Will County Land Use & Development Committee met April 13.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:31 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Absent | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present |
Matt Guzman was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Kenneth Harris led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Mar 9, 2021 10:30 AM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0, with no corrections or additions. Traynere was absent.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tom Weigel, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
1. Overturning the Decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Approving Appeal #APCD-21-002, by Jeffrey Wingren, 100% Beneficiary of Wingren DG, LLC, Edward Kalina, Agent, Applicant for Zoning Case #ZC-20-080, in Homer
Township, Commonly Known as 14815 S. Gougar Road, Homer Glen, IL, County Board District #7 (Janine Farrell)
Janine Farrell gave a summary on APCD-21-002, which takes place in Homer Township.
This is an appeal of a Variance denial associated with Zoning Case # ZC-20-080. Specifically, it was Variance V-20-114.
The applicant was proposing to use five cargo containers for storage.
The applicant operates a landscape business at the subject site and was recently approved for a Special Use Permit for a storage yard outdoors. This Special Use permits the applicant to continue utilizing the property without a principal structure.
Under the existing zoning, which is I-2, two cargo containers are permitted by right. As I mentioned, the applicant was proposing through the Variance to use five.
At the March 2, 2021 PZC Meeting, there were no objectors present. However, the Village of Homer Glen did submit objections to the request in writing. They resubmitted those objections as part of the appeal. This was included in your packet.
Staff recommended denial of this Variance request.
The Planning and Zoning Commission upheld Staff's recommendation for denial by a 3-3 vote. As a reminder, 4 affirmative votes were required for approval. The Minutes and Staff Report were provided to you in your packet.
The applicant is appealing this denial and as a reminder, to overturn the denial, it will take a 3/4 majority vote by the County Board.
I can take any questions that you might have.
Steve Balich said I live in that District and I'm very familiar with the location and what’s going on over there. I don't see any problem with what they want to do. It's on the very outer edge of Homer Glen and the beginning of Lockport. There's nothing there but prairie and industrial. What they're trying to do doesn't seem out of place at all. I'm going to be a Township Supervisor. I talked to the rest of my group already and they all agreed that it's not going to be a problem where it is. It might be a problem if it was a little bit east or a little bit west. Where it is right now, it's no problem at all.
Kenneth Harris said I have a question that's been talked about as far as the use of these containers and stacking them. I believe the way the request is, they will not be stacked, and they will be at one level. I do think we need to be careful on the precedent that we set with this. It's not that I'm opposed to it, but we should be looking as a County at the precedent that we set, as far as the stacking of these containers is this is the Case that I'm thinking of.
Judy Ogalla said I was just wondering, did Ken have questions? It sounded like he had questions for that, I don't know.
Chairman Marcum said I was going to see if you had a question. Kenneth Harris said I was fine. It was actually more of a comment for me.
Judy Ogalla said oh, ok. I know that I had a discussion at Land Use last month and then I know I did speak with Ed since then. I looked at the map to see where this is located. There’s some warehousing behind them, but otherwise, it’s all open. Those storage containers work really well for storing product. They don’t allow any kind of animals in it and they stay very dry. I do support that. I know that they do not have the intention of stacking these. I want to confirm what type of base they will have these on. Have they agreed to put them on the base that Land Use has suggested? Also, I know we did talk at one time if they would be willing to paint them all one color. I don’t know if Land Use made that stipulation or not. As long as they’re in compliance with those, I would be supportive. We’re allowing people to build homes using cargo containers. As long as they keep these cargo containers looking nice, they are a benefit to the business. As far as the landscaping business, why put up a large building when you wouldn’t use all of it for storage? It makes sense to me and I will be in support of this. Thank you.
Tom Weigel said I’m in favor of this also. I think the petitioner looked in to a building also and it was $300,000 or $400,000. For a small operation like this, I don’t think it’s really necessary. There’s been some precedent for allowing more containers. On Briggs Street, there’s a company that stores roofing materials in about five or six containers. It’s behind a berm and you don’t even know it’s there. I think they’re all painted green so it sort of blends in with the background. I would be in favor of this also. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you, Tom. I don’t see any other hands up so I will open it up for public comment. We do have someone here at the County Board Room. We will let him step down to the podium.
Ed Kalina said I would like to say I appreciate all of your consideration on this issue. First, to address Mr. Harris’s question. There’s absolutely no intent to stack the containers. They’re going to be adjacent to each other and at one level. As far as writing something in the final paperwork, we would encourage that. As far as
what Judy eluded to, we are in the landscape business and we will be storing various seeds, fertilizers, plant foods, straw, and Excelsior Blankets, which are all attractive items for rodents and field mice. When we’re not using the containers, they are locked up and sealed tight. They are really the perfect solution for controlling rodents and field mice. It’s a win/win for the whole neighborhood. It does provide ourselves and potential future owners with flexibility as far as the specific land use in the future. To address how they would look, it is our intent to paint the five containers a forest green. We would work with the County Department as far as screening, maybe Arbor Vitae or some other type of plant material. I would be happy to answer any further questions.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anyone have any further questions? No response.
Chairman Marcum said thank you for your comments. Does anyone else have anything that they want to add before we vote on approval of the appeal?
No response.
Chairman Marcum ask does anyone else from the public wish to speak? No response.
Brian Radner said hello David, I see you on the list. Would you like to speak on this matter?
No response.
Brian Radner asked Brianna, are you here for the appeal of decision? No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Traynere was absent.
Chairman Marcum said this will go to the full County Board and will need a 3/4 vote to overturn the decision on Thursday.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
Brian Radner said for today, this matter has been assigned for discussion purposes.
As I mentioned last meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission has been discussing updating their By-Laws.
The reason for these changes is to reflect the current work procedures that has happened. For example, the Secretary is currently listed as the person that does the publication and manages the cards for all the cases that are coming in. That's just a couple of examples.
The term PZC Secretary is referenced in a couple of places. One in the Zoning Code and one in the Water Resource Ordinances. So, we need to have both of those updated.
The change is pretty simple as you can see. In the Zoning Code portion, it's just striking Planning & Zoning Commission Secretary and adding in Zoning Administrator.
Additionally, it talks about that the Secretary would be designated by the County Executive. In this case, the Secretary would no longer be a position with that type of designation.
Then, if we move further down the paperwork that I provided with the Agenda, currently the Planning & Zoning Commission Secretary signs the Variance Ordinances after the Variance is approved by the Commission, or denied. So, instead of having the Planning & Zoning Commission Secretary sign those Ordinances, they would be signed by the Zoning Administrator. That signing of the Ordinances is for those requests that are only heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission for a final decision. They're the ones that don't advance to this Committee or the County Board.
With that being said, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
What I'm looking for is direction. If there's any comments or directions to schedule the public hearing before the Plan Commission.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions about this? No response.
Chairman Marcum said this will go before the PZC then, correct?
Brian Radner said we’ll look to schedule the public hearing before the Plan Commission at the next possible meeting. We may be able to do it for May. I’m not sure if the dates will line up or not. If not, it will be June.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions on this?
No response.
| RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Harris, Ogalla, Weigel ABSENT: Traynere |
Chairman Marcum said this is the same thing as the previous item.
| RESULT: REFERRED W/O VOTE Next: 5/4/2021 6:30 PM TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission |
Steve Balich made a Motion to open the public hearing. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 6-0. Judy Ogalla was absent.
Chairman Marcum stated the public hearing is now open.
Chairman Marcum asked Owen Needham to give a rundown of the changes. Owen Needham said we clarified the IRC and IBC plan reviews.
We created a $100 plan review fee section for smaller structures.
There's some increase to commercial plan review fees because there's more to look at.
We clarified the square footage that will be used to identify the plan review fees. Judy Ogalla asked, is there anything that we can look at that you're discussing this from?
Chairman Marcum said Brian is pulling it up now.
Judy Ogalla said thank you so much.
Owen Needham said Brian, I think we’re on the fee schedule now. Brian Radner asked, do you have the specific page you would like me to pull up? Owen Needham said that’s not the right one, the fee schedule.
Brian Radner said I just have to get to that page. I’m scrolling down through it now.
Owen Needham said that’s not the right document.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz asked, can I make a comment regarding this issue of finding information in the attachments?
Chairman Marcum said I’m going to let Owen go and then we’ll come back to you, Julie.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said thank you. This should be it right?
The changes were creating a $100 plan review fee under the IRC. We will increase the plan review fees under the IBC, which is commercial and industrial structures.
There’s some clarifications on what is exactly used to determine the square footage.
There’s some exceptions to the fee schedule for some remodel and damage repair plan review fees of $50.
This is where there’s more clarification on what was used to determine the square footage for the fee schedule.
Then we added a section for remodel and damage repair price per square foot.
We reduced fees on some of these smaller permits, like for generators, small sheds, fireplace only, furnace and A/C. We reduced the fees from $100 to $50 for those.
I added a designated landmarks flat rate fee of $100. The Historical Preservation was looking for a reduced fee of $0 or $50 if the Board would be inclined to do that.
That’s pretty much the changes to the fee schedule.
Chairman Marcum said I will remind everybody this is for the fee schedule, so let’s kind of keep our comments focused on that before we get to the other stuff.
Steve Balich said I think the fees seem appropriate. We’re cutting it down and I like what I’m seeing. I think my problem will be on the next section. So far, I like what I’m seeing and I think you’re doing a good job on it.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I just wanted to comment about when you’re measuring the size of the room for the Permit fees. It says here that you’re measuring the exterior walls and I’m wondering why you would do that. Sometimes these living areas are within those exterior walls. That’s my concern, inflating the size of the room because you’re using a measurement based on the exterior walls. My concern is that we would be overcharging, because the actual square footage of the area is smaller than that. Am I misunderstanding this?
Owen Needham said exterior dimensions will take into consideration the actual construction portion of the structure. It gets harder to determine the square footage inside. I believe even in real estate listings, they use exterior wall dimensions. I can look into that if you’d like.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said yes, I would appreciate that. Is this just for new construction? In an existing structure, that’s clearly marked, you have the dimensions. So, is this only for new construction?
Owen Needham said the fee schedule is set up for everything, remodels as well. If it’s just a remodel of the kitchen, we wouldn’t take the exterior dimensions of the house, we would just take the dimensions of the kitchen.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said so we can just assume then that you’re not using any exterior dimensions.
Owen Needham said I would ask the applicant what’s the square footage of the area that you’re remodeling.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz asked, so the applicant provides that information?
Owen Needham said the applicant would say we’re remodeling the kitchen and it’s 15 x 20 or something like that.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said for a remodel, the applicant provides the square footage. For new construction, we can assume that it would include the exterior walls because it’s difficult to define what the actual room is. Is that correct?
Owen Needham said on new construction we figure out the square footage using exterior dimensions of the building.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz asked, do you think that we need to define that? Is that making it too complicated? I’m thinking if I’m a homeowner in Will County and I’m renovating my kitchen, initially they might say that’s going to be more square footage than I actually have. Should we be more specific with the language?
Owen Needham said I don’t believe that it’s ever been an issue. Let me remind you that one of the exceptions in the plan review is the remodel plan review fees have a flat rate of $50. So, I’m decreasing the plan review on the remodel permits to encourage people to get permits. The plan review fee would not be affected at all. That is a decrease from a several hundred dollar permit to about a hundred or two hundred dollar permit fee.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said so they naturally would fall in the remodel plan fee schedule and not this plan.
Owen Needham said everything is addressed in this fee schedule, including remodels.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I appreciate that decrease in the remodel permit fees so that addresses my concerns. Thank you.
Judy Ogalla said I know that you mentioned they’re looking for a reduce $0 to $50 permit fee for designated landmarks. Currently it is stated that its $100 flat rate fee, is that correct?
Owen Needham said they are looking at $0 to $50. I put it in at $100 to start, but I wanted to get some feedback.
Judy Ogalla asked, what work on your end is required for this permit for the designated landmark?
Owen Needham said it’s the same as the remodel permit. On a standard remodel, you have the $50 plan review fee and then it would be based on the cost of construction. That could get the remodel fee to $100 or $200 fee. So, the flat rate fee for landmarks would be $100, so it would roughly be cut in half.
Judy Ogalla said but a designated landmark could possibly be no construction whatsoever required. I think it’s something that we should consider having that be the $50 flat rate because there could be nothing else required for it. I would make a motion that we change that flat rate fee to $50 if anyone else would be in support of that.
Steve Balich said I’ll second that motion.
Chairman Marcum said this is for comments. What we’re going to do for procedural is to take all the comments that were made and come back next time with the updates. That way everybody has time to see everything.
Judy Ogalla said ok, perfect. I have another question. I see here, it’s on page 3 of 7 in the IRC Code, decks, pergolas and roofs went from $7 per square foot to $10. Other accessory buildings went from $7 to $20. Let’s say if somebody is putting up a shed, what is the typical size of a shed? Like 10 x 12 or something? I don’t know.
Owen Needham said 12 x 16, 10 x 10, or 10 x 12. Remember that sheds are covered under the $50 flat rate fee.
Judy Ogalla said oh, okay.
Owen Needham said so, that’s not going to apply to that. Item # 7 is permits for minor work including but not limited to the following, one of them is sheds less than 200 square feet. So, that’s the $50 flat rate fee. Those sheds only cost $3000 or $4000. I tried to identify projects that were less than $10,000 and put them in the flat rate fee, $50 section.
Judy Ogalla asked, what would be considered an accessory building? A garage? Owen Needham said detached garages, pole barns, etc.
Judy Ogalla said that could be a pretty significant cost there. Why did we raise it from $7 all the way to $20?
Owen Needham said I was just trying to get to the cost of construction of the actual buildings that are being put up.
Judy Ogalla said the cost of putting up a pole barn could be pretty significant. What’s the size of the typical pole barn that goes up? I live on a farm so I don’t know if we’re typical because we have such big equipment. So, what’s the size of a typical pole barn and what would the cost be?
Brian Radner said I do want to point out that the Ag Exemption still applies to anything that’s constructed for agricultural purposes. That means that there is no play review fee or permit fee for the building itself.
Judy Ogalla said that I know, I’m just asking for somebody who’s not Ag Exempt.
Owen Needham said I did a comparison. In the last meeting, I had an example if we did a 2,400 square foot pole barn the current fee schedule would have been $384. The new fee schedule would be $584. So, that is where the increases were in the new Ordinance. What I was getting at was we use the higher fee if their cost of construction was higher. So, people were already paying this fee, it’s just the applicants who put down a lesser cost who were getting away without paying the $584 for the 2,400 square foot pole barn. I was trying to level the playing field.
Judy Ogalla said for me, I don’t think that anything should be based on a cost of construction. To me, it should be based on what work your or anybody else that goes out to do inspections. What does that cost to do that work? I know if you go out for a pole barn, depending on if they’re doing concrete, plumbing, electricity or not, you’re probably going out 3 times. Do you do maybe 3 visits during that period?
Owen Needham said a pole barn would be post hole, potentially a rough, and a final if there’s no interior finishes, then maybe we’d be going out as little as 2 times.
Judy Ogalla asked, so they’re not paying a cost of construction on this then? Owen Needham said the cost of construction is factored into the permit fee, yes.
Judy Ogalla asked the cost of construction is factored into the permit fee, which would be $584?
Owen Needham said the $584 would be a $200 plan review and $384 for cost of construction. I would be open to making the price per square foot at $15 or something, or if you wanted to do $10. It’s whatever the Board wants to do. We could be a little bit more conservative on getting the cost of construction for the pole barn.
Judy Ogalla said for myself, I would be supportive of that going down to maybe $10. You’re going up a bit from $7. When was the last time you changed this permit fee?
Owen Needham said this was 2001.
Judy Ogalla said so there’s an increase in our costs during that time. I would be supportive of $10 there. Then also for the pergolas and roofs above patios, so that’s if I add something to my deck. It’s $10. What is the typical size for that and what is the cost comparisons there?
Owen Needham said most of those permits there are going to be the standard, minimum $100.
Judy Ogalla asked, why do you say that?
Owen Needham said because they’re usually a smaller structure, the 200 or 300 square foot deck.
Judy Ogalla said so if the deck is a bit larger it would cost more. Is there more work really if it is a bit larger than that or is it just nearly the same? Do you go out and look at everything or are you just simply checking the main points? What is it that you’re doing on your inspection there?
Owen Needham said structures are only as strong as their weakest points. We do have to look at everything.
Judy Ogalla said I’m just asking. So for me, I would like the accessory building to be at $10, if that’s possible. Then decks and pergolas, in my mind, that’s kind of a similar thing making sure the thing doesn’t blow over. I guess I’m happy with the $10 there since we haven’t raised these fees since 2001. That’s the questions that I had. Thank you.
Steve Balich said going on what Judy just said, I see a little bit of a problem in the fact that everybody pays taxes for their property. When we look at this stuff and say we want to recoup the cost of this, but at the same time part of your tax money is already going to pay for this stuff. Now, when you look at the next part of this, the most important part of it, if somebody wants to do a remodel to their kitchen, they can remodel it with real nice stuff that costs a lot of money. Or, remodel it with just whatever the Code says. If they do it with the nicer stuff that means that they’re going to be penalized with the higher cost. Therefore, the County is kind of pushing the idea that you need to do it with inferior materials. If I was going to redo my kitchen, I would have extra heavy duty insulation. Instead of using 2 x 4’s, I would probably use the next size up. Depending on the size, I might even go to beams that are 6” x 12”. So, that would cost me a boat load of money because of the construction cost. To me, since we’re already paying taxes through our property tax, and now we’re saying we just want to recoup the money to pay for stuff because government is not supposed to be making a profit off of people, I don’t understand why everybody is charging more money for permits when somebody does something nicer or better. I think that’s a handicap to nicer and better things as opposed to someone who says I’m not going to spend that kind of money for a permit so I’m just going to put in whatever is code. I’m dead against the idea of basing everything on cost. I think we really need to get out of the box and be the first people to say let’s do this by what it actually costs us. Again, we’re getting tax money already from the taxpayers. I don’t know how the rest of the group thinks about this but I hope they would agree with me that we need to base everything just by the actual cost, not the cost of the project.
Owen Needham said the remodel and damage repair permits were addressed in the Ordinance just for that reason. It was stated that the estimated cost of construction for those permits shall only include the components that would have required a Building Permit. It lists flooring, cabinets, countertops, and trim would not be included in the cost of construction. That is how we got our remodel permits down from $300 or $400 to the $100 to $200.
Steve Balich said I get that part. I used the word remodel and maybe I should have said addition, like an addition on my house. If I was to put an addition on it, then I would have to pay for the cost of the project, right?
Owen Needham said correct.
Steve Balich said I used the wrong analogy when I said the word remodel. What I’m trying to get at is when something costs more, we have to pay more in fees. The reality of it is that we should only be charged for what the bare minimum would be. So, if the bare minimum cost of inspecting all of this stuff and the paperwork associated with the inspections is “x” amount of dollars, we shouldn’t be charging more just because somebody is doing something better. I used the wrong analogy about the remodeling. I’m sorry. Everything in my mind rolls together because I’m not in your department. I do understand that additions shouldn’t charge and cost more in cost because you have better material. That’s just how I feel about it.
Owen Needham said I understand exactly what you’re saying and I will put together a fee schedule for whatever the Committee wants me to do.
Chairman Marcum said Steve, we have your comment on the list. Again, we will making final decisions on all the comments and recommendations made during public hearing.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said I just want to say that I support Judy and Steve’s recommendation that the fees for new construction should not be based on the cost of construction because of the lack of control with the pricing. That penalizes everybody involved including the homeowner and the businesses that are trying to provide the services. It’s an active struggle out there right now. If a homeowner decides to put in more expensive materials in the same space and they have to pay more, I don’t think that’s fair. It doesn’t cost more money to inspect or to look at a slab of granite than it does a slab of vinyl. So, the cost of construction is prohibitive to so many people and I don’t support that. I think we need to have a flat fee, not based on the cost of construction. I do know that there’s also a letter to be read from a constituent regarding this issue. So, I’d like to see if it could be read at this time rather than at the end of the meeting that would be helpful. One other thing that I wanted to ask. On the table 158, under item #1, it lists decks, pergolas and roofs and it says $10 per square feet. You guys touch on that previously for a little bit. Everybody wants a deck at the back of the house. It’s a very active and very important living space for most people. When you have a slightly bigger house, or a 3 or 4 bedroom house, the decks can be much larger. That’s really expensive to charge $10/square feet. If you scroll down to #7, where you have the flat rate fee of $50, it’s for permits for minor working including but not limited to the following, can we move that fee for the decks and the pergolas down to that section? That way it will be a little more reasonable for our homeowners. It’s a very similar situation when you’re coming out and looking at a deck. Under item #7, you have sheds under 200 square feet or less. You have moving, raising, shoring or underpinning of existing foundations. A deck is quite often an existing foundation. So, is it possible to move that item down to #7 with a flat rate fee? I’d like to know if that’s possible and also have that letter read from one of our constituents.
Chairman Marcum said we’re getting through the hands first, then we’re going to read that letter and ask for public comment.
Judy Ogalla said I know the cost of lumber has gone up significantly. So, I don’t support the cost of construction for the basis of these different projects. If somebody is going to build something versus two years ago, they’d be paying more for building it because the cost of lumber and building materials have gone up significantly. I’m hoping it’s only a transitional thing right now during this pandemic, which is why I think these costs have gone up. I understand you were using cost of construction as a basis, but I think we should base it on the type of structure that you’re building and the amount of time that you guys go out for inspections. If I built a 1,500 square foot house three years ago when the cost of lumber was less versus building that now, my permit fee would be much higher because of that. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be based on the cost of construction. It should be based on the cost of the labor required of our inspectors. That is what I would like us to see. You guys can probably figure out how we come to that decision. I think that would be fairer in my mind. I would like us to discuss that. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said it is on our list for next month to discuss.
Tom Weigel said when you’re talking about a cost of construction for these projects, how long have we been doing that? Is that standard for the past twenty years, or is this something new that we’re trying to put in?
Owen Needham said I’ve been here since 1999 and it’s always been that way. Tom Weigel said ok, that’s all I had.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody on the phone want to speak on our building fees before we get to the email that was sent in?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said if you’re a member of the public and you want to speak on the fee schedule, now would be the time to do that.
No response.
Chairman Marcum said as was indicated, we did receive an email so I’m going to have Brian read that for the public hearing.
Brian Radner said we do have an email here. It says “To the Land Use Board, My name is Jeremy Busch, I’m a resident of Will County and owner of a construction company. I oppose the permit rate change for several reasons. 1, it’s my opinion that the local government does need to know how much money a resident is spending on their construction costs. This should be private and resident or contractor should not have to share how much they are paying or how much they are charging. 2, the larger and more expensive construction jobs could detour residents or contractors from doing larger scale projects, because costs of permits will be much higher. 3, construction prices change as the need for work and materials change. Right now construction costs for material is higher than I have ever seen before. Lumber is up almost 300 percent higher than it was a year ago. This obviously effects the price of the job to a resident and a contractor and unfortunately neither party has any control over those costs. To base the permit cost off of the cost of construction would penalize both parties in this case. Lumber prices go up, cost of the job goes up, permit prices go up, resident may decide to with draw from the work and then contractor is out of work for that scenario. Please consider all parties involved when deciding to move forward with this idea. I’m sure the board can figure a flat rate price for permits, so that all parties feel ok with what they are paying for permits. Local governments should not be getting “rich” off of permit costs. Tax payer dollars already help these departments accordingly. Let’s be fair to all parties involved and keep permit fees affordable and not moving based on costs. Thank you for your consideration. Jeremy Busch”
Chairman Marcum said I’m going to ask one last time if anybody has anything on this.
No response.
BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE UPDATE:
Owen Needham said we were proposing to adopt the 2018 International Codes and the 2017 National Electric Code.
We did some amendments to our Ordinance allowing 12 children in a dwelling unit for daycare, which is up from 5.
In live/work units, I know there was some discussion about that. The draft I put in for the 15%, and max it at the 450 square feet. It was 10% without a max of the dwelling unit size.
I know that sprinklers were a big issue and the Committee kept the sprinklers out of the Building Ordinance. I know that we were going to have some discussions about that.
The group peer home, we increased it from 5 to 6 to match the Zoning Ordinance. There’s a big Ordinance there and there’s a lot to go through.
I’d like to see if anybody has any questions about the Ordinance.
Chairman Marcum said ok, we’ll go through comments. I think the public has been waiting extremely patiently. So, we’re going to do members of the public before Board Members. We have someone who wishes to speak here at the Board Room, so you can go ahead and come down. So you know, anyone from the public who wishes to speak, all we need you to say is your name.
Adam Glens introduced himself. I am a Will County resident. I live in unincorporated Will County right now and I’m building a house in unincorporated Will County. I started the permit process last year. As soon as I started the permit process, I was sent an email by the Fire Marshall saying that sprinklers are required in the new home that I’m building. I contacted the Building Department when I first began the process and asked them about that. They told me that no, the Will County Building Department does not require them. That’s how I responded to James Brown. He said that the information I was given was wrong. He said sprinklers are required per the New Lenox Fire Protection District’s Code. I have an email chain from him. I responded to him citing the Will County Building Department’s Code. Again, he stated that I was wrong and that I would be required to install sprinklers. So, I then began to get some estimates. In the process of getting estimates, I received a certified letter from an attorney representing the New Lenox Fire Protection District. Basically, the letter regurgitated my statement to the Fire Protection District and then said that my assertions were incorrect and that residential sprinklers were required per 903.2 of the Fire Protection District’s Code. This Code doesn’t show up anywhere in the Will County Building Department’s Code. The Will County Building Department is the one who issues the Permit and for some reason the Fire Protection District is able to enforce a Code on me. Furthermore, it says that they will fine me up to $500 to $1,000 plus all legal costs per day if I don’t put them in. First I’m thinking well, that won’t be too bad so I’ll go ahead and do the sprinklers. So, I get quotes for it. Now, I’m not building a gigantic house. I have my plans with me and right on them, it’s only a 2,900 square foot house. Owen can probably attest to these plans already being submitted. I have 2 estimates written and the third one is verbal. The first one was for $21,000. The second one was for $29,000. The third one was verbal for $26,000. That’s an insane cost in my opinion. That is nearly 10% of the cost to construct the home. I understand where they’re coming from, it just doesn’t seem necessary in a 2,900 square foot ranch home where you already have egress windows in every occupied space. So, there’s a way for people to get out of the house immediately. We have requirements for hardwired smoke detection. So when the alarms go off, the people can get out of the home right through the egress windows that are required by Code. There’s no reason to sprinkle the home. Furthermore, it can actually make your insurance costs go up because an accidental discharge of that system will cause mass amounts of damage to your home. The insurance companies understand that and know it and charge accordingly. So, the building costs increase. Insurance costs increase. Basically, it’s making it to the point where I can’t afford the home. I’m sure that some sprinkler people will try and tell you that it only costs $5,000 or $3,000. That’s a system where you have municipal water supply. Pretty much everybody in unincorporated New Lenox Township is on a well and that’s why these systems cost so much. You have to have storage tanks. You have to have yearly inspections. You have to have pumps and all of that. The quotes are right here, $21,000 and $29,000. That’s a substantial cost. I have looked through the proposed Ordinance. It’s on page 125, #7 that specifically tries to remove the ability to enforce that. Then on page 241, it goes into it in a little more detail. My concern is that the Board here needs to do something to make sure that the New Lenox Fire Protection District can’t supersede them, can’t go around them, and can’t play these games anymore. The Village of New Lenox, if you actually live in New Lenox proper, has amended their Building Ordinance and the New Lenox Fire Protection District is not trying to go around them. So, whatever they did is working and I would suggest to this Board that they do the same and make sure whatever they wrote into their Code they write into this Code to make sure that these costs do not get put onto the residents. With that, I thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you very much for your comment. I know that there are other people signed on. I know Mr. Brown from the New Lenox Fire Protection District is on. If you want to go ahead.
James Brown from the New Lenox Fire Protection District said one thing that I will say is that the New Lenox Fire Protection District passed the sprinkler Ordinance a little over a year ago. We have it in our Code, which in the unincorporated areas, we are the fire authority. We did pass this Code through our Board of Trustee’s. I do commend the County for wanting to go ahead and update to the 2018 Code. Under our Code, we do require residential sprinklers. We had some discussions with Staff in our previous days and weeks. I encourage the members to delay voting on this until that language is cleared up. That’s all I have to say at this time. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. Does anyone else from the public want to speak on the sprinklers?
William Hincks introduced himself. I’m the Vice President at the Sprinkler Fitters Union 281. We cover basically all of northern Illinois. There’s a couple of issues that I have on this entire topic. I reviewed the meeting minutes from January 12, 2021 when this issue was discussed. In those meeting minutes, there was a litany of falsehoods that were talked about as factual information. When that conversation occurred, it was rather unfortunate because people were throwing a lot of things around out there that just are not true. Somebody mentioned about having to put water tanks in an attic. Never would that happen, period. It doesn’t exist. It’s a falsehood that’s being perpetrated just to make it seem like sprinklers are unreasonable. To the issue with this Code, I think a lot of this comes from a failure of communication. The gentleman that just spoke indicated that he initially got his Permit, there was nothing mentioned about having to get fire sprinklers. Then all of a sudden he’s stuck there and now he’s saying that the Fire Department says he does need them. That’s a real concern there, the level of communication that’s occurring. Additionally, with the gentleman who had just spoke, we’ve heard some of those stories out there where they do get those kind of quotes where they’re extremely high like that. I would encourage the Board that if they do have instances like this where somebody is getting quotes that seem to be in a high and unreasonable range, we are always here to reach out and assist to see if somebody is giving them bad numbers or some bad information. That does happen sometimes out there. There’s unscrupulous contractors that try to take advantage in every industry. That could be the situation that’s occurring there. Then there’s a lot of other things that could be considered. This isn’t something that happens in a 5 minute brief little speech. There’s things to consider in a city or just in municipalities. If you have sprinkler requirements, you could decrease the size of your underground mains. You could spread out the distances between fire hydrants. Insurance prices do not go up, in fact they go down. The ISO rating for your community actually goes down when there’s fire sprinklers. Beyond that, if you have flood plains, you don’t get the full reimbursement if you don’t adopt the Code in its entirety. So, there’s a lot of information to be considered. I’m putting together some folders for everybody, because there’s been some gross misrepresentations about fire sprinklers and what they mean for the community. Unfortunately, poor communication leads to some situations like this with this gentleman and his home. If that gentleman is available, I encourage him to reach out. In our training center here, our facility, we have over 70 contractors and I’m sure we can find somebody that can get you a more reasonable price than what you have in your hands. That’s all I have. I hope this gets delayed, because you need to make decisions on facts and not opinion and rumors. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you for your comment. I will just remind everybody that we’re not going to approve this today. This is just a public hearing. We’re going to take everything that we get from the public and discuss it next month. Does anybody else from the public want to speak on sprinklers? If anyone else wants to speak, you should be able to unmute yourselves.
No response.
Steve Balich said I was on that Committee back in 2012 or whatever it was. The problem was that the cost of the sprinklers were way too high for most people to do. At the time, they wanted to enforce putting sprinklers in existing homes and it just wasn’t viable. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t pull it out of the air. We were told that if you weren’t close enough to a fire hydrant, you would have to have a storage tank in your attic. If that gentleman has to pay $10,000 for sprinklers, it might be cheaper to put cinder block walls that can’t catch on fire and not get any sprinklers. The Illinois Fire Code says that you have to have sprinklers. So, the determination that we had on that Committee was that if the Fire Departments want to enforce their own rules, God bless them, but the County’s going to give Occupancy Permits even though they don’t have the sprinklers. That is where we left it. We never revisited it again, so I would imagine that it’s still the case in Will County that if the Fire Department says you have to have a sprinkler and they want to take you to court, that’s up to them. The County is supposed to be giving the Occupancy Permit without the sprinklers there. It’s up to the Fire Department to enforce it themselves. We didn’t want to get involved with it because of the excessive costs. As far as insurance, you’re saying the ISO but nobody ever says how much the actual ISO cost goes down. Will it go down $100 per year? $200 per year? $50 per year? Nobody knows. That guy that just talked, if he did it for $10,000, how many years would he have to save with his insurance premium from ISO going down if it’s $200 per year or $300 per year. If I was going to build a new home, I would build a home out of stuff that doesn’t catch on fire, take it to court and fight getting those sprinklers. I would say my home won’t burn, why do I have to get them? Then there’s some other things that go on, and it’s not all Fire Departments but I know of some where things have happened, but the Fire Departments are part owners or they work for the sprinkler companies and they push those things. I see the value in sprinklers, so I’m not trying to say that they suck. Sprinklers do have a value. I know one case where a guy was told that unless they use a sprinkler company that the Fire Department recommended, they wouldn’t get approved. That isn’t all of them but I’m sure that’s happening because I know of one case where it happened. I’m just frustrated that they’re going to come in and say that the County should enforce their laws. The County already agreed in that meeting and we had a lot of angry firemen. They can enforce their own Codes. If that’s a law, which it is, let the Fire Department take the people to court. Let the people get mad at the Fire Department, not at the County. That’s all I have to say for right now.
Chairman Marcum said thanks Steve.
Judy Ogalla said I mostly forgot what I was going to say. I know that Julie wanted to have it in the comments moving the review of the decks and pergolas to the $50 flat fees. So, just so we have that in our notes. I remember the fire sprinkler conversation. There are areas in unincorporated Will County where you are on a well. I don’t know how that impacts if you have a sprinkler and how your well would pump enough water. We need to have a review of that again because it’s unfair to this guy who’s trying to build his house and now he got this thrown at him from the Fire Department. I think we really need to look at that before we move forward. We need to find a resolution for this man who’s trying to build his house. That’s all for now. Thank you.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said Mr. Brown from the Fire District is encouraging the Board to wait until the language is cleared up. I’m wondering, what does cleared up mean? They must have an understanding of what they intend to do. I think it would be important if he could give us that information rather than just wait until it’s cleaned up. That’s a difficult situation. We have a homeowner here, Mr. Glens, who is receiving legal notices and his house is under construction. What is he supposed to do? He’s indicated the financial burden and I don’t know that we’ve really given him any direction. Where are we at? What is he supposed to do right now?
Chairman Marcum said I don’t really want us to get bogged down with an individual case since we’re talking about a broader topic. I think it’s more appropriate for us to stick to a broad topic instead of our public hearing being about a single case. If the Committee wants, we can have Mr. Guzman explain what the State’s Attorney’s view is on the matter. Again, I think it would be more appropriate for us to stay broad as far as the Building Code and not drag a single case through this.
Matt Guzman from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said I had a chance to briefly look at this information. I agree with you that it would be best not to get bogged down about this specific issue with this specific gentleman. I think that there needs to be more discussion on this. I’ll leave it at that right now but at this point, I’d rather not go into specific detail on an individual case.
Chairman Marcum said again, we’re not approving anything today so this will be a discussion again next month since it was part of our public hearing. We will be going through this again next month. Everybody will again be invited to our meetings and you will have the opportunity to speak to us again. Is there anybody else that has anything about sprinklers in general?
Judy Ogalla said regarding the section that we have written in the Code, it says “it is the express intent of this Code that sprinkler requirements of the 2018 IRC Section R313 not be adopted and any structure allowed to be built under the 2018 IRC shall not be required to have sprinklers. Please check with State agencies and local Fire Districts.” That is not one specific case, but it does impact any resident. I would assume, and I don’t know, I would like our Staff to have all Fire Districts adopt that language. As a Fire Department, you would want to have every level of fire protection. I think when we had our conversation back in the day, we felt that individual homes not be required to do that. I think we really need to have a robust conversation about this and we should look at how are we going to resolve this in the immediate future for this gentleman so that he can move forward? Right now, he is in a standstill as to what he should do with his home. So, that is an issue that we really need to address I think as soon as possible. That’s what I have to say about that comment. Thank you.
Steve Balich said to address Judy’s comment, Judy is right, we need to look at it again. The bottom line is, as of right now, we said that we recognize that the State Fire Marshall said it is a law that they have to have the sprinklers. The County’s position at the time, which I don’t think has ever been changed, was that we don’t agree with the State Fire Marshall. So, if the Fire Department wants to enforce the law, they can do it themselves, we’re not going to be part of it. So, we’re taking ourselves out of the picture and saying as far as we’re concerned, that gentleman can get an Occupancy Permit. But now, he can get sued by the Fire Districts. The Fire District is going to enforce whatever they want, not us. We’re saying we’re staying out of it because we don’t agree with it. That’s the position that we took. All those Fire Chief’s and Deputy Fire Chief’s that were in that meeting, they didn’t want to be the ones to take people to court and enforce it. They were trying to force the County to do their work. That’s where the big argument came in at. Mr. Moustis asked if they agreed with one thing or another thing and they couldn’t all agree at the time on any one standard. So, there’s differences of opinions from Fire Districts. The State Fire Marshall, which makes the law for the whole State supposedly, says you have to have them. We don’t have to have any Code, we know that already, right? So, we can exempt ourselves. We said forget about it and let the Fire Departments do it. Why do we have to be the bad guy? That’s why you don’t have a clear statement saying that. We’re just saying we’re out of it, let them do it. If we want to get into it then we have to create our own rules. As of right now, that’s why it’s so obscure, because we said let them do it themselves.
Chairman Marcum said ok, thanks Steve. Anybody else on sprinklers? Anybody from the public? Any Board Members?
Judy Ogalla said I would like clarification from Land Use, and they may not have that all today. If the Village of New Lenox was able to put something in their Ordinances that they did not require sprinklers, why can’t the County? Why doesn’t the Village have that requirement with the Fire Protection District and unincorporated does? We need to get that cleared up. If you guys know that, I’d like to know that today. If not, we can discuss that next month.
Chairman Marcum said I don’t know if anybody has an answer to that right now. I think that’s a good thing that we should find out. We’ll hopefully have an answer next month. Anybody else have any comments?
Tammy Glens said I would like to speak. My husband, Adam, is the gentleman who was speaking. I would like to briefly make 2 comments. One, he actually has correspondence with him today that we did verify with Robin Ellis, who is with the Village of New Lenox, that when they adopted the 2018 Building Code within the last year or two that they did make changes to not require sprinklers in the Village of New Lenox. We do have that documentation because we went to them to ask questions as to why this would potentially be enforced on us in unincorporated New Lenox. Secondly, I appreciate the robust discussion and I appreciate that this is not being voted on today. I would like to just say in regards to the ambiguity of people not being able to decide whether or not the County should enforce it or the Fire Protection District should enforce it, I appreciate that but at the end of the day, this is really doing a disservice to the residents and builders that are looking to build homes in Will County. The cost associated with this, either from putting in a sprinkler system in, or having to stare down legal fees means that people will not be building houses in Will County. Not everyone has a ridiculous amount of money. I just wanted to point out that there are economic impacts, not just from my family but from other people in the community. I think this really needs to have a discussion to discuss the ambiguity and have a decision going forward for the residents. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Marcum said thank you for your comments. Anything else?
William Hincks said I just want to follow up. I am putting together folders for everybody on this issue. It will include a whole host of information surrounding this topic as well as a couple of Case Laws that do show the Fire Protection District’s having the authority to enforce their Codes. One of them is Wauconda Fire vs. Stonewall Orchards. I will be putting this together for everybody. I look forward to getting you the information. That’s it. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said thank you. For everybody else, since it will be going to all Committee Members, it will be entered into public record. So, it will be available to the public to see the information that we receive. Does anybody else have anything on Building Ordinances? I know that sprinklers were the big one. Does anybody have anything else under Building Ordinances at all?
Judy Ogalla made a motion to close the public hearing. Amanda Koch seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Traynere was absent for the Roll Call Vote.
Chairman Marcum said everything will be up next month for a vote. We have notes on everything that was mentioned during the public comment so we can discuss it for decision next month.
| RESULT: NO ACTION
TO: Will County Board |
1. Discussion: Exotic Animals Veterinary Services, Care and Boarding (Colin Duesing)
Colin Duesing said we're talking about exotic animals, veterinary services, care, and boarding.
We're just going to highlight what the Zoning Ordinance says, and then ask a series of questions. If you have your Memo with you, you can follow along and ask questions as your see appropriate.
First, what Districts are these uses allowed in? They are currently allowed in the A-1, A-2, E-1, and E-2 as Special Uses. Then as Permitted Uses in the C-2, C-3, C-4, and all of the Industrial Districts. They are Permitted Uses and they do not need further County Board approval.
For exotic animals itself, they are only allowed in the A-1 Zoning District and it’s only allowed as a Special Use. It is not permitted in any of the R Districts and C-1, C-5, and C-6. C-1 is the neighborhood commercial. C-5 is for business parks and C-6 is what we call the recreational Commercial Districts, which are your golf courses and your rod and gun clubs.
For setbacks, the underlying setbacks apply, with special exception to those in the A-1, A-2, E-1, and E-2 Districts where there is a Special Use Permit required. In those areas, you need to be at least 500 feet from any other Residentially Zoned property and 500 feet from any off-site dwelling unit. So, what does that look like? This little graphic shows that if you’re in the A-1 District, you still need to be 500 feet away from the R-1 District, you need to be 500 feet from the house in the A-1 District, and you need to be 500 feet away from the E-1 District. All structures for veterinary care or boarding and other care need to be entirely in that building envelope.
What does it mean to be a care and boarding use? 6 or more animals is considered a boarding use, so for example a kennel. Residentially, you could have 5 animals, you could have your 2 cats and 3 dog’s situation.
For this care boarding, they’re only permitted in those A’s and E’s and select C’s and I’s. Those are where they’re permitted.
It specifically mentions companion animals, which are your typical pet animals, and excludes exotic animals.
For veterinary services, again, a couple quick definitions. The pet and veterinary clinics, the dog and cat hospitals, and the animal hospitals.
How does this relate to home occupations? The veterinary clinics, animal hospitals, and kennels are strictly prohibited as home occupations. Even if you wanted to, they’re not allowed in the R Districts or any other home use.
We’ll stop there at the moment and make sure we have answered all the questions on what the current Code calls for.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions on the current Code?
Judy Ogalla said I do have something, just clarification. Exotic animals makes a lot of sense to me that it could be allowed in A-1 as a Special Use. Animal care, boarding, and vet clinics are allowed by Permit in A-1, A-2, E-1, and R-1, I agree with that. Care and boarding, 6 or more animals, that does not apply to somebody who has their own pets. That’s just if they’re caring for and boarding other people’s animals, correct?
Colin Duesing said Brian or Janine will need to answer that question.
Janine Farrell said the verbiage is “the keeping of 6 or more companion animals”. We do have a limit of how many personal pets people can have in their house, meaning dogs and cats and the like. Anything beyond that is considered that animal care and boarding use.
Judy Ogalla asked, anything beyond 6 animals?
Janine Farrell said dogs and cats, companion animals. Not including farm animals, horses, or things like that.
Judy Ogalla asked, what were those Zoning Districts again that it applied to? Colin Duesing asked, for a kennel?
Judy Ogalla said for care and boarding. Let’s say I live in unincorporated Will
County and I’m not on a farm. I have a total of 8 pets, companion animals. Where is that allowed and where is that not allowed?
Colin Duesing said as a permitted use that would only be allowed in the Commercial and Industrial Districts. You would need a Special Use Permit in the A’s and E’s. It would not be permitted at all in the R’s. The limit of the number of pets is designed to keep down hoarding.
Judy Ogalla asked, did you say keep down hoarding?
Colin Duesing said yes, hoarding of animals.
Judy Ogalla said it’s not allowed in the R’s. Tell me what those are again, because I don’t remember them all.
Colin Duesing said I don’t have them off the top of my head, Brian or Janine or Lisa or Margie, I don’t have those?
Janine Farrell said E-2 basically goes down to 2.4 acres. Anything less than that in acreage, you’re looking at Residential Zoning Districts, so the “R” Districts.
Judy Ogalla said ok. If you’re in a rural subdivision, it’s possible that you have other animals that might come up. I think it’s really something to put as a standard. If somebody has a neighbor that has these strays that show up and end up staying, which they might, is probably not a problem unless they get reported. Is that correct? Unless you report it, you’re never going to know how many animals somebody has.
Colin Duesing said correct. We have no communication with the animal control regarding the number of animals that are licensed in the household.
Judy Ogalla asked, do we allow E-1 and E-2 to have more animals since those are larger parcels?
Colin Duesing said they are allowed, but with a Special Use Permit. Judy Ogalla asked, what is a Special Use Permit?
Colin Duesing said a zoning action.
Judy Ogalla asked, what’s the cost for that?
Janine Farrell said for a Special Use Permit, this is going to differ. We have different fees for Residential or Commercial Uses. For a Commercial Use, it’s $2,500, up to 5 acres. Something like animal care would be a veterinarian clinic that’s a commercial use. For Residential and Agricultural, it’s $675 for less than an acre. To Colin’s point, I think in future consideration of things, the fee schedule might have to be taken into account for those uses and the different fees, perhaps.
Judy Ogalla said I think those fees are kind of significant. $675 for less than an acre is just a lot. I know that we’re preventing people from hoarding and I get that’s what the purpose of this is. I’m just putting this through my mind right now. I’ll let others talk. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anyone have any other questions about the current Code?
No response.
Colin Duesing said so now that we have all of our questions answered, we have more questions. We’re going to start off asking these questions in order to make sure that we get all of the ideas out there.
We’ll start with the basic. What, if any, of the Districts do we want to include as Permitted or Special Use for either veterinary services or care and boarding? Do we want to make any changes to those Districts?
Tom Weigel asked, is that just for exotic animals or for all animals? Colin Duesing said we’re starting generally.
No response.
Colin Duesing said, based on hearing nothing, I’m assuming that the current setup of having Special Use Permits for the A’s and the E’s are acceptable and as a Permitted Use by right in C-2, C-3, C-4, I-1, I-2, and I-3.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz asked, can I just make a comment? I want to share something with everyone. I’m just trying to understand the zoning here. In our neighborhood, we have a small strip mall that has a gas station and stores. There are houses immediately behind it with appropriate spacing, of course. The thing that I want to share is that this little strip mall has a restaurant, an insurance agency, and multiple other businesses. It also has pet grooming and a veterinarian. This veterinarian was our personal veterinarian for over 12 years and it really provides a great service for our community. It really is something that the neighborhood appreciates. Obviously, it’s done well. The neighbors don’t have any issues with privacy or anything like that. My point is, does our Code allow something like this? Or, what I’m hearing is that we would not allow that type of little development.
Colin Duesing said, in a commercial setting depending on the zoning, it is permitted by right. All that they would need would be the Building Permit. They would not need special County Board approval with a Special Use Permit if the property is zoned either C-1, C-3, or C-4.
County Board Member asked, C being like commercial?
Colin Duesing said yes. In Commercial District #2, Commercial District #3, and Commercial District #4, a veterinary service is permitted.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said ok, great. Thank you very much for clearing that up. Thank you.
Colin Duesing said so we’re not looking at changing or adding any additional Districts so we’ll go to the next question. What definitions or criteria, if any, need to change regarding veterinary services, care and boarding? Again, in general for the unincorporated portions of Will County.
Judy Ogalla said, we ask what Districts, if any, do we want to include as Permitted or Special Use. Permitted is only in A-1, no. Can you clarify that for me again?
Colin Duesing said if someone wanted to have a kennel, or if someone wanted to have veterinary services in the A-1, they would need a Special Use Permit from the County Board.
Judy Ogalla said A-1 needs Special Use. So that’s for a veterinary clinic or kennel, correct?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said ok, is that the only place that allows that?
Colin Duesing said it’s also allowed in the A-2, E-1, and E-2 Districts. The main reason is because these particular uses are considered commercial uses, not an agricultural use because we’re not raising livestock or crops.
Judy Ogalla said right, because we’re taking care of animals and stuff. Judy Ogalla said and that cost is $675? No, it’s more than that. It’s $2,500 if they want to put in a kennel?
Colin Duesing said presumably, I didn’t write down those numbers.
Judy Ogalla said I did. It says $2,500 up to 5 acres. A-2, E-1, and E-2 are all Special Use?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said so it’s $2,500. The cost of that is $2,500 and I would like to know why we have the cost of $2,500. What do we do for that? Do we go out and check these places out on a yearly basis? Why is the cost of that as high as it is? I would like that answered first, if possible.
Janine Farrell said yes, $2,500 would be the cost for the commercial use. I guess I could defer to Brian or David as to where or how this was established because that was before my time.
David Dubois said I don’t recall the exact date when we went through the process of revisiting it. When we revised the fee schedule the last time, we went through a very thorough process of analyzing all the costs associated with processing Zoning Cases. That included site visits, how many site visits, the mileage that would be incurred, the impact upon County resources, the cost of those resources, Staff time overhead, and everything that would go into the process. We came up with a cost for a Map Amendment, for a Special Use, and for a Variance. It was a singular cost because they’re all very similar depending on whether it’s residential or commercial. At that time, the Board decided that they wanted to distinguish between residential and commercial industrial. That’s why you have 2 different costs associated with it. The Board decided at that time what they would charge the industrial commercial and what they would charge for residential for these different types of zoning requests. It was all tied back into the one cost. So, the residential is actually a little bit less than cost recovery. I can’t tell you exactly what the commercial industrial is. Long winded answer, but there was an extensive process that we went through.
Judy Ogalla said once somebody gets this Permit, and they have a kennel for example, do you guys make visits every year to make sure that the kennel is kept clean? I know there’s boarding places out in the country because that’s where you can do it. Do we go out and make sure everything’s up to Code? Is that something that we do?
David Dubois said inspections will be based upon Permits for building, if there’s any Building Permits required. Once it’s filed with a C.O., there’s not additional inspection requirements on that. That’s the Permit process. If there’s a Zoning Case, the inspection may follow up only if it’s part of a condition, perhaps. Then there might be inspections that may be based on a complaint. One thing to keep in mind is that many sites and locations for these types of uses are licensed by the State of Illinois. So, it is actually the State that would do subsequent inspections. I don’t know the frequency or duration of those.
Judy Ogalla said so the State of Illinois would be handling a lot of that. Ok, that
makes sense to me. $2,500 seems like a lot to me if I wanted to do something like that, but that is the cost that you guys have looked at and determined was a fair cost. Is that what you’re telling me, David?
David Dubois said that cost was determined by the Board. We went through a process and developed a single cost for all kinds of Zoning Cases. It was the Board’s decision to separate out the residential and commercial industrial and set those prices based upon what they though was reasonable with the cost that we gave them.
Judy Ogalla said we don’t allow this in residential at all, do we? Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said we don’t allow this in residential so matter who would be doing it would have to be A-1, A-2, E-1, or E-2. Then the cost would be $2,500 for a Permit to build a kennel.
Colin Duesing said that is the Permit to get the permission to be able to build the kennel. It’s the zoning permission. The actual Building Permit is a completely different fee which we were discussing previously.
Judy Ogalla said so on top of that, you’d have the Building Permit fee. So, the process of getting the permission to build is $2,500. What do we do for that then?
Colin Duesing said that goes through the typical zoning process. The public hearing. Your introduction to it at the Committee here and then on to the County Board.
Judy Ogalla said ok. To me, that doesn’t seem like a lot for a vet or a kennel. For me myself, I know that there are a lot of people who like to have these rural kennels. You can take your animal to them and they have very nice places for the animal to run during the day when you’re on vacation or whatever. I’d like to hear what other members think if that $2,500 fee is too much or not. I would like to see it a little bit lower but I’d like to have comments.
Colin Duesing said that’s for Special Use Permits. That’s a completely different topic. I’d like to keep it strictly to the use itself, veterinary services, care and boarding.
Judy Ogalla said oh, ok. So not discuss the cost of the Special Use? Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said a Special Use Permit is $2,500.
David Dubois said any change of any fee structure would require an amendment to the fee schedule which is separate from the Zoning Ordinance.
Judy Ogalla said but we didn’t review the fee schedule for something like this yet. We’re not reviewing that right now, correct?
Colin Duesing said no, we’re just addressing the use and where is it appropriate.
Judy Ogalla said ok, I think I’m pretty happy with that. I’ll let people move on. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anyone else that they wanted to add for that? No response.
Colin Duesing said we’re done with the Districts so we’ll go back to the definitions and criteria. Is everyone happy with how we are handling what a kennel is and what veterinary services are. Do we need to make any changes to those definitions or criteria?
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any thoughts on that?
Judy Ogalla said I guess I do have one question and I don’t know if you know this answer. This specific thing that we’re doing here, have we compared what we’re doing and where we’re allowing it compared to counties next to us like Kankakee County or Grundy County?
Colin Duesing said no, we’re just at the very beginning stages. We’re saying what you, as the Will County Board, have an appetite for as far as changes.
Judy Ogalla said I would like to know what they do because sometimes I know we’re more restricted than other counties. I want us to be safe and make sure we have a safe process in place. If we could get that information, that would be helpful. Thank you.
Colin Duesing said ok.
Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else?
Colin Duesing said we will move onto the next section. How should exotic animals be included in these uses of veterinary service and care and boarding?
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any thoughts?
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz asked, Colin can you define what an exotic animal is?
Colin Duesing said an exotic animal is not livestock and it is not a pet. That is basically how we define it. Yes, we have an extensive definition identifying what exotic animals are such as elephants, hippos, lions, tigers, bears, etc. We have a long list of what is an exotic animal. To summarize, it’s not livestock and it’s not a pet.
Chairman Marcum said the reason this came up was from the raccoons, possums, and such. Is that correct, Colin?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Chairman Marcum said that’s what is driving this.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said so it’s like wildlife.
Chairman Marcum said yes.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said thank you.
Judy Ogalla said so if we’re talking wild animals, I think somebody in an A-2 would be a large enough parcel because it would be 5 acres or so. I think that would be appropriate because that are people out in the country who are finding exotic animals like raccoons and such. You don’t know what to do with them. If we had a local place that I could say hey, I have 3 raccoon babies and I don’t know what to do with them because their mother got hit on the road. It would be nice having someone locally that would be able to care for them until they could be released back to the wild. I would definitely consider that in A-2. E-1 and E-2, correct me if I’m wrong, they could be a significant sized property as well. Can you please tell me again the size on that?
Colin Duesing said like Janine said for the E-2 it is 2.4 acres and the E-2 is 5 acres. The A-2 and the E-2 are pretty much similar.
Judy Ogalla said for me then, I would be supportive of the A-1, A-2, E-1, and E-2. Can we say what exotic animals they can have? I don’t want people have lions, and tigers, and elephants. I totally support people caring for a possum babies or raccoon babies or any such animals that they might find living very close to their home and being able to have somebody locally to care for them.
Colin Duesing said I understand, thank you.
Judy Ogalla said thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody else have thoughts on that?
Tom Weigel said I agree with what Judy just said.
Chairman Marcum said ok, thank you Tom. I think if we include exotic animals, it would help to have a defined list just to make it clearer. If you find a badger somewhere you can bring it in.
Judy Ogalla said maybe we could say local wildlife versus exotic animals like lions, tigers, and bears. The difference to me is the lion escaping versus the raccoon next door escaping.
Amanda Koch said I have two bunny rabbits and they are considered an exotic pet according to veterinarians. So we go to a vet where we see parrots and all sorts of birds, sugar gliders, and like we talked about raccoons and all of that. I do think that maybe we should have a list because my experience has been that I have gone into either industrial or commercial areas any time that I’ve gone to a veterinarian for my rabbits that are considered exotic. I guess I’ve never gone anywhere in Will County and maybe this is why. I guess it’s just something that if we’re going to look at the list of animals, maybe a raccoon in a commercial area is not such a big deal but a hippopotamus certainly would be. Maybe we could work that list down to maybe small animals or animals that can be domesticated versus completely wild animals or something. These are just some of my thoughts.
Colin Duesing said thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else?
No response.
Colin Duesing said next, we’re going to talk about setbacks.
Chairman Marcum said we lost Colin. Let’s wait for Colin to get back on.
Judy Ogalla said I think the setbacks are at 500 feet, which is pretty significant if you’re going all the way around your property. I’m assuming the setback would be from the property line. David might know, or Janine. Is that where we have our setback from?
Janine Farrell said I’m sorry but I don’t have it in front of me, but they are from a dwelling and then from a property line itself in the Residential Zoning District.
David Dubois said some of the rationale for setbacks if they’re fairly large is related to uses such as kennels or boarding if there’s outdoor runs. There is noise, particularly if it’s in a rural area and it’s cold, the sound carries. This is one of the primary concerns. People are concerned about the noise that’s going to be carrying through their property. So, when you’re discussing setbacks, that’s one of the rationales.
Judy Ogalla said they’re able to get a Variance on the setback. Let’s just say they’re caring for baby possums or baby raccoons, for example. They aren’t making any noise at all, but dogs are definitely going to be barking. Is it allowed that they are able to get a Variance as part of their Special Use then?
Janine Farrell said we have had several Cases where people apply for Variances in conjunction with that Special Use Permit and typically we have seen those approved. There’s a whole set of criteria for the Variances including a unique situation and circumstance. So, having animals that might not be making any noise could potentially be a sort of unique situation for that as well.
Judy Ogalla asked, what’s the additional cost for that Variance, on top of the $2,500?
Janine Farrell said the first Variance is $550 and then any additional Variance is $100.
Judy Ogalla said okay, thank you. But we’re not talking about any fees, so we will talk about that some other day, correct?
Janine Farrell said I would assume, depending on how the Committee would like to move forward with these items that Colin’s going over, that we would get to the actual language and any fees and things of that nature at a later date.
Judy Ogalla said okay, thank you.
David Dubois said the topic of the fee schedule will need to be assigned from the Executive Committee.
Judy Ogalla said Tyler that would be great for us to look at.
Chairman Marcum said I think you asked earlier when they passed it. That Ordinance for the fees was passed in July, 2011.
Judy Ogalla said I wasn’t on the Committee at that point, but depending on the members that sit on this Committee and the depth of the questions vary a lot so I hope we can look at that at a future date after we finish this process. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said I still don’t see Colin back on here.
David Dubois said I just called Colin and he’s having internet issues. I just advised him to try to call in so Brian, please watch for him.
Colin Duesing said sorry about that. Before we lost contact we were talking about setbacks from residences and the physical structures. In the A-1, A-2, E-1, and E-2 Districts, it is currently 500 feet from those structures. Is that still a sufficient setback or does it need to be increased? Any opinions there?
Chairman Marcum said I know while you were away Judy had a question but I think you just answered it.
Judy Ogalla said my question would be then, is that just neighboring structures? If it’s your own home….
Colin Duesing said yes.
Judy Ogalla asked, it’s only neighboring?
Colin Duesing said yes.
Judy Ogalla said I can support that for sure. If it was my house, I would like to possibly have it close by so I could hear if there was something going on.
Colin Duesing said absolutely.
Judy Ogalla said perfect. Thank you.
Tom Weigel said I don’t have a problem with the present restrictions. Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else?
No response.
Chairman Marcum said it sounds like everybody is happy with the 500 feet.
Colin Duesing said next would be community buildings. We currently do not discuss that in our Zoning Ordinance. My history with Kendall County says that it probably should be a discussion that we need to have. For whatever reason, I had a lot of kennels near churches. So, how do we want to handle community buildings and kennels? Do we need to have setbacks from those particular structures? It would be the structure not necessarily the lot. The physical structure for community buildings, schools, places of worship and that sort of thing. Do we need to have a setback for that?
Chairman Marcum said my gut reaction would be yes, because I don’t think you want kids being too close to a raccoon if a raccoon was to get loose.
Colin Duesing said I’m sorry, I should specify. This is for all the uses for any veterinary care, any kennel, and any boarding. This is not specific to exotics, this is in general.
Judy Ogalla said I’m assuming if you have a kennel or any type of a boarding facility, vet clinic, or anything, you are required to have fencing to ensure those animals cannot get out. Am I right?
Colin Duesing said I’m not familiar with whatever Code that would be. It’s not in our Zoning Code, no. It probably would be in the Building Code and probably for the State as well. That would be a good assumption, but I do not personally know.
Judy Ogalla said ok. Do we allow this in the commercial?
Colin Duesing said yes.
Judy Ogalla said if you’re in a commercial area, you might have a warehouse next to you and I don’t think that’s a problem. If it would be a school or a church, I think we would want a setback because it would seem appropriate. Like Tyler said, kids are always going to be curious. If there's a setback, parents could catch them before they got too close. I support a setback from there. 500 feet from the building seems sufficient, because you probably wouldn’t be that close. That would be church or school or something, not like a warehouse, correct?
Colin Duesing said correct. From my history at Kendall County with this, is not necessarily the attractive nuisance aspect of it, but the noise associated with dogs barking and that sort of thing. That’s where Kendall County came up with creating the setback. Tyler’s idea of an attractive nuisance is also appropriate.
Tom Weigel said I agree with the setbacks in the commercial areas from these type of buildings.
Chairman Marcum asked, anybody else?
Colin Duesing said the next would be the Residential Districts, the Zoning District itself. It would be the lot lines. What type of setback is appropriate? Currently it is 500 feet for the A-1, A-2, E-1, and E-2. For the Commercial and Industrial Districts, it is the underlying Zoning District. Are those setbacks still appropriate from a Zoning District of a Residential District?
Judy Ogalla said if it’s 500 feet from my neighbor’s house, I think 500 feet from the lot line would be even further and that would discourage people.
Colin Duesing said this would apply if your neighbor is from a Residential District. If your neighbor is from an A-1 District, this would not apply, it would be 500 feet from the house. If they’re from a Residential District, it would be 500 feet from the lot line.
Judy Ogalla asked, that would be A-2, E-1, and E-2?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said in my opinion, if they are 500 feet from the house next door, regardless of where the lot line is, I think that is sufficient. In these smaller parcels it may make it impossible to get this Special Use Permit if it’s also with the lot line. That’s kind of how I feel. As long as they meet the 500 feet from the house I think that’s sufficient for me. Let’s see what other people say.
Colin Duesing said the counterargument to that is not fully developed subdivisions near the agricultural areas. There’s a reasonable expectation of a Residential District continuing to be a Residential District and not being encroached upon by a commercial use. That is why the 500 feet from the lot line of Residential Districts was applied.
Judy Ogalla said with that in mind, if there’s a little subdivision that’s getting developed next door and you’re still 500 feet from where the potential house would be, I still support it being 500 feet from that. If somebody’s purchasing that property, they’re going to have to know what’s existing behind them. We had that out at the farm all the time. People were complaining that the combines were out so late at night.
Colin Duesing said those are agricultural uses, we’re talking about what is considered a commercial use.
Judy Ogalla said I know you consider it a commercial use, but I think if you’re boarding dogs, cats, or animals, I consider it typical for farm country. I still stand by my thought that if it’s 500 feet from the other property building that it is okay. I would like to hear what other people have to say.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anyone wish to comment?
Tom Weigel said I agree with the 500 feet. I don’t have any reason to change it.
Chairman Marcum said it seems that everyone is in agreement that the 500 feet is sufficient.
Judy Ogalla said 500 feet from your lot line could really limit if you could do it. Some of these smaller A-2, E-1, E-2, you could be limited on where you could put it. Sometimes you are limited to where you can even build on your property due to flood zones, septic field, and things like that. I think the 500 feet from the lot line limits the person, that’s just my opinion. I’d like to see it at maybe 250 feet then, because their house is not going to be right on the lot line. Nobody is going to build a house on your lot line. I would suggest 250 feet. That’s what I would support. Thank you.
Steve Balich said I agree with what Judy just said. What is the purpose of being 500 feet from the lot line? It seems like it’s excessive in a lot of cases. If you own a big, giant farm, 500 feet is nothing, but that’s still property that you can’t use. That’s a big number, why do they make it so high?
Colin Duesing said mostly for noise, from barking does especially.
Steve Balich said if your dogs are barking, isn’t there a nuisance law? If you have dogs that are constantly barking, can’t you get in trouble for that?
Colin Duesing said this is not enforced by zoning, no.
Steve Balich said I still agree with Judy. I think 250 feet would be appropriate. I’m not 100% sure on it, but I tend to agree with Judy on that.
Colin Duesing said ok, we can take a look to see what that looks like at the next meeting. Chairman Marcum said that gives us something to look at.
Colin Duesing said the next one is, what considerations, if any, are needed to address the exotic animals. I believe we’ve already covered that with regard to getting a good itemized list as to what we’re talking about relying on the current definition that we have. Again, I will take a look at how we define what exotic animals are and come up with something a little bit more narrowly focused.
That would lead onto the last question that I have here for you guys. Should veterinary care, kennels, and boarding and that sort of thing be included as home occupations? They’re currently specifically excluded as a home occupation. That would be permitted in any Residential District at all.
Judy Ogalla said Tyler, I don’t mind here comments from you every once in a while because you have a different perspective living in a different area. I appreciate that input too. So, home occupations is allowing in all residential, is that what you’re saying?
Colin Duesing said correct. That would be correct. Currently, we specifically exclude it as a permitted home occupation as a commercial use. Should they be allowed as a home occupation?
Judy Ogalla said our setback is going to kind of restrict that from some of the “R”
Districts. Isn’t that true?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla asked, what “R” District would have the land space for that to even happen on?
Colin Duesing said land space could be an E-1, more than likely. However, it would not necessarily be a home occupation, because we currently allow it as a Special Use. So, it kind of negates each other.
Judy Ogalla said so, an E-1. I would like to see that in our larger residential areas. Somebody might work at a vet and want to have a little small area on their property where they could board animals that they’ve made friends with and provide a better environment than maybe at a vet clinic. I would be supportive of that.
Colin Duesing said it’s kind of a moot point in the E-1 Districts, because it’s already permitted as a Special Use.
Judy Ogalla asked, what Residential Districts are you asking about then?
Colin Duesing said it would be all of them and based on what you’re describing, the answer is no. It would not be appropriate in any of the other Districts.
Judy Ogalla said like R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4.
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said those lots are small, aren’t they?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla said so we wouldn’t allow it. We do allow it as a Special Use in the other ones?
Colin Duesing said correct.
Judy Ogalla asked, and that’s home occupation? Let’s see what other people think.
Tom Weigel said I don’t agree that we should allow veterinary clinics or boarding in Residential Districts as home occupations.
Chairman Marcum said I agree with Tom. Those lots are right on top of each other, which could spark some problems.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said in Cook County in the city and in many areas in DuPage County, there are funeral homes that have been there for maybe one or two generations where the family resides above the funeral home. The same thing with bars and drinking establishments. I’m just wondering, if we don’t allow that in Will County, is it because there’s never been a desire to do that? It’s allowed in these other counties and in other communities. I’m just wondering why.
Colin Duesing said your comparison with funeral parlors and taverns with residences above those uses, those are also considered commercial uses. I’m pretty sure that the underlying zoning for all of those would be a commercial use. So, it would be a mixed use Commercial District allowing the residence to be approved along with the underlying commercial use. It would be the opposite of what we’re talking about here. The underlying use is residential with the concept of possibly adding a commercial use to that Residential District. It’s currently specifically excluded.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said if it’s the opposite, it’s allowed.
Colin Duesing said correct. It’s the commercial uses that allow residential uses as a secondary use to the commercial use.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said ok. Do we have areas where, within a neighborhood, you would have a family owned funeral home where they live above the funeral home? The family actually lives there and they live above it. I know we have it in incorporated, but do we have that in unincorporated?
Chairman Marcum said I’m a little confused on how we got to funeral homes when we’re talking about veterinary care.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said it’s under the same Section, Section D, home occupations. It lists all of those.
Chairman Marcum said we’re not talking about all of them. We’re just specifically talking about veterinary care and including those. We’re not talking about the other ones.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said ok. I guess then let’s apply it to animal hospitals. If somebody wanted an animal hospital and they wanted to open one in a new area. If it’s in a neighborhood section like I described earlier, it would be allowed if that particular parcel was zoned commercial. Is that correct?
Colin Duesing said that is correct.
County Board Member Julie Berkowicz said ok, thank you.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody else have anything?
No response.
Chairman Marcum asked Colin, is there anything else that you need?
Colin Duesing said I got my questions asked and I received input from the Committee. I can make some changes and we’ll take a look at those next month.
| RESULT: CONTINUED Next: 5/11/2021 10:30 AM
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee |
(Janine Farrell)
Janine Farrell said I pretty much just gave you a very short handout for your information. This is basic info on the solar farms as of April 1st.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
I broke it down into a chart on that second page. It shows you which of our solar farms are actually going to be constructed and then other ones that were wait listed and the various status for those. Some of them have already become void just because the developers did not wish to pursue them at this time. Other ones are coming up on a second expiration.
I can answer any questions that you might have.
Chairman Marcum asked, does anybody have any questions?
Judy Ogalla said I was trying to pull it up, but it's kind of slow. How many are complete? I know there’s one that’s south of the Village of Beecher that I believe is complete. I’m not sure if there are any others that are complete. Do you know that?
Janine Farrell said I don’t believe any of them have completed their final inspection at this point.
Judy Ogalla said sorry about that. Have you been out to the facility that’s south of Beecher and east of Route 1?
Janine Farrell said I have not, no. The one that’s in Washington Township? Judy Ogalla said that’s correct.
Janine Farrell said I have not. I know that the Permit was just issued in August, 2020 and they are still under construction. To my knowledge, they haven’t completed the final inspection. I haven’t been notified to complete my final landscaping inspection.
Judy Ogalla said to me it looked like all of the solar panels are installed there. I was just curious, because I happened to be out that way for another issue. That’s why I asked for the update, because I didn’t know how many were even in the building process. In addition to that particular one, do we have another one that’s built as well? Do we have anything that’s up in the Crete area? I know we had a couple in Crete that were proposed.
Janine Farrell said yes, we have 3 that are in the Crete area and 2 of them are actually the same site. They are just building them in 2 different phases if you will. Those are located over in Section 34 and 35. Those all have Permits issued and again, they are currently under construction.
Judy Ogalla said ok, thank you so much. I was interested in where we’re at and how we’re doing. Have you received any feedback from residents complaining about anything or is everybody okay with it?
Janine Farrell said I have not received any complaints to date so that is a positive thing. I have received questions just on the status of the various projects from Fire Districts or other types of agencies. But yes, no complaints about the operations of the solar farms.
Judy Ogalla said okay great. I haven’t received any either. Thank you so much.
Brian Radner said we are looking into a possible drainage tile issue with one of the sites in your District and we’ll be dealing with that shortly to determine if there was a mistake. If there was, it will be corrected.
Judy Ogalla said thank you Brian.
Chairman Marcum said thank you for that update, Janine.
| RESULT: INFORMATIONAL
TO: Will County Board |
1. Chair, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Chairman Marcum said I just wanted to thank everybody.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee Judy Ogalla said I think it was a great meeting. A lot of discussion and deep into
the changes that we'd like to make. It was not high level. Sometimes in the past it seems so fast and it's hard to understand. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone. Thank you.
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
David Dubois said I just wanted to go over the Permits and where we're at this year compared to last year just in regards to Building Permits and Site Development Permits. Year to date this year compared to last year, we're up approximately 42%. Things are moving. I also wanted to compliment the Department Staff. For the past 14 months, we've almost completely maintained normal business operations all the way from Zoning Applications to Building Permits to following complaints to completing inspections. So, I do want to complement our Staff.
Chairman Marcum said I will second that.
4. Other
None.
5. Public Comment
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion To Adjourn The Meeting
Motion was made at 1:15 PM to adjourn the meeting by Judy Ogalla. Steve Balich seconded the Motion. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Traynere was absent.
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4035&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up