Will County Planning and Zoning Commission Met March 2.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was not recited.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:34 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Thomas White | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Absent | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Secretary | Present | |
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present |
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Feb 2, 2021 6:30 PM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0, with no corrections or additions. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
1. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-20-062, Richard and Margaret Starke, Owner of Record, requesting (V-20-072) Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 3,578 square feet (Amended initial request; 3,000 sq. ft. to 4, 178 sq. ft.), for PIN # 19-09-29-100- 026-0000, in Frankfort Township, commonly known as 21535 Wolf Road, Frankfort, IL
Janine Farrell requested there be a Motion to table this to April 20th. The applicant has not sent out the notices to the abutting property owners. I know this has been on the Agenda for a couple of months now. Once they approach the 6 month mark in May, this case would be administratively withdrawn.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion to table to April 20th passed unanimously, 6-0. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-003, which takes place in Lockport Township.
The subject site is located at the northwestern corner of Rosalind Street and Farrell Road. The overall property is 39.9 acres and is zoned A-1. This Zoning Case involves the southern 19.9 acres.
The owner is Richard J. Gariboldi Trust, dated October 11, 2005, (Mary Peceniak is
Trustee; Anne Rodgers, Rita Gariboldi, Lucy McBride, Matthew Gariboldi, Ruth Gariboldi, Paula May, and Joan Gariboldi are all equal share beneficiaries) and Patricia L. Gariboldi Trust, dated October 11, 2005 with the same Trustee and beneficiaries listed.
The Agent tonight is Anne Rodgers.
The Attorney is Thomas Osterberger of Kavanagh Grumley & Gorbold LLC. Nate Washburn is standing in for Mr. Osterberger.
The applicant is here tonight requesting a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-1 to be able to divide the southern 19.9 acres into three parcels. Parcel 3 will be 7.5 acres with 661.53 feet of frontage along Farrell Road and 493.85 feet along Rosalind Street. Parcel 4 will be 5.322 acres with 350.38 feet of frontage. Parcel 5 will be 7.101 acres with 467.78 feet of frontage. Parcels 1 and 2 are the northern 20 acres and will be divided into two conforming A-1 lots. The southern three lots will be deficient for A-1 standards, which is why the applicant is requesting E-1. Each of the three lots would meet the minimum E-1 standards and would still be considered rural estate residential.
Each lot created is over 5 acres, so a subdivision is not required.
The criteria for Map Amendments by which Map Amendment requests are evaluated are shown on the screen. I will briefly touch upon each of these criteria within the following slides, but the in-depth analysis is contained in your packet.
The first two criteria are existing uses and zoning classifications. Staff used a 1.5 mile radius of the subject property to review the existing uses and zoning.
Uses within this area include residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, and recreational within unincorporated Will County, the City of Lockport, the City of Joliet, and the Village of New Lenox.
Residential uses are primarily residential subdivisions, with a few individual lots.
Agricultural uses include crop farming and an equine vet clinic, Premier Equine, which is the equine vet clinic that came before you for that Special Use a few months ago. La Herradura is located a half mile to the west along Rosalind Street.
Commercial uses include Kozy Acres Pet Cemetery and Crematory as well as Kozy Kennels, which is located directly across Farrell Road from the subject property and roughly 470 feet from the area requesting to be re-zoned.
Industrial uses and Zoning Districts are located along Briggs Street to the west, County Highway 62 and then Maple Road, or Route 6, to the south.
Recreational uses in the area within the Forest Preserve District of Will County include Hadley Valley and Walnut Hollow to the south and then Lambs Woods to the north.
As you can see on the Zoning Map, there is a slew of Residential Zoning Districts. There’s a lot of general commercial within the area, but primarily along the main roadways of Briggs and Maple.
In terms of industrial, it’s also Briggs and Maple as previously stated.
The closest E-1 District is located at the end of that 1.5 mile radius. You can see the E-1 directly north and the E-2 directly northeast.
The old A-2 Zoning District, which is now a grandfathered district, has been replaced by the E-1 and E-2 Zoning Districts. You can see there are quite a few A-2 Districts in the proximity of the subject property.
This is looking at the proposed 3-lot subdivision of the parcel, you also have a CONNECTExplorer image in the bottom right. The red box indicates the proposed Map Amendment.
As previously mentioned, the applicant is desiring to divide the existing 39.9 acre parcel into five lots, two of which will remain traditional A-1 lots. They will each be 10 acres with 300 feet of frontage. The bottom three being deficient in the minimum 10 acre requirement do meet the minimum requirements of E-1. E-1 is typically 4.9 acres with 300 feet of frontage.
The Plat also shows an equine easement between the three property lines that allows for ingress and egress of horses within the area to access properties and not use the public roads.
While the County does not enforce any recorded covenants of the Plat, it’s interesting to note that there is a horse atmosphere within this vicinity.
The current use of the property is agricultural and is actively farmed. However, E 1 Districts would permit accessory crop farming. It would also allow the keeping of horses, livestock, and other farm animals, as long as the animal units were compatible with the acreage. Typically one animal unit per acre would be the animal requirement ratio.
Staff finds that the E-1 would maintain the character of the surrounding area.
A LESA score was calculated to be 113, placing the property in the “potential growth and incorporated areas.” Staff did note some discrepancies in this Natural Resources Inventory Report regarding the LESA score.
The parcel was initially zoned “F” when the County adopted its first Zoning Ordinance in 1947. It was re-zoned Agricultural in 1978 when it comprehensively re-zoned the County. Since that time, the trend has been towards annexing into the surrounding municipalities, the Cities of Lockport, Joliet, and New Lenox, and then largely residential subdivisions. Between 1939’s aerial and the 2020 aerial, you can start seeing those subdivisions popping into those aerials.
Within the unincorporated areas, the A-1 Districts have been split up into smaller lots and either re-zoned to A-2 Agricultural or even smaller Residential Zoning Districts.
As previously mentioned, E-1 is compatible to the A-2 District in terms of uses, setbacks, size, and things of that nature.
Staff believes that the re-zoning request is in conformance with the trend in development within the area.
Looking at the subject property, this is standing at the corner of Rosalind Street and Farrell Road looking northwest. This is looking northeast and north along Farrell Road. Looking southeast and south along Farrell. Then we’re looking southwest and south along Rosalind Street. This is looking straight west along Rosalind.
The applicant’s proposal to re-zone the parcel to E-1 is in compliance with the County’s Land Resource Management Plan. The parcel is located within the Suburban Communities Development Form. In terms of the density and character of the site of what is proposed, it could be best described under the conservation design neighborhood development use concepts. Although, typically those are for typical subdivisions, there is a character of one dwelling per 2.5 acres to 10 acres with roughly 50% to 80% open space. This would be permitted within the Suburban Communities Form as that development concept.
This property has not been identified in any of the surrounding municipalities Comprehensive Plan.
Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment from A-1 to E-1.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. I don’t have any questions for Marguerite. Does anyone else have any questions for Marguerite?
John Kiefner said I’ve never heard of this equine easement. Would these stay with the property as they’re sold?
Marguerite Kenny said yes. Once it’s recorded on the Plat, it would be treated as any other public utility easement or anything like that. A Plat of Subdivision would have to vacate those easements for the easement to no longer be applicable.
John Kiefner asked, a future buyer could not vacate them then? Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. I don’t see Mr. Osterberger out there.
Nate Washburn introduced himself. I am standing in for Tom Osterberger tonight. I represent the property owner. If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them. We appreciate the very comprehensive report done by Miss Kenny. We would ask that the Map Amendment be approved.
Chairman Stipan said ok, would you take a seat close by just in case we have objectors or concerned citizens? Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
A gentleman in the galley raised his hand.
Chairman Stipan said please come down to the podium to speak.
Phillip Britton introduced himself. I am the property immediately to the north of the existing zoned area. I have a question. With the potential increase of dwellings on this property, if zoned E-1, would that trigger any sort of increase or possibly of an easement in regards to a utility right of way or anything along those lines that could potentially impact myself or other residents?
Nate Washburn said at this time we do not anticipate any impact to the surrounding neighbors. We’re doing this as a subdivision for prospective future development. As of yet, there’s no plans for construction to occur on any of those lots. It would also be subject to Will County’s Building Permit process. Any increase in road right-of-ways and utility right-of-ways would be handled by Will County Staff at that time.
Chairman Stipan said also, any water change from one parcel to another is handled by Will County. The Land Use Department sends an engineer to make sure everything is right. Any other concerned citizens or objectors?
Janine Farrell said I have two attendee’s online. I have Jean Haas. I am going to unmute you. If you’re here to speak on ZC-21-003, you can do so now.
Jean Haas said yes, I am here for that. The only question that I have is similar to what that gentleman had said. How is this going to affect the taxes in the surrounding area?
Nate Washburn said the taxes would be determined by the Will County Assessor. I can’t speak as to what impact it would have, either positively or negatively. At this time, there’s no plans for development, at least for the time being. Upon approval, it shouldn’t have any impact, because nothing is actually changing with the property.
Chairman Stipan asked, did you hear that?
Jean Haas said yes I did, thank you.
Janine Farrell said we do have one more. Mica Freeman are you here to speak for ZC-21-003?
Mica Freeman said no, I’m just actually wanting to see the whole process. I’m just here to watch the process.
Janine Farrell said ok, thank you.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Mitchell was absent.
Dawn Tomczak said please note that this case will follow to Land Use and then to County Board. Land Use will be on March 9th.
Chairman Stipan said thank you.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-004, which takes place in Wheatland Township.
This is a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet.
The owners are Jason P. Shiffler and Lindsey R. Rosati.
The subject parcel is Lot 157 in the Wheatland South Subdivision Unit No 4, recorded as Document Number R74-25881, with the 3 Certificates of Correction recorded from November 13, 1974 to August 11, 1975.
The parcel is unchanged since its date of creation.
The parcel, shown here on the GIS aerial outlined in red, is located on the east side of Walter Lane north of Schillinger Drive and measures 35,122.30 square feet in lot area with 100 feet of lot frontage. Per Section 155-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the parcel meets the required minimum lot area and lot frontage for the R-3 District, making it legal and conforming.
The property is improved with a one-story frame residence with a detached garage.
There are no floodplains or wetlands identified on the property.
In November, 2020, the owners submitted application # 2003387 for a Building Permit to construct an accessory building measuring 1,062 square feet. The maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-3 Zoning District is 1,500 square feet.
The Plat of Survey submitted by the owner’s shows that the existing detached 3- car garage measures 735.55 square feet. Adding the proposed accessory building would total 1,797.55 square feet, exceeding the 1,500 square foot maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-3 District.
In response to Staff’s review of the Building Permit, the owners submitted the application for this Zoning Case in January, 2021. The owners are requesting a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet to construct a 1,062 square foot accessory building for personal storage.
The Zoning Map shows the property is zoned R-3, as are the other properties in the Wheatland South Subdivision.
At left is the Plat of Survey for the parcel, dated April 2, 2013.
At right is the Site Plan showing the proposed accessory building outlined in red.
This is a view of the applicants parcel looking northeast from Walter Lane. This is a view of the applicant’s parcel looking north, showing the detached 3-car garage. This is a view of the applicant and adjacent parcels looking northeast. This is a view of the applicant’s parcel looking north, showing the proposed location for the accessory building. The shed seen at center right is not on the subject parcel, but is on the adjacent parcel. This view is of the adjacent properties looking northwest along Walter Lane. This is a view of the adjacent properties looking southwest along Walter Lane.
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 not due to unique circumstances. The owners have the option of constructing a 764.45 square foot accessory building that could meet the required maximum accessory building area.
On our Agenda tonight, there are two other cases, one having been tabled, which have a Variance for maximum accessory building area request. Based on tonight’s Agenda alone, the request for a larger accessory building for personal storage is obviously not unique. It’s a preference to build a structure larger than what is permitted.
Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The subject parcel is located within a relatively large subdivision characterized by residences with attached garages. The subject parcel differs in that it already has a detached garage and no attached garage. Aerial views of the subdivision show only five parcels have detached accessory buildings.
Staff recommends denial of the request for a Variance for maximum accessory building area.
I can take any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone have any questions of Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much, Lisa. Would the owner or representative, please come up?
Jason Shiffler introduced himself to the Commission. Thank you for hearing my case today. I want to say the Planners have helped me to navigate this process. This is my first time doing anything like this and they have been very helpful. Lisa in particular, thank you very much. If you don’t mind, I wrote down what I would like to say and I would like to read this statement. I grew up in unincorporated Will County and came to appreciate the freedoms and flexibility that come with being outside the city limits. When it came time for my wife and I to buy a home and start a family, this was a natural choice. In April, 2013, we moved into our home in the Wheatland South Subdivision. We chose a home with a large lot and the ability to grow with us in the future. One key factor of the property choice was the ability to build a workshop where I could store and maintain classic cars. After years of saving, my wife and I are now in the financial position to start to build. Our current garage space has reached critical mess with cars, lawn equipment, and children’s toys. We were disheartened to learn that the allowable accessory building square footage had recently been reduced. When we purchased our home in 2013, the allowable accessory building coverage was 1,800 square feet. In 2018, a revision to the Code was made to reduce the allowable coverage to 1,500 square feet. For this project, the current Code allows me to build an approximately 764 square foot building. The Variance being requested is to restore the coverage limit to what is was only a few years prior and when we bought our home. The additional square footage for me is the difference between having just storage space and having a truly functional workshop for antique cars, lawn equipment, and other vehicle maintenance. The additional workspace will also give more breathing room in our current garage and allow us to keep our primary cars parked in there. The building would ultimately end up being less than 1,000 square feet because of the resistance levels beyond that as far as foundation, surveys, and things of that nature. It is not uncommon to see large accessory buildings in the neighborhood. Lisa pointed out that there were 5 in particular. In several instances, the accessory structure takes up a substantial portion of the lawns. With the approval of this Variance, the total building coverage on the lot is going to be 12%, which is less than the 30% allowed by the Building Code and generally lower than the average in the neighborhood. The new workshop will be located with proper setbacks and well hidden by trees in the surrounding area. The architecture will complement our home and the neighborhood. The setback is not out of line with other houses and accessory buildings in the neighborhood. With our larger than average lot for the neighborhood, .18 acres, the new building will not look out of place for the neighborhood or the property. There was a letter contesting this from a neighbor, Nancy Curley. In regards to that, I attempted to speak with her several times in person and went to her door. I was not able to make contact and I did leave her a letter kind of explaining my situation. In reality, from her perspective, if the building was reduced in size below the Variance request, her perspective on it would not change. I believe her grievance is primarily focused on the fact that a building exists at all and not specific to the additional 300 square foot Variance request. Up until now, she has not responded to any of my attempts to make contact with her. Frankly, this is our forever home. We want to maximize potential and take advantage of all the lot has to offer. It is unfortunate that we are in this situation because the Code was revised recently, and it feels just out of reach. If I would have known earlier, I would have tried to make the financing work earlier, but that’s just not how it played out. Hindsight is always 20/20. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir. We understand your feelings, but zoning changes constantly in municipal and county governments. The zoning is in such a way right now that you could have to tear down some buildings to get this building built. I don’t know if you’ve considered that or not.
Jason Shiffler asked, in what regards?
Chairman Stipan said you have a 3-car garage or a 3-1/2 car garage and a shed, correct?
Jason Shiffler said I do not have a shed.
Chairman Stipan asked, you do not have a shed?
Jason Shiffler said no, that was on the neighboring property. Like Lisa said, I’m allowed to build up to a 746 square foot building currently. The additional Variance would push that right up to 1,000 square feet. I would still be within the Building Code, well with the 300 square foot Variance I would be. So, I can technically build a second garage regardless.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you.
Barbara Peterson asked, this Nancy Curley, is she right next door to you?
Jason Shiffler said she’s the neighbor to the west of me that would back up to the property.
John Kiefner asked, she’s behind you then?
Jason Shiffler said she is literally the property that backs up to mine. John Kiefner said her back yard runs parallel to your back yard.
Jason Shiffler said the lot line across the back runs perfectly north and south. Walter, which I live on, is northwest to southeast. The very corner of the building, based on the initial submission that I did, would put it at a 15 foot setback from the southeast corner of the lot and that grows to almost 30 feet as the building progresses to the north.
Chairman Stipan asked, do you see the picture of your lot up there?
Jason Shiffler said I sure do.
Chairman Stipan asked, can you tell us which way, top or bottom that she is? Jason Shiffler said she is on the lower right-hand corner.
Chairman Stipan asked, that one?
Jason Shiffler said one above it, that one right there.
John Kiefner said from what I read from her letter, she’s concerned about the 10 foot setback. You’re allowed to get within 10 feet. If we voted no, you might still build a 764 square foot building in the same spot.
Jason Shiffler said the intention would be, whether the Variance was approved or not, the projection on her lot wouldn’t change.
John Kiefner asked, is there any chance you can sneak it closer to the road, or does it encroach into the septic field?
Jason Shiffler said no, I could sneak it closer to the road. Just for the record, I don’t have it initially drawn in at 10 feet. I have it drawn at 15 feet.
John Kiefner said it’s my understanding that you can tell us anything you want and still put it at 10 feet. I think that would be her biggest concern. It’s nice that you tried to reach her. I don’t have an issue with you going a little bit bigger and I guess she can’t stop you from 10 feet. Is it possible with 764 feet that you can do what you want to with that building?
Jason Shiffler said my current garage today, when I pull my truck into it, I have a foot and a half to the edge of the garage. That’s essentially what would happen if I built this new structure and still tried to keep it 3 cars wide. The hope is that I have more room to move. It’s a hobby. It’s a passion. It’s how I like to spend my free time and hopefully I can do it with my kids as they get older. You need more room to wiggle around. I did offer to Nancy to plant a row of pines behind the garage in the letter that I sent to her. Again, I haven’t had any feedback from her. I also pointed out, if you see the house at the very north back corner of the lot, that home is set back about 25 feet from the lot line. I just wanted to point out there’s precedent in the neighborhood or similar spacing. In fact, I would think the garage would provide more privacy than someone’s kitchen window right at the back. If she came back and said 20 feet or 25 feet, it’s doable, it’s within the realm of where the septic field is. The septic field is basically behind the current garage.
Barbara Peterson asked, did she respond to you because of a letter, the adjoining property owner’s letter?
Jason Shiffler said it was from the certified mail that I sent out in regards to this. To be fair, she responded directly to Lisa, she did not respond to me. I waited until the weekend to give her a little bit more time to digest it. I went both Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon and walked on her door. I tried again on Monday evening. At that time, I left a letter there with hopes that she would respond.
Barbara Peterson asked, but she hasn’t contacted you, right?
Jason Shiffler said she has not. I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt and think that I have just missed her every time, but I’m not sure that is the case.
John Kiefner said the only way to get ahold of anybody today is to text them.
Jason Shiffler said yes, but she doesn’t have a phone number on the letter, or an email address. I just had no way to respond to her other than going to her door.
Barbara Peterson said you did what you could.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone else want to ask a question? No response.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors here or on the phone?
Janine Farrell said there is nobody virtually.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-080, which takes place in Homer Township.
The owner is Wingren DG, LLC, where Jeffery Wingren is 100% beneficiary. The Agent here tonight is Ed Kalina of Engineering Solutions Team.
This property may be familiar to you as this is the applicant's 6th appearance before you within the last three years. The most recent requests were last August when they came before you requesting two Temporary Use Permits. One was to allow five cargo containers on the property, which would allow for storage while they were working on plans to construct a principal building. The second was to allow the landscape business to operate without a principal structure.
Since that time, the applicant has decided to not build a principal structure on the property and use the site as an outdoor storage yard for the landscape business, necessitating a Special Use request for an outdoor storage yard.
The Agent here tonight is requesting a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage yard to allow the landscape business to operate without the principal structure on a permanent basis. He is also before you requesting a Variance to allow a six foot fence that was installed on the property located within the street yard setback to remain. Then finally, a second Variance request to allow the five cargo containers to remain on site in a more permanent nature.
Wingren Landscape operates Monday through Friday from 7am to 7pm during the months of April through November. Typically there are twenty employees working on site. Employees arrive on site to load company vehicles with landscape equipment, plants, and materials necessary to tend to commercial and industrial properties in the area. They return back to the site and reload and then continue on again. This generates roughly 83 daily vehicle trips. In the winter time, so outside of April through November, Wingren Landscape operates as a snow removal business.
Looking at an aerial of the property, Wingren Landscape initially sought a Special Use Permit for a landscape business back in June, 2019 at the time the property was zoned A-1. Since that time, they have become before the County to request a Site Development Permit, which allowed the applicant to develop the site as you see. However, due to some major changes placed on the site and submitted Site Plans, the County rescinded the issuance in April, 2020, requiring additional screening and landscape requirements that needed to be met.
Also, there was a Temporary Use Permit initially for six cargo containers that expired. One of the conditions with that Temporary Use Permit was to have a Temporary Building Permit for the six cargo containers. That Permit has yet to be issued or closed. After that, the applicant decided to re-zone the property to I-2. Then he applied for Building Permits for a utility shed, hoop structures and storage bins. Shortly thereafter, they also came before you last August for the Temporary Use Permit for the five cargo containers and to allow the landscape business to operate without the principal use.
A more detailed history about the zoning action and the property is contained in your packets.
The County has received inquiries as to the condition of this property within the last three years. No violations have been issued, because all of the concerns are related to open Building Permits or Site Development Permits.
Staff did want to make note that any failure to comply with open Permits could result in a violation recorded against the property.
Looking at the screen at how the property has developed, approximately five acres of this seven acre parcel has been developed and it will be used for outdoor storage. Outdoor storage needs to be screened from all property lines. You can see that there are some areas particularly in the northeastern corner and the southeastern corner that may need a little bit more screening.
Staff has recommended conditions that would require the outstanding Building Permits to be issued within 30 days of County Board approval as well as the additional screening requirements be applied to the site so those Permits could be issued.
Looking at the Zoning Map, you can see that there’s really two Zoning Districts surrounding this subject property. You have A-1 directly to the north, east, and south. Then you have O2, which is general office within the City of Lockport. This general office Zoning District is really part of the City of Lockport’s I-355 Industrial Corridor Zoning Development phase. The Heritage Crossings Industrial Development is across the street, which will provide roughly 2.6 million square feet of warehouse space to the area. The western side of Gougar is part of this industrial corridor. As such, Gougar Road is under the jurisdiction of the City of Lockport.
Looking at the Site & Landscape Plans, the red box on the screen, which is a little hard to see, that is a fifty foot right of way easement. When you look at the bottom of the slide, it shows the proposed landscape. A lot of the required road frontage landscaping for this site is located within that right of way. The City of Lockport stated that they would like to see this right of way dedicated at some point in the future. Once this is dedicated, it is no longer part of the applicant’s property and the road authority could remove the landscaping and the applicant would no longer have road frontage landscaping. Then, it would no longer be in compliance with the County’s requirement.
So, Staff has provided a recommended condition stating that if the landscaping gets removed due to the right of way dedication, the applicant would be required to meet and come into compliance with the screening as well as the road frontage landscaping.
The applicant is also proposing a land use buffer along the eastern property line with a berm. However, the Village of Homer Glen commented on this and Staff has previously commented to the applicant, that the berm has to be located entirely on the property. Right now, it is encroaching onto the adjacent property.
Just looking at the overall site, this is taken from both the site visit last month as well as last summer. In these, you can see the detention pond as well as some of the storage. This is more from the summer where you actually have landscape materials and plants. Then you have some of the hoop houses and storage areas.
The criteria by which Special Uses are evaluated upon are shown on the screen. An in-depth analysis is contained in your Staff Report. As Staff previously mentioned, the applicant has applied for several Permits. Specifically, there are two outstanding Permits. Staff has recommended conditions, particularly #2 and #3, where the applicant would have to have those Permits issued within thirty days of County Board approval. Staff finds that as long as the applicant receives a formal Permit approval and issuance of these Permits, the Special Use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public’s health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. With regards to issuing or converting the Temporary Use Permit for the six cargo containers to just allow the five cargo containers to be allowed on a permanent nature, Staff sees that the cargo containers are an accessory to the principal use, which is the landscaping business.
With regards to the Special Use not being injurious to other uses in the area, the vicinity has been developed for intense warehousing and large scale development. The surrounding A-1 parcels to the north, east, and south will more than likely become industrial uses in the future. However, right now, they are currently used as agricultural crop production fields.
Staff finds that the Special Use will not be injurious or impede the normal and orderly developments of the surrounding area as long as the development is confined to the subject parcel, that it doesn’t encroach into other adjacent properties, and that it conforms to the County’s adopted Codes and Ordinances.
So, looking at the agency comments, the Village of Homer Glen commented and then also commented in an additional Memo that should have been emailed to you. I can read that into the record for you upon the conclusion. Basically, their comments are looking at the property, if the property were to be annexed into Homer Glen. Gougar Road is the boundary line between the City of Lockport and Homer Glen. The subject property lies on Homer Glen’s side. So, one day, the Village of Homer Glen may annex this property. Until that time, the property will remain unincorporated. With regards to some of the conditions, you can read it within your Staff packets.
Condition #5 deals with the major changes from the initial Site Development Permit. Basically it’s just to ensure that all outdoor storage areas are screened from view. This could be a fence, a dense hedge, or a combination.
With regards to adequate access to utilities, access roads, drainage, as well as to provide ingress and egress, this subject parcel has already obtained the necessary Permits from the City of Lockport to get an Access Permit to access onto Gougar Road. Within this area, Heritage Crossings is largely responsible for the improvements to the area. Particularly they extended Gougar Road from 147th Street north to 143rd Street. They added dedicated turn lanes on 143rd Street towards Gougar. They installed the signaled intersection at Gougar and 143rd Street. Then they also installed dedicated median turn lanes for all semi-trucks accessing these warehouses. The trucks can pull into the center median to be able to turn in and out of the properties so it does not impact the traffic flow as much as it may do so.
In terms of the traffic study that was initiated for that development, at full build out, they anticipate 505 total trips in morning rush hour. That includes truck traffic and personal vehicles. At night, it would be 610 total trips during the evening rush hour. With regards to the daily vehicle trips of the anticipated use, it’s more towards the rush hour times that they would be leaving the property and then coming back to the property, re-load, and then go back out.
In terms of the screening requirements, the applicant would be required to screen outdoor storage. In terms of being in conformance with the other requirements of the I-2 Zoning District, the applicant is requesting Variances for the fence height to screen the storage yard. The fence is located within the street yard setback. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow up to five cargo containers on the property.
Moving on into the Variances within these criteria, the next two slides are just the typical criteria. An in-depth analysis can be found within your Staff Report.
Looking at the Plat of Survey, the red circle shows the area where the five cargo containers exist. They meet typical I-2 setbacks. However, the I-2 District, in terms of accessory uses for storage of goods, materials, and equipment, would allow up to two. The applicant is requesting five. Instead of having a building where you would have some storage capacity inside of the building, they are requesting to have these five cargo containers to be able to store the materials that need covered shelter.
Looking at that red box again, there is a blue line about fifty feet from that right of way line which shows where the street setback ends. You can see on the image that it’s in the middle of the proposed parking lot for the employees. Looking right adjacent to that red box, there is a dotted line that shows the fence line. It’s actually on the subject property but it’s running along that red right of way easement. The applicant installed this fence six feet tall on this side of the property to provide screening. In Staff’s analysis, typically I-2 Districts would allow up to a four foot fence in this location. If it was located behind that blue line it could be 6 feet, 7 feet, or 8 feet tall to actually provide adequate screening. You’ll actually see in the next couple of slides how that fence looks from Gougar Road.
These are looking at the existing five cargo containers. This is looking at the fence from Gougar. There’s definitely a grade change onto the property where the fence, although it is six feet tall, does definitely look shorter from the street. However, the fence height is measured wherever the fence is located. The next couple images are actually from within the site itself, looking towards Gougar Road. You definitely can see the fence, but that proposed area is roughly the proposed parking lot.
With regards to the criteria and the Variance request for the six foot fence, the applicant has not provided a specific hardship as to why the fence has to be located where it was installed, running adjacent to that right of way easement line. The applicant could install the fence outside of the street setback and be permitted to build a 6, 7, or 8 foot fence. The applicant is requesting the Variance in an effort to address the fact that they built without adherence to what was required at the time. Staff also finds that the approval of the six foot fence in this street setback could alter the essential character of the area. This is the only property within the industrial developments in the Agricultural District that has a fence, let alone one that is six feet tall within the street setback.
Looking at the agency comments, the subject parcel is again, on the Homer Glen side. Your Staff Report has the comments. In your Memo, the Village of Homer Glen discovered another provision that if this property were to be annexed, the existing cargo containers located on the subject property would not be permitted. If they were annexed with cargo containers, they would have a period of one year where it would be permitted. According to their regulations for amortization, cargo containers as defined in this chapter shall be considered a form of outdoor storage that is strictly prohibited in all Zoning Districts except where existing cargo containers located on properties with an approved Special Use for outdoor storage are a legal nonconforming use during an amortization period of one year, after which the containers are considered illegal nonconforming and must be removed. No additional containers shall be added to the property during the amortization period. So basically, with regards to Homer Glen, this applies only if the property were to be annexed into Homer Glen.
With regards to the five cargo containers, in terms of the existing areas, there are no cargo containers within the industrial development and there are no cargo containers being used for the A-1 parcels. Accessory uses of cargo containers would be permitted, but they would require Building Permits in A-1 or from an active farmer.
Aside from the adjacent parcel to the north being in and out of violation for illegal uses of cargo containers and outdoor storage in the surrounding areas within the City of Lockport, it would be out of sorts to have five cargo containers located on the property.
Moving on to Staff’s recommendation, Staff is recommending approval of that Special Use with 12 conditions. The first being the typical site inspection. The second and third are addressing the outstanding Building Permits with our office, that within thirty days of County Board approval they would be approved. The fourth and fifth deal with enhancing the landscaping requirements if the right of way were to be dedicated and the landscaping and screening be removed. The applicant would have to reinstitute that screening. Then the outdoor storage, just ensuring that all property lines are screened. The sixth is compliance with the Homer Township Fire Protection District requirements. Then the rest, so 7-12, address landscape businesses in particular. So, they’re typical conditions that the IEPA usually has on landscape businesses.
Staff is also recommending denial of the Variance for fence height within the street setback and denial for the maximum number of cargo containers largely because there is not a hardship present. It is the applicant’s preference to have five cargo containers onsite and locate the fence where it currently is.
I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan said I have a question. The condition under which five containers were put there was temporary for a building to be built. When the building was not built or an application for a building was not supplied to you, doesn’t that automatically kill the five containers being on the property? It’s no longer met the conditions of the deal.
Janine Farrell said you’re correct. They technically violated the Temporary Use Permit, but they had applied for the Variance for the cargo containers as that Temporary Use Permit was expiring. We don’t begin enforcement action because they had applied for zoning action to address those cargo containers.
Chairman Stipan said ok. The original deal was that they were going to build a building. That’s why we gave them permission for the five containers until the building was built. What is the Code for cargo containers on a property right now in Will County?
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of the cargo containers, the property is Zoned I-2. The I-2 District allows accessory cargo containers to be used for storage of goods and equipment related to a permitted principal use or a principal structure.
Chairman Stipan asked, what number?
Marguerite Kenny said it’s going to be limited to two.
John Kiefner asked, but only with a principal structure?
Marguerite Kenny said or a principal use, correct.
Chairman Stipan said ok, without the principal structure how many are allowed?
Marguerite Kenny said it says two. So, it would be either the principal structure or the principal use that’s allowed and you can have two cargo containers.
Chairman Stipan said two cargo containers, ok. Does anyone else have any questions of Staff?
John Kiefner asked, has Homer Glen stated to you that they want this property annexed, or just that they are just sending these Memos thinking of the future?
Marguerite Kenny said with regards to this particular request, Homer Glen was merely just looking at what if they were to be annexed. Right now the boundaries of Homer Glen are two properties away to the east. So, they’re not directly contiguous to the subject property. In terms of the future, it would most likely be Homer Glen unless they renegotiated their boundary with Lockport.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said ok, thank you very much. Would the owner or Agent please come down?
Ed Kalina introduced himself to the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said you see what’s been recommended. Do you have any solutions beyond what’s been recommended?
Ed Kalina said thank you for the opportunity to speak. First, I would like to go ahead and express appreciation to Brian and Margie. They’ve been a pleasure to work with and they have been very helpful over the last year or so. I appreciate your consideration as far as a Special Use Permit for not requiring the primary structure. Regarding point two and point three, let’s first discuss our logic as far as the fence height is concerned. As Margie eluded to, the photos don’t really do it justice because it is a big area. In one of the photos, the fence did not appear to be tall whatsoever. That’s the reason that we went ahead and constructed the six foot fence, because without that extra height, it almost looks like the little fences you would see on Michigan Avenue. That’s your call. That’s our logic. We’ll follow whatever you would like for us to do. As far as the cargo containers, I understand your concern. We understand the Code and we’re working hard to stay within the Code. Of course, we submitted for the Variance so our preference would be to keep the five cargo containers. We would like to go ahead and put screening around it so that it wouldn’t be a sight to anybody passing by. If you require us to take it from the five containers to the two, then we would comply within a couple weeks of that request. That’s pretty much what I have to say.
Chairman Stipan said ok. You have no solutions for any other operation to keep the five containers other than your desire to do so.
Ed Kalina said the solution, I don’t have that tonight, but I would know it by the next hearing.
Chairman Stipan said ok. Thank you, sir.
Ed Kalina said thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked, would you wait up here just in case we have any objectors or concerned citizens. Do we have any objectors or concerned citizens to this case?
Janine Farrell said there’s nobody virtually.
Chairman Stipan said ok, nobody for this Case. Thank you, sir.
5. Special Use Permit For An Outdoor Storage Yard
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0, with 12 conditions. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
| RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 3]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Peterson, Kiefner NAYS: White, Stipan, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-20-086, which takes place in Green Garden Township.
This is a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 3,775 square feet.
The owners are Marcelo and Lisa Minetti, who are represented by Richard Kavanagh of Kavangh, Grumley, & Gorbold, LLC.
In November, 2020, the owners applied for Zoning Case ZC-20-068, requesting two Variances, one for minimum street yard setback (104th Avenue) from 67 feet to 27 feet and the other for maximum accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 4,869.62 square feet.
The Zoning Case was heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission on December 1, 2020. Staff recommended denial of the Variance for maximum accessory building area. The Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the Variance for street yard setback.
The Variance for accessory building area was denied by a 3 to 3 vote (one Commissioner was absent). Per Section 155-16.70 (G)(3), "Approval of a Variance requires an affirmative vote of at least four members of the Planning and Zoning Commission." No objectors were present.
The subject parcel is located on the northeast corner of West Prairie Schooner Drive and South 104th Avenue in Green Garden Township.
The parcel, shown here on the GIS aerial outlined in red, measures 2.50 acres in lot area with 259.50 feet of lot frontage on Prairie Schooner Drive and 420.13 feet of lot frontage on 104th Avenue.
The property is improved with a one-story brick residence with an attached garage, a detached garage, a shed, and a pool.
The parcel is Lot 2 in the South Creek Estates Subdivision Unit 1, recorded as Document Number R94-51684 on May 17, 1994 and unchanged since its date of creation.
Per Section 155-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the parcel meets the required minimum lot area and lot frontage for the E-2 District, making it legal and conforming.
Following the submission of the application for ZC-20-068, the owner’s submitted application #2003158 in October, 2020 to construct an accessory building measuring 56 feet by 42 feet, or 2,352 square feet. The maximum accessory building area permitted in the E-2 Zoning District is 3,000 square feet.
At the time of the previous Zoning Case, Green Garden Township Assessor documents stated that the existing attached garage measured 1,913 square feet. The Plat of Survey submitted by the applicants for that Zoning Case showed a detached frame garage that measures 264.62 square feet (marked by the red X) and a shed that measures 17 feet by 20 feet, or 340 square feet (shown by the red arro2), for a total existing accessory building area of 2,517.62 square feet.
In December, 2020, the owners submitted an application for the Zoning Case you are hearing tonight. The applicants included with the application an updated property record card from the Green Garden Township Assessor's office showing the attached garage had been reduced in size by an interior renovation from 1,913 square feet to 1,081 square feet as well as revised plans showing that they intend to demolish the 264.62 square foot frame garage. The owners have not applied for a Demolition Permit for the frame garage at the time of the Staff Report.
With these changes, the owners are requesting a Variance for maximum accessory building area to construct a 2,352 square foot accessory building for personal storage. The subject property has 1,421 existing square feet of accessory building area, accounting for the proposed demolition of the frame garage. The existing accessory buildings and the proposed accessory building would total 3,773 square feet accessory building area, exceeding the 3,000 square foot accessory building area requirement in E-2 Districts.
The square footage of the proposed building is unchanged from the previous Zoning Case. The owners have not reduced the size of the proposed building, and are instead, proposing to demolish an existing structure on the property.
The Zoning Map shows the property is zoned E-2, as are the other properties in the South Creek Estates Subdivision. The parcel across South 104th Avenue to the west is zoned A-1/agricultural.
At left is the Plat of Survey for the parcel, dated July 15, 2020.
The red outline shows the proposed accessory building.
The blue arrow indicates the existing shed and the red X is over the detached garage, which the owners propose to demolish.
At right is the Access Plan for the proposed building if approved. This was submitted in response to questions raised for the previous Zoning Case as to how the proposed building would be accessed. The Green Garden Township Highway Commissioner did not submit comments for this Case.
This is a view of the applicant parcel looking northwest from Prairie Schooner Drive. This is a view of the applicant parcel looking north, showing the attached garage, detached frame garage at center, and the shed at left. This is a view of the applicant parcel looking north, showing the proposed location for the accessory building. This is a view of the adjacent properties, looking west. This view is of the adjacent properties, looking north along South 104th Avenue. This is a view of the adjacent properties looking south along 104th Avenue.
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 not due to unique circumstances. The owners have the option of constructing a 1,579 square foot accessory building that could meet the required maximum accessory building area.
On our Agenda tonight, there are two other Cases, one which was tabled, which have a Variance for maximum accessory building area request. Based on tonight's Agenda alone, the request for a larger accessory building for personal storage is obviously not unique. It's a preference to build a structure larger than what is permitted.
Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The subject parcel is located within a subdivision characterized by residences on larger lots.
Aerial views of the subdivision show many parcels within South Creek Estates have accessory buildings, with some ranging from 1,000 square feet to over 3,000 square feet estimated. However, only 4 of 23 parcels have 2 detached accessory buildings on the same parcel.
Staff recommends denial of the request for a Variance for maximum accessory building area.
I can take your questions.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. I have no questions. Does anyone have any questions for Staff?
Barbara Peterson asked, would you show the site? I believe it was a picture of the west where it's Ag land. Is this where the building is going to be built?
Lisa Napoles said that is the subject parcel. So, that is essentially the back yard. Barbara Peterson said ok, but is that the site of the proposed building? Lisa Napoles said roughly.
Barbara Peterson asked, do you know how many acres that adjoining property is?
Lisa Napoles said I hesitate, I don’t want to estimate incorrectly, but it’s a fairly large parcel.
Barbara Peterson said ok, thank you.
John Kiefner said, you said it would alter the surrounding area. Lisa Napoles said yes.
John Kiefner asked, would or would not?
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions for Staff?
Barbara Peterson said don’t you think any change alters?
John Kiefner said yes, I know we had a zoning change right down the street from this, but she did say that there were several others. I guess this one’s significantly larger. She said only two out of twenty-three had larger detached.
Barbara Peterson said I would have to ask Roger, are you familiar with this parcel? Roger Bettenhausen said I am.
Barbara Peterson said ok.
John Kiefner said it’s at least eighty acres, if not one hundred and sixty. Everything on the west side of 104th there is all farmland.
Roger Bettenhausen said it is.
John Kiefner said it’s an eighty acre farm and another eighty acre farm. Barbara Peterson said ok.
John Kiefner said a mile to the west of that is Route 45. That corner has a little bit of residential, but that whole half mile by half mile to the west of it, is all farmland.
Barbara Peterson said I just needed to know where they were proposing to build this building. Thank you.
John Kiefner said all the homes are to the east of this property. It’s the first one in the road that enters it.
Barbara Peterson said ok.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, Lisa, I appreciate it. Would the owner or Agent or Attorney come down please? Mr. Kavanagh?
Richard Kavangh introduced himself to the Commission. I represent Lisa and Marcelo Minetti. Mr. Minetti is here and I believe Mrs. Minetti is on the call. This is an unusual situation and it’s a Case that’s coming back to you just two and a half months after you first heard it. I believe that the vote was 3-3 at that time. One of the things that is clear, is that when my clients bought this house in July, 2020, the garage wasn’t anywhere near as large as was indicated in the first Staff Report. The new Staff Report is very accurate. Mr. Minetti came in requesting a Variance to 4,862 square feet. His garage had been changed because the prior owner converted about 800 square feet of that garage to living area. The Assessor didn’t have that information. When the Staff got the Assessor’s card for the prior Case, they were looking at a 1,800 or 1,900 square foot garage and it was really only 1,100 and some square feet. That obviously is accessory structure. So, when he came in the first time, perhaps this Commission might have voted to approve it, because he really didn’t need as much and he really didn’t need as much as the Staff said he would need of a Variance. The other thing is that, in talking with Mr. Minetti about whether we should go back, he indicated that the smaller and older garage on the side of the house really wouldn’t be needed if in fact this were approved. So we said, and we will, tear down that garage. I noticed the Staff Report indicates that neither of the two accessory structures on the site were built with Permits. My client didn’t build them. The prior owner built them just like the prior owner modified the garage. Mr. Minetti bought the house as it existed with a smaller garage, because a portion of it had been changed into living area and with these two structures on it. Mr. Minetti collects classic cars. He has a 1950 Chevrolet Fleetline Deluxe, a 68 Camaro, a 70 Mustang Fastback, a 1991 Firebird Formula, a 2015 Camaro SS, a Silverado truck, and a Jeep Wrangler. He has two children who were in the Navy. One of them participates in World War II re enactments. He intends to store some of his equipment for the re-enactment, motorcycles and stuff like that of World War II vintage. Mr. Minetti owns a boat with a trailer. He intends to store that in this building. They're looking for a motorhome, but that’s not something you want to store outdoors in the winter so, they would be storing that. Is there a real need for additional accessory storage space? I think yes, there is. How much additional space are we looking for? We’re asking for 775 feet over and above the 3,000 that would be allowed under the Ordinance in an E-2 District. How much is 775 square feet compared to the size of the lot? This is 108,890 square feet. 775 square feet is 5/7 of 1%. 5/7 of 1% additional storage over and above what would be allowed. I think that’s not something that’s significant. I’d like to go through the Staff Report very quickly with just with a couple of comments. The Green Garden Township Highway Commissioner, no comments have been received. Mr. Minetti has met with the Highway Commissioner and showed him where he would like to have the entrance coming off of 104th Avenue. The Highway Commissioner has indicated he would issue a Culvert Permit if in fact, the Variance is approved. The Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District indicated this would have little to no effect on the existing land. I mentioned we bought this property on July 31, 2020, well after the garage or a portion of it had been converted and well after the garage and the shed on the property were built. Staff mentions that we have not applied for a Demolition Permit for the frame garage at the time of this writing. We haven’t, because I don’t know if you’re going to approve this. I’m certainly not going to demolish it if you don’t approve the requested Variance. The plight of the owner is somewhat due to unique circumstances, because he has materials, automobiles, vehicles, and equipment that he needs to store and there is not enough storage space on the site. Staff, and I think it was interesting and I’m glad they did it, says that this could alter the essential character of the locality. It indicates also that there are many parcels within South Creek Estates that have accessory buildings with some ranging from 1,000 square feet to over 3,000 square feet. Keep in mind that over 3,000 square feet when you’re looking at accessory structures, doesn’t include however large the garage is there, and that should be part of that 3,000 square feet. That’s why we’re here, because we have a garage that is about 900 square feet and we’re looking for more than 3,000 square feet for accessory structure. If you could put the slide up showing the adjacent parcels, there are five properties that are immediately adjacent to Mr. Minetti’s. The one at the top of the screen, the one to the right, two down below, and then the farm which was asked about to the west. The four homeowners, to the north, to the right, and below, all four of them have signed letters asking you to approve this Variance. You should have copies of those letters in your packet. We were unable to get ahold of the owner of the farm. I don’t know whether its tenant farmed or not, but there’s no residence on the property. We think this is a reasonable request. Mr. Minetti has done everything that he’s supposed to do before starting to build the structure. He came into to request a Permit and was advised he needed to get a Variance. He applied for the Variance and some of the information in the application wasn’t correct. This Committee voted 3-3 by denying. We’re asking that you vote to approve the Variance for 3,775 square feet. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Minetti is here and he’d be happy to answer any questions also.
Chairman Stipan said I have a question for you, sir. You mentioned that he is willing to tear down the secondary building, but after this large building is built.
Richard Kavanagh said yes. If you approve the Variance, we will apply for a Demolition Permit for the smaller garage plus the Building Permit to build the building.
Chairman Stipan said I understand that he is looking to buy a travel trailer. Richard Kavangh said yes.
Chairman Stipan said travel trailers typically are taller than the average building structure.
Richard Kavanagh said correct.
Chairman Stipan said you may have to apply for a Variance for the height of the structure, just so you know.
Richard Kavanagh said I know that the building he’s going to have has a 12 foot high garage door and that’s what he needs for the travel trailer. Hopefully the building doesn’t need Variances too. I never gave a thought to that.
Chairman Stipan said that’s why I mentioned it.
Richard Kavanagh said I know.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone else have any questions? No response.
Richard Kavanagh said thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this Case?
Janine Farrell said there’s nobody virtually, but Mrs. Minetti is present as a panelist so she has the ability to unmute herself if she wishes. Just for the record, we do permit height of accessory structures to be up to twenty-five feet.
Chairman Stipan said yes, I know. It’s the door space that I was talking about.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, does this include the condition of the attached garage being demolished?
Chairman Stipan said we have not put that on.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, can we add that?
Chairman Stipan asked, we can’t condition a Variance, can we? Barbara Peterson said no.
Chairman Stipan said we can’t condition a Variance.
Richard Kavanagh said we do not have the proper number of square feet available unless we demolish that structure. In other words, we have to demolish it to get to the 3,775 square feet.
Chairman Stipan said thank you.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
1. PZC By-Law Amendment Approval
THIS MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE AMENDED CHANGES AND MAKE A FINAL VOTE ON THIS AT THE APRIL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
Brian Radner said I'll just point out that in the By-Laws it does say that any change is just approved by a majority of the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said we all had notice of this last month that this was coming this month. I presume that everyone has had a chance to read it. I’m going to query the Board. Does anyone have any objections to anything?
John Kiefner said we pretty much have stripped all the Secretary’s duties so that they go to Staff. Do we still have a Secretary then?
Chairman Stipan said under the State Statute, I believe we still have a Secretary. John Kiefner said if I read this right, we’ve pretty much stripped all the duties.
Barbara Peterson said Land Use is the Commission’s Staff more or less. They’re actually making a right out of something that’s transgressed over the years. All of this has changed because all of these different computer programs. I could show you, I have it here, an original set of the By-Laws and they don’t look anything like these. I’ll be honest with you, I haven’t had the chance to read it. Whatever changes Brian has set forth, I wouldn’t find any problem with it, because he has to keep everything according to State Law. The Commission is set up in accordance with State Law.
Chairman Stipan said it provides for the duties of the Chairperson and the Vice Chair.
John Kiefner said I’m fine with it. I was just wondering if there’s something that the Secretary would still….
Chairman Stipan said it states “a Secretary as designated by the County Executive pursuant to Chapter 155 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.”
Brian Radner said I just wanted to address the question about the Secretary and the State Statute. The State Statute actually does not require a Secretary. So, that is not a requirement. The only thing that’s required is an appointment by the County Executive for the Chairperson and then amongst this Body, you have the power to pick the Vice-Chair that’s not appointed by the County Executive.
Barbara Peterson said, and we have in the past.
Brian Radner said you have. The Secretary is not required. As current Secretary Peterson has mentioned, Staff has taken over those roles. That’s what has occurred over the past several years for various reasons. Staff is performing all those functions.
Chairman Stipan said, my question is, as long as that is the case, why are we not striking “and a Secretary as designated by the County Executive pursuant to Chapter 155” with everything else? If we’re getting rid of the position of the Secretary and you’re taking it over, then why are we not striking that language?
Brian Radner said right now, that’s what the Zoning Ordinance says. The Zoning Ordinance is being modified too. Not here, that has to go through the Land Use Committee. I suppose we can make that change. This Body has the authority to make any change. That doesn’t have to be published. That doesn’t have to be shown to the public that it required two weeks’ notice. So, you have the power to change it right now.
John Kiefner said the very last paragraph states “these bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the voting members, only after the proposed change has been read and discussed at a previous Commission hearing.” The way I interpret that is we can discuss this all we want, but we can’t even vote on it until next month. Maybe I shouldn’t read too much. I read this and I was like why did it say that?
Barbara Peterson said you’re right and last month we didn’t discuss anything.
John Kiefner said he just told us that we were going to have it this month. They told us that they were going to make the suggested changes and then bring it to us, if I remember right.
Barbara Peterson said, and he mentioned we would discuss it at this meeting. Chairman Stipan said, and that is what we’re doing.
Barbara Peterson said Hugh, you have a good point if you’re going to eliminate something.
John Kiefner said I guess now we don’t even have a Secretary that sits on the Commission.
Chairman Stipan said it doesn’t matter whether the Secretary sits on the Commission or whether the secretarial duties are handled by the Board. The only place where it will possibly matter is further on in here is where they think that we should have an information officer for Freedom of Information Act. If we have no Secretary on the Board, we have no access to the information except through the County. So, I discussed that earlier tonight with Brian and they have four County Staff members who are Freedom of Information qualified and certified. They do the Freedom of Information. Rather than me recommending someone on our Board to be a Freedom of Information Act officer, I’m going to continue as we have, and not use that provision. As long as I have the agreement from the Board for that, which I had in the previous go around. Do you understand what I’m saying?
John Kiefner said I’m fine with that.
Chairman Stipan said otherwise, you guys would have to take the course and badger one of their four County officers to do something that you don’t really want to badger them to do.
John Kiefner said I believe it has the same thing there on the Open Meetings Act, where we’re supposed to have an Open Meetings Act officer. Every year they would need to get certified.
Chairman Stipan said one of the reasons that we have our County Attorney at every meeting is so he can advise us if we happen to be straying across the line of the Open Meetings Act. And he does that, or has in the past anyway. We have no problems with this then. The only thing I was suggesting, and you brought up the subject, that we remove “and a Secretary”.
Brian Radner said with that being said, next month we could approve all of those changes together, if you want to.
Chairman Stipan said that’s why I’m polling the Board right now. Do you agree or disagree on these? Do you agree, John?
John Kiefner said yes, I’ll give it a thumbs up.
Barbara Peterson said I agree.
Chairman Stipan said ok, so the Board all agrees to remove that verbiage. Barbara Peterson said you better ask Tom White.
Chairman Stipan asked, Mr. White do you agree on that subject? Thomas White said absolutely, I concur.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir.
John Kiefner said so at the very top, we’re striking “and a Secretary”.
Chairman Stipan said seeing that we have reached a mutual agreement on most of this, I presume that we can say we will hear it and vote on it next month, correct?
Brian Radner said perfect.
Chairman Stipan asked, is there anything else that needs discussion in this? Barbara Peterson asked, did Chris Wise look at this?
Brian Radner said Matt Guzman did.
Chris Wise from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said Matt did. Something that occurs to me is, if we want to eliminate the position of the Secretary, I think we have to have an Amendment to the County’s Zoning Code first. If the County’s Zoning Code says the PZC shall consist of a Chairperson and a Secretary, then it has to be that way until the County tells us otherwise. That’s the way I see it.
Barbara Peterson said I think you’re right, Chris.
Chairman Stipan said so that puts it off. That has to go to the County Board.
Chris Wise said I think we make a recommendation that we eliminate it. Just because, as time goes on, it doesn’t make sense with the way things are handled today.
Chairman Stipan asked, do we make a recommendation to Land Use Committee?
Chris Wise said I guess so.
Barbara Peterson said I would say the Executive’s Office.
Chris Wise said maybe so.
Brian Radner said this has already been vetted by all of those offices. Barbara Peterson asked so they’ve all agreed to it?
Brian Radner said that’s correct.
Chairman Stipan said we’re the ones that vote on it. They agreed to the principal and then we vote on it.
Brian Radner said I’m reviewing the exact language in the Code right now.
Barbara Peterson said this has to be updated and it should be correctly done. I didn’t know that it was vetted by the Exec’s Office.
Chairman Stipan said any change would have to be taken care of by the Exec’s Office. She’s the appointer. We’re the appointees.
Barbara Peterson said she appoints everybody who sits here.
John Kiefner asked, did I see five year terms in this?
Barbara Peterson said yeah, there’s terms.
John Kiefner said ok, so I’m on for four more then. I just renewed it last year. I thought they were two year terms. Somebody had asked me if I was going to lose my job here because we had a new County Executive. If I understand this right, the County Executive just can’t come in and clean house. There was a clause about “just cause”.
Chairman Stipan said usually they do it at the end of your term, but if you have done something like not attend. I think it’s like four meetings according to State Statute, they can pull you and appoint someone else.
John Kiefner said “just cause”. You have to show some kind of dereliction in your duty.
Chairman Stipan said yes and I think it’s four consecutive and not just four.
Barbara Peterson said this Board, as far back as I can think, has been one of the best Boards. There were times when we never had a quorum, and we couldn’t even have a meeting.
Chairman Stipan asked, Brian, have you come to any conclusion?
Brian Radner said I don’t have it right in front of me and I’m trying to search the language. Matt Guzman told me that you guys could approve this. He told me that you could approve it tonight. After reviewing the provision that says you have to have it discussed first with the record in front of you and then vote on it the next meeting, that’s how I see it.
John Kiefner said it actually said two thirds and not half. So, if we have six, four have to vote yes. I don’t think that’s going to be a problem. I can’t imagine anybody challenging on this. This actually would give the chance then for what we discussed, it be part of the public record for next month. That way if someone says oh, we don’t like those changes.
Roger Bettenhausen said if we had included voting on this in our Agenda this evening, we could have voted on it. It’s not included on the Agenda, so that’s why we have to wait until the next meeting to do that.
Chairman Stipan said it says discussion on the Agenda instead of vote. So, we did discuss it and I recommend that we put it on the next Agenda for a vote.
Brian Radner said it says “one of the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission must be designated by the County Executive as Chairperson of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The other must be designated as Secretary.” So, that’s the language in the Zoning Code, which I was told we are going to update also. They told me you could move forward with this even though it is not exactly the same time.
Chairman Stipan asked, Chris, are listening to this conversation? Chris Wise said if that’s what Matt told you, far be it from me to argue with Matt.
Barbara Peterson said Matt hasn’t been around. I don’t know when he thought we did this.
Chairman Stipan said the only thing I don’t want to do, is end up in Court over this. Barbara Peterson said we won’t.
Chairman Stipan said people are litigious nowadays.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0, to approve the amended changes and vote on this at the April Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion To Adjourn The Meeting
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made at 8:26 PM by Barbara Peterson. John Kiefner seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Mitchell was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: Mitchell |
Alerts Sign-up