment and to the protected and endangered species in our area. I urge you to do an in depth study into the effects of fracking and similar blasting that quarries do; ground water pollution and earthquakes are well-known effects from them. Our area is already troubled. Do not allow Hanson to expand and cause more damage that we may not be able to recover from. Thank you”.

The next email is from Mary Burnitz. “Good Afternoon Land Use, Will County needs to take a good long hard look at the effects of greed. When is our county going to do The Right Thing? By and for the public who has been so depleted of natural resources. After reading the permit application last year. And the placing of signage? Was very surprised that you fell for this sham. I've lived here in Lockport Township since 1991, we have raised our 5 children here. It will never cease to amaze me at the greed grabs that have tried many times to flood the area with transmodals, more pollution .... its air pollution or water pollution. How much water will be used with the Expansion? How much can our Aquifer handle before wells are dry and cracked? Along with foundations of local homes? How much more air born dust ? As a volunteer and organizer of the oldest Environmental 501c3 grassroots group est. 1995, Citizens Against Ruining the Environment . C.A.R.E. How many times do the people need to swallow this absurd notion? For the sake of the delicate nature of the endangered species , Clean Air Act etc. etc. will you do the right thing for your backyard too? Thank you.

I do believe, Margie do you have that one additional email that you can read in for me?

Marguerite Kenny said yes, I can. This email came at 6:16 tonight, addressed to the Will County Land Use Department. “Regarding Zoning Case ZC-20-027, Parcel ID 11-04-10-300-024. Speaking on behalf of Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, CARE & as a local resident we are completely opposed to granting any of the 7 variances to Hanson Material Service for this or any additional areas to expand their quarries in residential areas. Residents that live adjacent to HMS are already suffering from cracks in their homes, noise, air pollution, and truck traffic noise from barges. Many of us live a mile or more away from this quarry and suffer from the same effects. This permit is 1⁄2 an acre but it’s 1⁄2 an acre closer to our homes. In the near future, HMS will be requesting another 125 acres on the East side of Route 53. How can this possibly be beneficial to our area? What is the benefit to the residents? Residents in Will County are either on private or community wells. With the concerns of shortages of water any additional quarry expansion may have an effect on our precious water sources - aquifers, the source of our drinking water. Many say the quarry was here first but just think what the population was 80-100 years ago. Now think about the age of your home and look at what the population of Romeoville, Lockport & the unincorporated areas is today. Stop this and represent those that live in Will County! Citizens Against Ruining the Environment. Ellen Rendulich, Mary Burnitz, Sandy Burcenski”.

And I believe that is everything Mr. Chairman. I do believe we probably have several people here signed up to speak but the applicant is present also.

Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Does any member of our Board have a question of Staff?

John Kiefner said I would like to know if any of those objection letters listed an address.

Janine Farrell said no to the first one. No to the second one that I read. The third one listed CARE, Mary Burnitz Director and it’s actually a P.O. Box for the group itself, which is located in Lockport. Margie, I don’t know if that one has an address or not.

Marguerite Kenny said the email had the same P.O. Box for the CARE contact information.

John Kiefner said I’m also curious to know if we know when the quarry started operation on this? And, I would like to clarify something. Did I hear you correct that the quarry will excavate all the way around this half acre site and it will be land-locked like an island?

Janine Farrell said correct, yes. According to my records, in about 1994 and 1995, all of that property except our half acre site was annexed into the Village of Romeoville. Quarry operations started shortly thereafter. Aerial imagery seems to confirm that. Material Service Corp did own the property though for decades prior to that. I’m assuming there was intent to quarry that in the future but their operations were focused to the east of Route 53 at that time. You are correct, even if this request is denied, that will not stop the quarry operations over there. They will continue to quarry all around that property and then it will remain an island within that area.

John Kiefner said thank you.

Chairman Stipan asked does anyone else have any questions of Staff? 

No response.

Chairman Stipan said ok. May we hear from the representative of the company, please?

Randall Boisvert introduced himself. I am the Environmental Manager for Hanson Material Service. Janine, thank you very much for giving that very thorough and accurate presentation. We do have a number of people supporting me in my effort today. We have Chris Pronoitis who is the Plant Manager of the quarry. We have Steve Novak who is the Area Operations Manager. We also have Toby Breedlove who is our Vice President and General Manager. We also have John Mays who is with Gould & Ratner as outside council. We are all available to answer any questions that you may have.

Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir. We will see if there are any concerned citizens to your project.

Randall Boisvert said understood.

Chairman Stipan asked is there anyone on the phone currently that is in opposition?

Janine Farrell said I’m going to unmute them one at a time. I do see, as far as our panelists are concerned, I do have 2 that are actually named. I do have a Matthew Grace. Are you here to speak on this case? I’ll try unmuting them. Give me one second. Call-in user are you here to speak about ZC-20-027? You are unmuted.

An unknown caller asked is that me?

Janine Farrell said that is you, yes. Are you here for ZC-20-027?

The caller said yes. Pretty much the sentiments of the read emails match what I wanted to say. I live on John Kirkham and we face the property. There’s a lot of property in the neighborhood who wanted to show up to this hearing, but with the COVID restrictions and only having so many people allowed it’s kind of made it difficult to get a true number of all the people who are against any further expansion. Unfortunately, my wife just got a call a couple minutes ago from my son and he got into a little fender bender. I have to leave and I can’t express much more of what I’d like to say about this. The sentiments of the emails sum it up pretty well. We’ve had many water main breaks. There’s obviously a problem with the blasting, the air quality, the dusting, the noise, and things falling off the walls. They have their land that they’re entitled to since they purchased it when they did. This quarry was supposed to have been done with already. Any further expansion we should go against. They have what they have and they purchased it knowing the cemetery was there and it sounds like enough to me. CALLER NEVER STATED HIS NAME.

Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir. Is there another caller?

Janine Farrell said yes. I’m just going to go down the line here. We have another unidentified caller. Call-in user, are you here to speak about ZC-20-027 for the quarry?

A gentleman asked can you hear me?

Janine Farrell said yes, we can hear you. Please identify yourself by giving your name and address for the record. Thank you.

James Gordon introduced himself. I am actually also a resident on John Kirkham. Like the previous resident was saying, we have blasts, when they go off I have things rattling on my walls. I have items even falling off my walls and I’ve even gotten some cracks in my walls recently. To bring it even closer or to continue on, there’s just going to be unnecessary damage to my property and my neighbor’s property and everybody else. That’s really all that I had to say. Obviously I’m against it.

Chairman Stipan said thank you very much, sir.

Carl Groth introduced himself. I live in the College View Subdivision, Lockport Township. I understand that you had mentioned that the quarry operations are going to cease in 5-6 years. Is that correct?

Janine Farrell said yes, that is correct. That is their intent for this area for them to reach completion over there in 5-6 years.

Carl Groth asked is that an end date guarantee or is that just an estimate?

Janine Farrell said I could let the applicant speak more to specifics about that and any other questions that you might have. I don’t know if there is an actual hard and fast end date like December 31st of such and such year. I’ll let you go ahead and have your questions and then we can answer them all.

Carl Groth said ok. I just have a few questions. This is mostly for Mr. Novak and Chris, the Plant Manager. I’ve got a pretty good relationship with the guys there. I know that you have every legal right to be there and to do your mining as necessary. My concerns have always been, because I am the President of the water association, our water supply. I know that Steve has said in the past that it’s an extremely dry quarry and they don’t seem to pump very much water out of there. Although there are no meters and there are no pump sizes or anything that we could gauge the amount of water that’s pumped out of there but we have noticed lower water levels in our drinking water wells. So, that’s the concern primarily. As the water association President, is the water supply as well as the water quality. This has always been an issue from day 1. I’ve always been worried about it. I guess you could just say that I’m very concerned for our water supply. I don’t know if there’s any way that Chris or Steve could give me any guarantees that the water supply would never be destroyed. They have definitely been impacted but not destroyed. Also with the blasting, if anybody ever lives next to a quarry you will realize that this is a continuous occurrence up here in our small subdivision. Again, we’re a small subdivision so it’s sort of like a David and Goliath, if you will. But, in the whole scheme of things, I must say that I’ve always had good relationships with Hanson Material Services. I am very concerned because as they move and/or encroach further south on the property, the blasts have become much more intense, for obvious reasons, because they’re on the south wall. I’ve been told that if they take that particular property out, which is not more than the cemetery and you guys have mentioned it would only take 1 day. In the whole scheme of things, that’s not going to bother us. If it helps by turning the face of that blast in a more westerly direction and it would help us, then I’m not exactly opposed to it. Of course, it’s only a small area. It would be nothing but a pillar in the middle of that big quarry if it was not mined out of there. I’m not 100% sure or convinced that removing that one piece of property would help, but I’m certainly open to anything that would help our situation here. Again, it’s the noise, the dust, the blasting, and our water supply. Again, anybody that lives next to a quarry would understand everything that I’m talking about right now. If you could have Steve or Chris respond to this and maybe elaborate just a little bit, that would be very helpful to the Board and our community as well.

Chairman Stipan asked are you finished sir?

Carl Groth said I am.

Chairman Stipan said thank you very much for your testimony.

Chris Pronoitis said I am the Plant Manager of Romeo Quarry. As far as a specific date goes, our mining amounts change from year to year based on what our customer supplies are. So, that’s an estimated date. I would not give a specific end date based off of that information. It’s truly an estimate. The question about the water supply, the last 2 weeks and even beyond have been extremely dry weather so it would not surprise me that you’re not getting any ground water from natural rain sources right now. We’re certainly not seeing the volume of water increase or decrease based off of what normally comes in from rain but definitely it’s a decrease from surface water that we normally would get from rain water since there’s a lack of rain. As far as the blasting question that you have, as we’re currently mining, we’re mining around that cemetery property right now. Currently, we’re abiding by the fact that it’s not zoned right now. If it was to go ahead and be zoned, that would allow us to mine in a more normal fashion that could allow us to mine that property in a more east to west on that southern wall of that cemetery property along with that southern line of reserves that would allow us to direct that energy more towards the west. If we continue going around that property, there’s going to be unusual blasting that’s going to basically tip toe around that half acre parcel that’s making it more difficult to direct our energy. As far as your more intense feeling of the shocks, we have the 2 seismographs located in your neighborhood. One is on John Kirkham and then the other one is over by the well house. We continue to monitor those with a 3rd party and we have been well under the regulated guideline from the IDNR and the Village maximum ground vibrations and air blasts. With that in mind, obviously we’re moving closer. For the last prior 6 years, we concentrated in the northwest corner, all the way by Taylor Road. There was a concerted effort by my former area manager to deplete that supply as to minimize the impact of the one subdivision that’s to the north. That eliminated shooting to the south. Now, we’re concentrating on the remaining reserves that are kind of surrounding the cemetery as we go forward.

Carl Groth said I guess I should just ask as I always have in all the meetings that I have ever been at, I would just ask that you do the very best you consciously can to remember that we are your neighbors and to be doing the right thing at the right time to the best of your ability.

Chairman Stipan said excuse me. I’m going to interrupt here. This is not a debating station. This is where you’re talking to a Board. Refer the information to us. Do not go back and forth. Thank you.

Carl Groth said ok. Thank you very much for letting me speak.

Chairman Stipan asked are you done, sir?

Carl Groth said yes, I’m done.

Janine Farrell said ok, I am moving onto the next unidentified call-in user. Are you here to speak for ZC-20-027?

No response.

Janine Farrell said I don’t think anyone is responding. Next call-in user, are you here to speak for ZC-20-027, the quarry site?

A gentleman said yes, I am.

Janine Farrell said that is you, we can hear you. Please give your name and address for the record.

Tomasz Suliga introduced himself to the Commission. I do live in the subdivision which is directly north of this quarry. First of all, I’ve tried to attend personally but the doors to your offices were closed. I was hoping to speak in person. I understood there was about 10 people allowed, but unfortunately the doors were closed. I tried to log in on the WebEx but nothing was working, but thankfully I’m able to call in. I thank you for that. First I want to talk about how this whole meeting was communicated to everybody else. There was only one sign posted. The sign was posted at the main entrance to the plant, which is about a mile away from the actual site. I do believe in the past when those types of projects come in line and public hearings are scheduled, there should have been multiple signs closer to where people who are interested would be able to see it. The sign, where it’s placed, is even partially obstructed. It’s really disappointing how this was communicated to us. That’s #1. #2, about the meeting itself. A notice is supposed to be sent to all residents who are next to the quarry. I know for fact, a couple days ago, I spoke to a friend of mine, Dorothy Bromberek, and she has never received any notice. Her property is directly next to the site. With the sign and not notifying everybody, it’s a little bit unfair on their side. I’ve lived at my house for over 17 years and I’m right next to the High School. I speak for my family. I speak for my subdivision, but I also speak for Romeoville. Every kid that attends that High School has experienced those blasting’s and those blasting’s are really, really bad. I’m not going to talk about blasting, I’m going to talk about other things. The other callers have already covered the blasting’s, but they are not really pleasant. In the Staff notes in your packets, under Staff Analysis, the 2nd point which was “According to Plat books, Material Service Corporation acquired a portion of the current mining operations between 1948 and 1954. The parcel had a “B-1” or “Business” zoning”. It’s my assumption this was because it was so small, the quarry operation that was already in progress on the east side of Route 53, it was too small to turn it into quarry so they weren’t able to do anything. In that same paragraph, “In 1979 there was an objection filed by Material Service Corporation”, and nothing else there. So, what kind of objection was filed? 20 years later to what? They still have that small parcel so maybe someone from the company will be able to explain exactly what objection was filed in 1979. In 1995, this site was, with the exemption of the cemetery, annexed into the Village of Romeoville. 1995 was when Romeoville signed an annexation agreement when they annexed the east quarry as well as the new side. In 1995, they actually purchased that additional side so they were able to start the operations there. I want to talk a little bit about the cemetery itself. In the 1995 annexation agreement, there’s only one note that says owners shall provide the public access to the cemetery as shown on the landscaping plan at reasonable times. So, that’s the only note. They’re saying that 20 years have passed and this agreement, this annexation agreement was for 20 years. So, it expired 5 years ago, in 2015 because it was signed in 1995. If they’re saying the 20 years has passed, and they are able to do this then why have you still been quarrying for the last 5 years? I mean it has already expired. So, we’re going to pick and choose to what we’re able to do versus what we’re not able to do? In my opinion that’s not fair. If the agreement is still in effect, then access to this cemetery should be allowed to continue. I apologize, I’m going to take a little sip of water. Ok, the cemetery. In your packets there was a note, the cemetery itself had graves from the early 1800’s, so about 200 year old graves. They claim there was 10 or less people there. From what I’ve heard and from what I’ve read, there’s probably a little bit more than that. More than that, in 1800, I would imagine that only people who were able to afford it, had tombstones. Are we not able to assume the people who potentially might have been buried there, were not buried with any type of tombstones or any type of marking? They did in fact remove the 10 bodies from there but potentially there could be some unmarked graves, so the people might still be resting there. So my question is, when they start blasting, are we going to find out the hard way? That might be a possibility as well.

Chairman Stipan said excuse me, sir. Can you move this along please? Normally we allow 3-5 minutes to speak and you have already extended way past that.

Tomasz Suliga said I understand that. All of those things are important points. I greatly appreciate you allowing me to speak but this is a really important issue for the residents and for everybody else.

Chairman Stipan said give us the bullet points instead of elaborating on each and every item.

Tomasz Suliga said yes sir. My next bullet point is 2011, when Hanson attempted to purchase additional property called Spangler property. They were negotiating with the Village. The property is directly west of the current quarry operation. During the negotiation, there was a line from the Village with a Village proposal. The Village will pursue legislation at the state level to allow for a quick take of the cemetery property. If the Village is successful in acquiring the cemetery property, we will give it to Hanson. Response from Hanson was that they accepted this proposal providing the Village agrees to pursue legislation no later than the 2012 session. So, they’ve been trying for some time to acquire this cemetery property. The 1995 agreement that was for 20 years, if they are still allowed to quarry, they should still be allowed to leave this cemetery alone. Just a final point that I want to make, they are not a good neighbor. In 17 years, they have never reached out. Their PR doesn’t exist to talk to the residents. I wanted, in the past, to be notified when the blasting happens and they never allowed that. They are not allowed to fill this quarry on the west side, which is a good thing because they have paid some serious fines for it. In the past they have been fined by Illinois EPA, penalties for a lot of violations. It’s all about making money. I believe we’re going to come back very soon because they’re going to try to start mining on the parcel on the east side. It’s going to be a little bit harder because there’s wetlands there. May I remind you that in 1999, they were found liable and they settled. They didn’t have to admit to liability, but they settled a lawsuit paying the record sum of $7,500,000 for destroying the wetlands. All of that is public records. Let somebody else stand up because Romeoville does not want to stand up. They don’t want to even look at this project. Please stand up for College View. Nobody has stood up for them before. Stand up for the rest of Romeoville. I really appreciate it and thank you for your time.

Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir. Do we have any more callers?

Janine Farrell said I do have one here but I think that they may have already spoke. This is ZC-20-027.

No response.

Janine Farrell said there are other names that I have, including County Board Member Julie Berkowicz. I have elevated her to a panelist but I do not see an option to have you speak here. Let me try to allow the County Board Member here. I do not see a microphone next to her, unfortunately. The other people that I have do not have the microphones next to them so they cannot speak. I do see Mr. Carruthers. The other ones are applicants for other cases. I do have County Board Member Berkowicz here. County Board Member Berkowicz, I just unmuted you.

County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said earlier on, there were a lot of comments in the emails and the text messages that you read talking about the water supply, concerns about that and the aquifer. I know that there is a concern and there are issues regarding the aquifer. I’ve got 2 questions. Would the Staff please comment on how will this, and how does this, impact the water supply and the aquifer? The other question I have is it was also brought up that the expectant life for the quarry is perhaps 5 years. I’m just wondering, what are their options, or what do they plan on doing when they stop mining? Thank you. Those are my 2 questions.

Janine Farrell said I think this might be better answered by the applicant themselves regarding the aquifer and then of course the operations themselves.

Randall Boisvert said I am the Area and Environmental Manager. Regarding the aquifer, when we started mining west of Route 53, we did groundwater modeling on the project. The modeling shows that we might impact the wells of College View. We installed a new drinking water well for that. We’d be happy to take the water levels in your wells and put them into our groundwater model and make sure that they are continuing to operate as the model predicted. Last time we did this, the modeling was right on and has continued to work as expected. To impact the aquifer, it’s the greatest extent of the mining that would impact that. We’re not asking to extend the perimeter of the mine at all. This would be an area in the middle that wouldn’t contain any groundwater. The groundwater comes from outside the quarry and it is a regional sink. This action today wouldn’t affect the aquifer one bit.

Chairman Stipan asked what was the 2nd question Janine? The 2nd question was about the timing of the completion.

Toby Breedlove from Hanson Material Service said I can address that 2nd question. It is accurately described earlier that we have approximately 5 years left in the west quarry, the piece west of Route 53. We are working on trying to permanent some additional reserves in the middle part which is east of Route 53. So, that would be our plan potentially afterwards.

Chairman Stipan said may I ask a question? Was it accurately portrayed when they said that when you’re finished you’re going to allow the quarry to fill with water?

Toby Breedlove said yes, it is.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.

Janine Farrell said I think I have just one more person here that has called in. It’s Deborah Sabbah, sorry if I’m saying your name wrong. Are you here to speak about ZC-20-027? You’re unmuted.

Deborah Sabbah introduced herself. I’m actually the last house on the southwest corner, right by the airfield. I have lived here for a couple of years now. I work from home because of the pandemic and I had no idea how bad the blasts were until I happened to be home. They do it at various times. It shakes my whole house, the windows rattle, thing’s fall off the wall. I can’t imagine that this is good for my house or my foundation. I would like to know if the people from Hanson are going to help us rebuild after they keep blasting, or help with the repairs because it’s been really bad lately. There’s no set time. Like I say, I’m on the phone with my customers, because I’m working from home, and I actually jump and scream sometimes because it’s so bad. I’m concerned because there’s dust in the air. I’m concerned for the wildlife. I know there’s a lot of blue jays and a lot of hawks in the area. I know that there are a lot of fundamental problems that quarries provide for the environment and I am very against them having any other area to blast from. I am concerned about the cemetery as well because there may be bodies that are not marked still there.

Chairman Stipan said thank you very much for your testimony.

Janine Farrell said everyone else that’s on the line here, I have given them the audio panel but they don’t have microphone capability. That is everyone that I have currently on the attendee list.

Chairman Stipan said thank you. Would anyone from the Board like to speak? 

No response.

3. Motion To Approve A Special Use Permit For Mining And Quarrying With A Request To Perform Blasting And Use Explosives

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 5-1 with 2 conditions. Carruthers was absent. Mitchell was a No.

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 [5 TO 1]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell

ABSENT: Carruthers

4. Moton To Approve A Variance For Minimum Lot Area From 10 Acres to 0.5 Acres

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-2. Mitchell and Peterson were No's. Carruthers was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 2]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell, Peterson

ABSENT: Carruthers

5. Motion To Approve A Variance For Minimum Lot Frontage From 300 Feet To 0 Feet

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-2. Mitchell and Peterson were No's. Carruthers was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 2]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell, Peterson

ABSENT: Carruthers

6. Motion To Approve A Variance For The Location Of Open Pits And Shafts From The Side Property Line From 50 Feet To 0 Feet (North)

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-2. Mitchell and Peterson were No's. Carruthers was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 2]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell, Peterson

ABSENT: Carruthers

7. Motion To Approve A Variance For The Location Of Open Pits And Shafts From The Side Property Line From 50 Feet To 0 Feet (South)

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-2. Mitchell and Peterson were No's. Carruthers was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 2]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell, Peterson

ABSENT: Carruthers

8. Motion To Approve A Variance For The Location Of Open Pits And Shafts From The Side Property Line From 50 Feet To 0 Feet (East)

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-2. Mitchell and Peterson were No's. Carruthers was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 2]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell, Peterson

ABSENT: Carruthers

9. Motion To Approve A Variance For The Location Of Open Pits And Shafts From The Rear/Side Property Line From 50 Feet To 0 Feet (West)

Motion passed 4-2. Mitchell and Peterson were No's. Carruthers was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 2]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

NAYS: Mitchell, Peterson

ABSENT: Carruthers

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

This is a Variance request for a wireless telecommunications facility. This is a different Variance request than the typical Variances you’ve heard with the last Zoning Case and the others you’ll hear tonight. This will be proceeding to the full County Board for final determination.

The owner is Kathleen M. Cartolano Trust 2016-0485, where Kathleen Cartolano is Trustee.

The applicant is Crown Castle USA Inc., which is doing business as CCTMO LLC where CCTM Holdings LLC is 100% sole member of CCTMO LLC. Jay Brown is

President & Chief Executive Officer, Kenneth Simon is Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Daniel Schlanger as Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Donald Reid as Secretary, and Masha Blankenship as Assistant Secretary.

The Agent representing tonight’s Zoning Case is Fred Low of Chaille Tower Consultants on behalf of Verizon Wireless.

The applicant, CCTMO LLC leases a 1,680 square foot area located along the northeastern side of the subject property, this includes the eastern property line as the eastern boundary for the lease area, to operate a wireless telecommunications facility.

The facility has a 145 foot tall monopole that houses several wireless telecommunication providers equipment and antennas.

Verizon Wireless, upon doing a study of its wireless area, realizes it needs to improve its services in this region and seeks to co-locate on an existing tower rather than build a new one within this area.

The applicant has granted a 12 foot by 20 foot lease area on the existing compound lying only 3 feet from the eastern property line for Verizon to relocate ground equipment.

Pursuant to the Will County Zoning Ordinance, new ground equipment is required to meet a 10 foot setback and the applicant is here tonight requesting that Variance so that they are able to co-locate.

On the screen, I have the wireless telecommunication facilities criteria for Variance requests. This particular site was established in 2001. A previous Zoning Case actually granted the tower height to be 145 feet. The typical requirement is 75 feet. This property is 2.31 acres and zoned R-2. In terms of siting requirements, criteria #3, which is the 3rd most desirable location, is where this current facility is located.

The 2nd slide shows the Variance standards and review criteria, which an in depth analysis is provided in your Staff packets.

Regarding the Variance request, Staff does want to point out that there is a typo within the Staff Report. On page 4, under section 5, where it was addressing which section of compliance this criteria falls under, it should read Section 155- 16.70(M) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.

Moving on to looking at the existing subject property. The entire parcel is 2.31 acres. It’s improved with a single family residence, detached garage, and swimming pool. As you move further north, you can kind of see with the zoomed in section of the wireless telecommunications facility, there’s a 7 foot solid wooden fence as well as landscaping along the exterior of this compound that were requirements of the previous Zoning Case. Since that time, Variances can no longer be conditioned.

Verizon’s lease area will be centered within the area that the red box is located on the property. You can see from the Zoning Map that this area is predominantly residential in nature. You have A-2 and R-2 to the south within the Village of Frankfort. We have R-4, which is attached single family. Then you have R-6, which is multi-family and R-5, which is single family residential and can be townhouses and things within unincorporated Will County. Then you also have Com Ed utility lines running directly east adjacent to the subject property.

Looking at the aerial on the screen, we have a 1⁄4 mile radius around this existing tower. This was provided in one of the requirements of the Variance request. You can see that there are no other cell towers or wireless telecommunication towers in this area.

The 2 images on the left show the existing monopole and the anticipated lease area for Verizon on the property.

I have on the screen the Plat of Survey showing the subject property and how the applicant basically uses an access agreement where it goes back to the property. It runs along that eastern property line to the wireless facility. Then just zooming in on the compound itself, we have the property line which is the farthest easternmost section of that leased area. Then we have the Verizon Wireless proposed leased area. The concrete pad that will be installed on the property will be 3 feet from the property line which necessitates the Variance since it’s not meeting that 10 foot setback off the property line.

So, looking at the existing tower, Verizon is proposing to mount their antennae’s lower on the tower so there’s going to be no additional expansion or height increase within the tower itself. So, by that it’s going to remain at 145 feet tall.

Looking at some of the photos of the subject property, we have just looking from St. Francis Road directly at the subject property so you can see the residence and then the cell tower in the back. Then the image on the right which was provided by the applicant, it’s a picture looking south towards St. Francis Road from that access drive. Then we are looking east and west along St. Francis Road where you can see roadway improvements are being executed at the moment. Looking northwest and northeast at the residential uses in the area as well as south and southeast.

Upon the agencies that were notified, none objected.

Staff is recommending approval of a Variance for east side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet to allow Verizon Wireless to co-locate on this site and basically not have to add any more wireless telecommunications towers within the County.

That concludes Staff’s analysis.

Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions of Staff?

No response.

Chairman Stipan asked would the cell tower people care to speak?

Fred Low with Chaille Tower Consultants introduced himself to the Commission. I am representing Verizon Wireless who holds a lease with Crown Castle who owns the tower. I guess the only thing to add to Margie’s great presentation is that we detected a quick hearing as that we are not expanding the existing compound and are staying within the confines of the existing installation. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Chairman Stipan asked does anyone have any questions? No response.

Chairman Stipan asked would you stand by sir while we check to see if there’s any objectors to this case?

Fred Low said yes sir.

Chairman Stipan said thank you.

Janine Farrell said we just have a couple of call-in users so I’m going to un-mute the 3 of you and see if you’re here to speak about ZC-20-029, which is a cell tower Variance.

No response.

Janine Farrell said I don’t think we have anyone here to speak about the cell tower Variance.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 5-0. Carruthers and Peterson were absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee

MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner

AYES: White, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Carruthers, Peterson

11. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-20-034, Matthew and Jessica Gray, Owners of Record, requesting (V-20-034) Variance for minimum lot frontage from 150 feet to 0 feet, for Pin # 08-14-302-024-1006, in New Lenox Township , commonly known as 208 North Marley Road, Unit D, New Lenox, IL

Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-034, which takes place in New Lenox Township.

This is an application for a Variance for minimum lot frontage from 150 feet to 0 feet.

The property is owned by Matthew and Jessica Gray.

The subject parcel is located east of Marley Road in New Lenox Township.

The parcel, shown here on the GIS aerial outline in red, measures 1 acre in lot area with 0 feet of lot frontage.

The property is unimproved and vacant.

There are no inventoried wetlands or identified floodplains located on the parcel.

The subject property was approved for a Map Amendment from A-2 to R-2 in 1989 (Zoning Case Number 3479-RMS3). The owner then divided the original 4.91 acre property into 1 acre horizontal condominiums for family members to reside on. The Declaration of Covenants and Plat for the horizontal condominium were recorded on January 11, 1991.

Therefore, the parcel is illegal, nonconforming.

The owners are pursuing the Variance to bring the property into compliance so that they can obtain a Building Permit for a single-family residence.

The Zoning Map shows the property is Zoned R-2, as are the other horizontal condominium properties.

This is a view of the subject parcel looking northeast. This is a view of the subject parcel, looking southwest. This is a view of the private drive that provides access to Marley Road. This view is of the adjacent parcels, looking west. At the center of the photo, the dead end of the paved road is visible. That’s right here. The private road will need to be extended to the subject parcel in order to provide access to Marley Road. This is a view of the adjacent properties, looking west. This is a view of the adjacent parcels, looking south.

This is the Plat of Survey for the parcel. The detail at right shows the common area dedicated for the extension of the private road indicated by the arrow.

Based upon the criteria by which Staff and the Plan Commission are required by Ordinance to evaluate, Staff finds that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The parcel was created without frontage in 1991 prior to the owners purchasing the property in 2020. Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, will not alter the locality. The parcel has existed in its current configuration since 1991.

Staff recommends approval of the request.

I am happy to take your questions.

Chairman Stipan asked are all of these flag lots on this private road?

Lisa Napoles said no, they are no flag lots. Instead of frontage to a dedicated road, they have frontage along a private drive.

Chairman Stipan said ok. My understanding is that is what a flag lot is, without frontage on a dedicated road. Maybe I misunderstood. Does anyone else have any questions of Staff?

No response.

Chairman Stipan said ok.

Janine Farrell said we do have someone here who would like to speak on this case.

Chairman Stipan said yes, please.

Janine Farrell asked is there anyone on here that would like to speak about ZC-20- 034 besides Mr. Grace?

No response.

Matthew Grace introduced himself to the Commission. I am directly north of this

vacant lot. It's listed on the Plat of Survey as Lot #2. This is on the very far east side of our 5 acres. I apologize if I have some questions tonight that don't apply to the platform but this is a first for me. I’m not exactly sure what lot frontage means. I googled it multiple times and it didn’t come up really clear. Can somebody define lot frontage for me so I have a better understanding of the special access request here?

Lisa Napoles said our Zoning Ordinance defines lot frontage as having one property line that directly abuts a roadway, whether it be dedicated in the case of a public roadway or undedicated as in the case of possibly a private drive.

Matthew Grace said ok, understood. I don’t have any concerns in regards to the lot frontage but I do have other concerns in regards to potential development. I don’t know if this is the proper platform to talk about potential site plans, a natural swale, and drainage on said property.

Lisa Napoles said no sir. This is strictly for the purpose of bringing the property into compliance as stated on the Agenda.

Matthew Grace said ok, understood. If the record can be shown, obviously it shows the property was purchased in 2020 knowing that the lot frontage was unavailable and was developed in 89 as previously stated. Myself, as well as some of the surrounding homeowners do have concerns over a natural swale that runs through the property that currently holds water. The property potentially needs to be raised and elevated, which would definitely affect multiple properties. This is zoned, I believe, condominium in 89. The definition my father in law gave me, who is on lot 14, in 89 at the zoning meeting was that these properties all shared a common well and septic. That being said, I don’t know if it’s accurate, however, we are adding additional well and septic concerns to this area. We already have drainage issues that have come up in the past years. I believe the Will County Health Department has been notified. Adding additional well and septic to a 1 acre lot raises concerns over drainage, septic, and obviously well-being of the adjacent properties. When will the proper platform be to speak to these?

Lisa Napoles said if and when the property owner wants to obtain a Building Permit, they would need to obtain a septic permit from the Will County Health Department. They would need to prove compliance in order to obtain the septic permit. The septic permit would then allow them to be able to obtain the building permit. As to the issues of drainage, that would all be potentially addressed through the building permit process. All building permits would undergo at least a preliminary engineering review. So, our engineers in the engineering division would investigate the building permit application for compliance with engineering requirements.

Janine Farrell said I recommend if you want, through the chat here, provide your email address or a phone number and we will follow up with you.

Matthew Grace said that’s excellent, I appreciate the courtesy there. There are definitely concerns with the previous property owner that was here. He purchased about 8 years ago, in 2012, and it has been shown by that property owner there were some Health Department issues concerning well and septic. In the previous years, probably from some development in the area, we’ve seen a natural swale come through the property that holds water and 90% of the years previous did not. That is directly north of where they’re going to build this potential property. Just some concerns, that’s all. I’ll list an email there in the chat format. If someone wanted to follow up, that would be great.

Janine Farrell said yes, we’ll absolutely do that.

Matthew Grace said thank you, I appreciate the platform.

Janine Farrell said I am going to un-mute 2 callers that we have to see if they’re here to speak on this case.

Chairman Stipan said ok.

Janine Farrell said I have 2 call-in users. Is anyone here to speak on Zoning Case # ZC-20-034, which is a Variance for lot frontage over on Marley Road?

No response.

Janine Farrell said I do not think anyone is here for this case.

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

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner

AYES: White, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Carruthers

12. 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-20-039, Joseph Healy, Owner of Record, requesting (V-20-042) Variance for minimum west side yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet and (V-20-047) Variance for minimum east side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.7 feet, for Pin # 11-04-12-201-002-0000, in Lockport Township, commonly known as 17137 W. 145th Street, Lockport, IL

Janine Farrell presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-039, which takes place in Lockport Township.

This is for 2 Variance requests for side yard setback on the west side from 10 feet to 8 feet and on the east side from 10 feet to 7.7 feet.

The applicant is requesting these to bring the structures on the property into compliance. The house and detached garage are currently existing. The applicant is looking to build an addition onto the residence and at the same time bring the garage into compliance.

This is the aerial image up here on the screen for you. You can see the property is this red narrow parcel over here on west 145th Street. It is approximately 1.823 acres. It is Lot “N” in County Clerk’s Subdivision which was recorded back in 1941. The parcel is deficient in lot frontage with only 120 feet of frontage when 150 feet of frontage is the minimum for R-2.

This is the Zoning Map for you. As I mentioned, the property is Zoned R-2. It is surrounded by R-2 and also R-1 Zoning.

This is the Plat of Survey which shows the residence and the detached garage on the property. The 8 feet, which is measured when to scale, is over on the west side. Then we have 7.7 feet over on the east side for that detached garage.

The applicant is looking to build an addition onto that residence to the south as you can see on that top left hand corner with the arrow pointing towards it. Then I have just an architectural drawing of what the front elevation, street facing faced would look like. I showed you what the west side of that structure would be where the addition is proposed. Again, it currently is 8 feet from the side yard over there and the applicant is only looking to extend the build back, or to the south, with this addition. He is not encroaching further into the setback but keeping in mind with that deficient setback.

The residence like the parcel was actually constructed in 1941. Both the structure and the actual parcel pre-date the earliest Zoning Ordinance, any sort of setback requirements that we might have had, which didn’t come into play until 1947. The garage, it’s difficult to determine the age because there’s a lot of tree cover out there, but it appears by 1970. At the time when that garage was built, under the Zoning Ordinance regulations, it would have been in compliance at the time. It would be legal, non-conforming as we constitute it today. The applicant is just bringing it into compliance while he is going through this zoning action in case maybe he would like to build an addition on the garage at some point in time in the future.

This is another image of a floor plan that’s existing for the property. I’m pointing out the residential, sort of the west side, and then I am pointing out here the addition that the applicant would like to build. We’re just basically putting in here a Master Bathroom off of a Master Bedroom.

In reviewing the criteria that we review Variances by, Staff does believe that this is a unique circumstance. We have a legal, non-conforming parcel and 2 legal, non- conforming structures. The applicant is just looking to build an addition in line with that existing structure with that 8 foot setback. Then, at the same time, it’s just bringing that other structure into compliance. In terms of criteria b, that it will not alter the essential character of the locality, Staff affirms that as well. This area, as you saw from the aerials, is constituted of these very narrow 1941 parcel. It is an older subdivision and also older structures dating from that same era. We have one or more structures with that side yard setback in this locality. In your Staff Report, Staff affirmed the rest of the Variance criteria but in sum, this isn’t out of desire to make more money out of the property. Again, this is for residential use for this private individual here. The applicant cannot gain frontage or gain area to his property in order to meet the side yard setback.

These are some images for you. We have the residence, sort of on the right hand side of your photo there, and also the garage. The lot is very long and narrow. This was taken probably about midway through on the driveway itself, so not from the street. This is a view of the side yard setback for the detached garage on the east side, the 7.7’ setback. You can see there’s a tall fence there that also blocks the neighbor. This is a view looking towards that west side yard setback, so the 8’ setback. The addition of course is going to go behind what you’re seeing here. This is a view that’s looking west along West 145th Street, and then a view looking the opposite direction. This is that residence that’s over to the east and then a view from inside the driveway looking out towards the neighboring properties to the north.

This is a CONNECTExplorer image of the rear of the residence. This is the most current image we have from 2020. You can see the back of the residence and then right over here, this is where that addition is going, so just right in line with that little bump out. This is that detached garage and then you can have another view of that side yard setback right there.

Staff is recommending approval of both Variance requests for the side yard setback over on the west side to 8 feet and then over on the east side to 7.7 feet.

Of the agencies that we received comments from, none of them objected.

I have not received any phone calls or emails about this case but we do have users on the line that I would like to check.

That concludes Staff’s analysis.

We do also have the applicant here on the line but I can see if there are any attendee’s that would like to speak first.

I have a call-in user on the line. Would you like to speak about ZC-20-039, which is a Variance for 2 side yard setbacks in Lockport Township?

No response.

Janine Farrell said I do not think so Mr. Chairman. I am going to go ahead and un- mute the applicant.

Joe Healy introduced himself. Obviously, I’m just looking to improve the property to make the house a little bit bigger. Thank you very much.

Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir, you have no objectors that we know of. Janine is that still the case, nobody else on the line for this?

Janine Farrell said that is correct.

13. Motion To Approve A Variance For Minimum West Side Yard Setback From 10 Feet to 8 Feet

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Carruthers and Peterson were absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner

AYES: White, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Carruthers, Peterson

14. Motion To Approve A Variance Fro Minimum East Side Yard Setback From 10 Feet To 7.7 Feet

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Carruthers and Peterson were absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner

AYES: White, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Carruthers, Peterson

15. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-20-041, Michael Kostick, Owner of Record, requesting (V-20-043) Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet 3,736 square feet, for Pin # 14-12-12-205- 002-0000, in Manhattan Township, commonly known as 11929 W. Heather Glen Lane, Manhattan, IL

Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-041, which takes place in Manhattan Township.

The owner and applicant is Michael Kostick.

Mr. Kostick is here tonight requesting a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 3,736 square feet in order to build a new 2,960 square foot detached garage with a carport for his personal storage.

I have for you the Aerial and Zoning Maps. The subject parcel is Lot 28 in Heather Glen Estates Unit 3 and comprises of 1.5 acres and zoned R-2. You can see R-2 is pretty much the Heather Glen Estates Subdivision. There are some estate residential to the south and A-1 to the east.

The property is improved with a single-family residence that includes an attached 776 square foot attached garage and then there’s a 576 square foot detached garage which the applicant is planning on demolishing. The applicant has applied for a building permit and a demolition permit for the detached garage. The building permit would be for this new proposed detached garage that you can see on the screen with a Plat of Survey. So, combined you have the existing attached garage of 776 square feet. You have the new proposed square footage of 2,960, which already exceeds the maximum accessory building area requirement of the R-2 Zoning District being 1,800 square feet. When you add the 2 together, the combined accessory building area is 3,736 square feet. The applicant is requesting over double the permitted accessory building area limit.

Looking at the screen, we have some conceptual plans of what is proposed with this new detached garage. You can see the carport will extend to the east when looking at the front elevation.

square foot maximum accessory building area limit. However, the majority of these properties tend to fall in the 10% permitted requirement, so they could qualify for what’s called an Administrative Adjustment. That would be a Variance that Staff could do in the office.

In 2018, there was a Variance approved on this property on Heather Glen Lane for 3,108 square feet of accessory building area. However, due to the subject property requesting nearly twice the amount of the permitted limit, this would exceed even what was approved previously with the Variance in 2018. Staff finds that this could affect the character of the neighborhood.

Looking at the subject property, this is looking south from Heather Glen Lane. This is looking at the existing detached garage at the proposed location of the new detached garage. This is looking from the new location of the proposed detached garage that will go there and some of the vehicles and materials that you will see in the next slide with the new proposed garage. This is looking from this new location of the proposed detached garage north towards Heather Glen Lane. This is looking east and west along Heather Glen Lane. This is looking east towards Scheer Road. This is looking south from the center of the property and looking southwest from the center of the subject property.

The Variance Standards Review Criteria that are typically evaluated are the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff finds that the applicant could potentially meet the 1,800 square foot requirement with building a 1,024 square foot detached garage. However, it is the applicant’s preference to build a building larger than that, and is requiring a Variance to be able to build such building. Therefore, Staff does not feel that there is a unique circumstance present to necessitate the Variance. Also, as previously mentioned, the accessory area is over double what is permitted in the area and it is the largest accessory building within this neighborhood. It could potentially negatively impact the character of the area.

The other criteria has been evaluated within your Staff Reports.

Of the agencies notified, none objected. The Health Department did provide their sign-off approval for the building permit for the new detached garage.

Staff is recommending denial of the Variance request due to the lack of a hardship as well as not finding a unique circumstance for this request and the potential for impacting the character of the neighborhood.

This concludes Staff’s analysis.

Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Staff?

No response.

Chairman Stipan asked are there interested callers on the line for this case?

Janine Farrell said we just have 1 call-in user and I will un-mute them. Call-in user, are you here for Zoning Case ZC-20-041, which is a Variance for maximum accessory building area over in Manhattan Township?

No response.

Janine Farrell said I do not think so.

Chairman Stipan said ok. Is the owner here tonight to testify, Michael Kostick?

Michael Kostick introduced himself. I just wanted to add a couple things to why I’m doing this. For one, as you can see in the pictures, you can see that I have recreational vehicles. I have a trailer and a lot of things that do sit outside in the elements. One thing I did apply for with the permit, 960 square foot of this is not enclosed. It is just a roof over a pad. That being said, the only reason I did that is because there is a big tree over there and when the weather is bad, I just try to keep my trailer from getting any damage. We’re out in the open out here and we do get pretty bad weather. That was the reason for that, not knowing that the 960 square foot was going to add all of that square footage. It’s not like I have 960 square foot of building enclosed. I think the building ends up being like 2,000 square foot enclosed and the rest is carport, 960 square foot, with just a roof over it. Plus, we do have the attached garage which I know is where we’re getting those numbers from. My biggest point was just the carport roof. It’s not enclosed, it’s just a roof to protect my equipment or my trailer, I should say.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Michael Kostick said no, not at this moment.

Chairman Stipan asked was that taken into consideration as storage space and storage area?

Marguerite Kenny said in terms of accessory building area and building structure, anything that has a roof and is supported by walls is considered a building and would add to the accessory building area.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.

John Kiefner said I would like to verify that neighbors were notified and we have received no communication from the neighbors.

Marguerite Kenny said we have not received any objections or communications from neighbors.

Chairman Stipan asked Mr. Kiefner are you satisfied?

John Kiefner said yes. Granted it’s 20% bigger than the biggest one in the area but it doesn’t sound like any neighbors are objecting if they were notified. Maybe they’d rather see his equipment inside a building rather than sitting outside in the driveway.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Carruthers and Peterson were absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner

SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner

AYES: White, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Carruthers, Peterson

16. 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-20-044, Nicholas Benedetti and Ronald S. Benedetti, Owners of Record, Ronald Weszelits, Linden Group, Inc., Agent, requesting (V-20-051) Variance for maximum accessory dwelling unit floor area from 650 square feet to 2,000 square feet, for Pin # 13- 19-21-200-008-0000, in Wilton Township, commonly known as 30344 Cedar Road, Manhattan, IL

Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-044, which takes place in Wilton Township.

This is an application for a Variance for maximum accessory dwelling unit floor area from 650 square feet to 2000 square feet.

The property is owned by Nicholas A. Benedetti & Ronald S. Benedetti with Ron Weszelits of the Linden Group, Incorporated as the agent.

The subject parcel is located on Barr and Cedar Roads in Wilton Township.

The parcel, shown here on the GIS aerial outlined in red, measures 10 acres in lot area with 467 feet of lot frontage on Barr Road and 426 feet of lot frontage on Cedar Road, making it legal and conforming to the A-1 Zoning District standards.

The parcel was divided off of a 78.22 acre agricultural property by deed in 2019.

A residence previously stood on the property for which demolition permit number 1900859 was obtained in May, 2019.

The property is currently vacant.

There are no inventoried wetlands located on the property, but there is a small area of Zone A floodplain located at the far northwest corner of the property.

The applicant met with Staff for a pre-application meeting on January 30, 2020 to discuss plans to construct a primary residence and accessory dwelling unit of equal size. At that meeting, Staff advised the owner of the accessory dwelling unit provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which state “the floor area of an ADU may not exceed 49% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit on the subject lot (excluding any attached garage), or 650 square feet, whichever is less, per Section 155-10.10. Following the meeting, Staff provided notes to the owner citing the full text of Section 155-10.10 ©, which pertains to accessory dwelling units.

The owners are pursuing the Variance for maximum accessory dwelling unit floor area to construct a primary residence and an accessory dwelling unit of approximately 2,000 square feet each.

The Zoning Map shows the property is zoned A-1, as are all adjacent properties.

This is a view of the subject parcel looking west. This is a view of the subject parcel looking northwest. This is a view of the subject property looking southwest. The applicant stated that the cargo containers on the property are used for storage of construction materials in anticipation of obtaining a building permit.

Staff advised the applicant that cargo containers are permitted for the storage of construction materials with a valid building permit and encouraged the applicant to obtain a building permit to bring the cargo containers into compliance.

This is a view of the adjacent properties looking north. This is a view of adjacent properties looking south.

This is the Plat of Survey for the parcel, I apologize for the poor quality.

This is the conceptual Site Plan submitted for the parcel. The detail at right shows the 2 proposed residences outlined in green, which would both be connected to a shared attached garage. The conceptual Site Plan lists the square footage of each residence, showing both to be of equal square footage, exceeding the 650 square foot requirements for accessory dwelling units. As a reminder, this is a conceptual

Site Plan and the applicants are applying for a Variance to allow the construction of an accessory dwelling unit with 2,000 square feet of floor area, which is over 3x the 650 square foot requirement.

Based upon the criteria by which Staff and the Plan Commission are required by Ordinance to evaluate, Staff finds that the plight of the owners is not due to unique circumstances. The owners have the option to construct an accessory dwelling unit that conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, will alter the locality. Per the conceptual Site Plan submitted, the owners are proposing to build what is essentially a duplex, which does not conform to the intent of the accessory dwelling unit provisions, which are written to allow for an in-law suite or similar.

Staff is recommending denial of the request.

This concludes Staff’s analysis.

Chairman Stipan asked does anybody have any questions of Staff?

No response.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Is the owner or applicant available?

Ronald Weszelits introduced himself. Thank you for taking the time for this matter. I do have something prepared for you. First, there was a little confusion with the submittal for the 2,000 versus the 1,600 square feet. Anyway, we’ll go forward with the 2,000 square feet for the accessory dwelling unit right now for the sake of this Variance. The proposed residence that was supposed to be a single-family residence with an attached garage and accessory dwelling unit as stated. The residence proposed is for the sole use of the owners. Unfortunately the property has a number of trees that shield the residence. The surrounding area is open farmland. The structure has been placed approximately 240 feet from Cedar Road and 50 feet from the nearest property lines, 300 feet from the rear property line and approximately 275 feet from the south property line. The driveway from Cedar Road will be maintained to access the property and the proposed residence. It is the intent for the new residence to house members of the same family, a related living, and each family to have their own living space connected by a covered walkway with a shared courtyard and garage. The building type and scheme would be similar to a large home with 2 separate wings to create a courtyard space. The proposed size of the accessory dwelling unit would also allow room for additional caregivers if needed. The structure will be designed to follow the current Building Code of Will County. Since the property is 10 acres, it allows for plenty of privacy and open area to accommodate this design. It is not the intent to rent or sell any portion of the new residence as it will be for needs of the new owners. Accessory dwelling unit is currently allowed in Will County and is allowed to be 650 square feet without the requirement for a Variance. There has been previous applications to increase the accessory dwelling unit to much more than the allowed 650 square feet. The Variance for the accessory dwelling unit for this 10 acre parcel is to increase the allowed 650 square feet to 2,000 square feet which would have little impact, if any, to the surrounding properties. I appreciate your time in this matter. That’s all of my comments.

Chairman Stipan asked does anyone have any questions? No response.

Chairman Stipan said no questions. Thank you sir. We’re going to ask the call-ins to see if we have any concerned citizens or objectors.

Janine Farrell said I only have 1 call-in user here. Call-in user, are you here to speak about ZC-20-044, which is a Variance for an accessory dwelling unit in Wilton Township?

No response.

Janine Farrell said I do not think so, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. If there are no people and you have presented your case, we will bring it to a vote sir.

Motion failed 1-5. Carruthers was absent. White, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, and Bettenhausen were No's.

RESULT: DEFEATED [1 TO 5]

MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner

AYES: Kiefner

NAYS: White, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Carruthers

VI. OTHER

1. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 155-10.20 OF THE WILL COUNTY ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for CaseTUP-20-010; Todd Northrup, Owner of Record, requesting temporary use permit to allow two male pet pigs to live on the R-3 zoned property, for Pin # 23-16-30-401-024-0000, in Crete Township, commonly known as 27007 S. Juniper Drive, Crete, IL

Marguerite Kenny presented Case # TUP-20-010, which takes place in Crete Township.

This is a Temporary Use Permit to allow 2 male pet pigs to live on an R-3 zoned property.

This case was tabled last month so you will see there may be some modifications to the conditions at the end of this presentation.

The owner and applicant is Todd Northrup.

The owner is requesting this Temporary Use to allow his 2 pet pigs to live on his property.

The property is zoned R-3 and lies within the Smitty’s Lakeview Estates Subdivision.

As mentioned, the applicant owns 2 male neutered potbelly pigs. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the keeping of pigs in an R-3 Zoning District requires a Special Use Permit and would only allow for 1 female pig up to 250 pounds. Male pigs would not be permitted.

On February 18th of this year, the applicant was placed into violation for having these 2 male neutered pigs on the property. In order to resolve the violation, the applicant removed the pigs. On July 14th, the Land Use & Development Committee instructed Staff to pursue a text amendment to revise the section of the Zoning Ordinance that deals with the keeping of micro-livestock, horses, and farm animals. This would include looking at this pig provision to potentially allow for neutered male pigs to be approved through a Special Use in the same districts that the current regulations state. So that would be the R-2A, R-3 and R-4 Zoning District. Until that text amendment goes through and is approved by County Board, the applicant would like to relocate his pet pigs back to his property because he misses them. He is requesting a Temporary Use Permit while Staff is pursuing that text amendment.

The area used for animal confinement and animal enclosure conforms to the setback requirements of the R-3 District as well as the animal confinement setbacks stipulated in this section of reference on this slide.

Staff just wanted to note that should a text amendment be approved, that would potentially require further zoning action. The applicant would have to come forward to this Commission and the County Board to make this Temporary Use request a more permanent solution for him to have his pigs.

Looking at the Zoning Map, you can see that the subject property outlined in red is a corner lot. It is Lot 24 in Smitty’s Lakeview Estates. It is surrounded by other R-3 properties.

The subject property is improved with a single-family residence, an attached garage, and a shed in the southwest corner of the property. Then you can also see remnants of a fence that is enclosing also the southeast corner of the property.

This picture is looking south along Juniper Drive from the subject property. This is looking north along Juniper Drive. This is looking across Lakeview Drive from the subject property. The subject property has 2 driveway accesses. One is to the north to Lakeview and one to the west to Juniper Drive. This is looking east at the neighboring properties. This is looking southeast.

Looking at the Site Plan and the Plat of Survey for the subject property, you can see that there is the single-family residence, the animal confinement area, and the existing shed. The fence line represents the enclosure area. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, there has to be a minimum 25 foot setback from the nearest dwelling unit for any animal enclosure. Where this shed is located, it does meet that setback. In addition, the shed also appears to meet the 5 foot rear yard setback as the house is situated towards Juniper Drive. This back property line is considered more of a rear yard setback than a side yard setback.

This is looking at that existing residence on the subject property. This is looking towards that southwest corner of the subject property. This is looking northeast, so you can see the animal enclosure area as well as the animal confinement shed. This is looking inside that confinement area. This is looking back towards that single-family residence on the subject property from the animal enclosure area. This is looking at that shed that serves as the pig’s house.

Of the agencies notified, only the Health Department had comments regarding ensuring that the sanitary conditions are maintained so that there isn’t any odors or any nuisance complaints coming from neighbors, as well as assuring that the animal confinement area is located outside of the septic field as well as away from the existing well.

Staff is recommending approval of this Temporary Use with 5 conditions.

1. The temporary use permit is valid until February 28, 2021. The two male pigs must be removed from the subject property no later than March 1, 2021 unless further zoning action has been approved.

2. The pigs must be confined within a structure or an enclosure that is located a minimum of 25 feet from all existing dwellings (except the animal owner’s) and comply with the R-3 district building setback regulations.

3. A manure management plan shall be submitted by the owner on record prior to operation.

4. The owner of the property shall practice odor control methods during the

course of manure removal so as not to affect a neighbor property by causing air pollution.

5. Any livestock waste (pig manure) stored shall be contained in a manure storage structure. A manure storage structure is defined as “any permanent area or structure which is impermeable and is used for stacking, storing or containment of livestock waste. The structure shall contain three walls.

The first condition being valid until February 28, 2021 and then the pigs removed the next day, so no later than March 1st. This condition was based upon the Zoning Case going before this Zoning Commission last month. The applicant has mentioned to Staff the request to potentially reconsider these dates to allow the full 6 months to enjoy the pigs on the property should the Temporary Use be expired. This Commission, if they would entertain such an amendment to this condition would have to make a motion to amend this condition. The 6 months, if this Temporary Use was to be approved tonight would make the Temporary Use valid until March 31, 2021, then the pigs must be removed no later than April 1, 2021. The other 4 conditions deal with the fact that the pigs must meet the animal enclosure setback, so the 25 feet from all existing dwellings and comply with the R-3 District setbacks. A manure management plan shall be submitted to the County to make sure that any type of manure does not create any external issues to property owners. Same thing with condition #4, that odor control methods are practiced when removing it and any waste should be contained in a manure storage structure.

With that, I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Does anyone have any questions?

Barbara Peterson said I have a questions. Were any objectionable letters or emails received from adjacent property owners?

Marguerite Kenny said we have not received any letters of objection, concerns or complaints from neighbors.

Chairman Stipan said I just wanted to make a comment. When we’re talking about a neutered animal, it seems silly to define it as a male or female, or spayed, whichever you prefer. It’s now a neutered animal so it doesn’t take on those characteristics. Does anyone else have any questions?

No response.

Chairman Stipan asked do we have anyone on the line for this case?

Janine Farrell said there is nobody on the line here, everyone has left. We do have the applicant here as well like Margie mentioned.

Chairman Stipan said Mr. Northrup, we have no objectors to this case and you have a recommendation of approval. You’re welcome to speak if you want to but it’s not necessary.

Janine Farrell said I did unmute you Mr. Northrup.

Todd Northrup introduced himself to the Commission. First of all, I want to thank you for your consideration. We have these pigs that we adopted 4 years ago. We just bought the property 1-1/2 years ago and we were not aware of any of the restrictions. So, thank you all for your consideration.

Motion was made by John Kiefner to amend the dates to end March 31, 2021 and have the pigs removed by April 1, 2021. Roger Bettenhausen seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.

Motion was made by John Kiefner for approval of the Temporary Use Permit with the 5 conditions. Roger Bettenhausen seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Peterson was absent.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

ABSENT: Peterson

2. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 155-10.20 OF THE WILL COUNTY ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case TUP-20-013, Trust 93-4925, Owner of Record, (Craig and Laura Tracy 50% each beneficiaries)Craig and Laura Tracy, Agents, requesting a Temporary use permit for an annual fall festival with paint ball activities, for Pin # 21-14-23-200-009-0000, in Monee Township, commonly known as 3450 Crete-Monee Road, Monee, IL

Janine Farrell presented the TUP-20-013 case which takes place in Monee Township.

This is a Temporary Use Permit for a fall festival with paintball activities.

This is in relation to the Craig and Laura Tracy property that’s over in Monee Township.

This is an annual request and has been ongoing since 2012.

Just to kind of reaffirm things, most of what they’re looking to do is permitted through the Agritourism as a right in the A-1 Zoning District. It’s the paintball activities that are not permitted which require this Temporary Use Permit approval.

I have the property here outlined in red for you and then also the Zoning Map here. As I mentioned, it’s zoned A-1. It’s surround by A-1 and then there’s R-2 and R-2A to the north.

The property is currently operating a landscape business as you will see from the images and that Special Use Permit is still valid.

This is for the dates of September 26th through November 1 . You can see those specific dates detailed below there for September, October, and November, the anticipated hours of operation, the employees, and the attendance is sort of the special thing that I wanted to call out here. It’s going to depend on the COVID-19 restrictions. As you all know here, we have had a few Temporary Use Permits that have fallen into this. While attendance may have been 300 in years past, that may not be permitted beyond what the Land Use Department is authorized. There is parking accommodations for 130 vehicles which include ADA and, of course, includes sanitary facilities.

The Site Concept Plan may have changed from years past. The existing buildings on the property are being used for this Temporary Use. This is a picture of the large main building on the property there for you. Then we have some of the ancillary buildings like the greenhouse, the concession stand, the paintball gallery, the corn cannon area and the critter corral.

These are some views of the entrance/exit and the access to Crete-Monee Road and also the existing parking lot area which will be used.

This year, Staff is recommending approval again. We’ve had no violations in years past, last year included. We’ve had no objections from any of the agencies that were notified on this request. We did incorporate the Health Department and Department of Transportation comments as conditions #7 and 8. As you can see there, compliance with the Health Department and then of course, parking is only permitted on the subject property. So, we don’t allow people parking along the County Highway. The other conditions are again, standard ones from years past. The date has been updated, of course, for condition #1. You also see condition #2 added this year, which again, is regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendance and the operation of this Temporary Use is subject to those regulations.

I can take any questions that you might have but that concludes Staff’s analysis.

Chairman Stipan said thank you, does anyone have any questions?

Barbara Peterson said I just wanted to say that this is a very popular place in our area and I support it entirely.

Janine Farrell said we have a call-in user that just popped on the line if you would like me to check on that.

Chairman Stipan said yes, please.

Janine Farrell said new call-in user, do you have a comment for TUP-20-013, which is a Temporary Use Permit for a fall festival with paintball activities in Monee Township?

No response.

Janine Farrell said ok, I guess not.

Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Are the owner/applicants available, Craig and Laura Tracy? Do you care to speak? We have no objectors to this case.

Craig Tracy said I’m all good. Chairman Stipan said ok.

Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0 with 12 conditions.

1. The temporary use permit is valid from September 26, 2020 through November 1, 2020.

2. Operation of this temporary use permit is subject to current and future Executive Orders by the Illinois Governor during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. An inspection by the Will County Land Use Department's Building Division shall be performed prior to issuance of full temporary use permit approval.

4. The applicant shall provide a Certificate of Liability Insurance prior to issuance of full temporary use permit approval.

5. Temporary structures shall comply with all requirements of the Will County Building Division.

6. The temporary use shall comply with all requirements of the Monee Fire Protection District.

7. The temporary use shall comply with all requirements of the Will County Health Department.

8. Parking shall be provided on the subject property. Off-site parking is prohibited within the right of way. Parking on or along County highways

(Crete-Monee Road) is prohibited. Ingress and egress for emergency vehicles must be provided and kept clear at all times. No work or additional access is permitted in the County’s right of way.

9. If required, traffic control shall be provided by the Will County Sheriff’s Office. The applicant shall furnish proof of obtaining Sheriff’s Deputies for traffic control prior to issuance of full temporary use permit approval.

10.Temporary festival structures, festival decorations, and temporary festival signs shall be cleared from the property by November 15, 2020.

11.Fall festival decorations and signage shall not be located within the public right- of-way.

12.The sale/serving of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner

AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Not needed.

VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

1. Motion To Adjourn The Meeting

Motion to adjourn the meeting was made at 9:35 PM.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman

SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner

AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen

X. Visit www.willcountylanduse.com to view agendas and staff reports

https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3847&Inline=True