Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met May 18.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Stipan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Thomas White | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Secretary | Present | |
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Absent |
Land Use Staff present were Kris Mazon, Dawn Tomczak, Lisa Napoles, Marguerite Kenny, and Brian Radner.
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - May 4, 2021 6:30 PM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0, with no corrections or additions.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
1. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF VARIANCE AMENDING THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Case ZC-21-020, Peter G. Maloney and Maureen P. Maloney Trust dated December 17, 2014, Owner of Record (Peter G. Maloney and Maureen P. Maloney, each 50% beneficiary), requesting (V-21-023) Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 17.74 feet (north side) for PIN # 11-04-25-200-022-0000, located in Lockport Township commonly known as 2509 S. Farrell Road, Lockport, Il
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-020, which takes place in Lockport Township.
The applicants and owners are Peter G. Maloney and Maureen P. Maloney Trust, dated December 17, 2014 where Peter G. Maloney and Maureen P. Maloney are each 50% beneficiary.
On May 15, 2020 the applicant applied for a Building Permit to replace a barn that was destroyed by fire. The previous building encroached into the northern side yard setback, 17.74 feet.
The applicant wishes to use the same foundation while expanding the southern and eastern elevations of this building.
The proposed new structure would be larger than the previous with an addition of a 15’4” lean-to along the eastern elevation, which increases the extent of the nonconforming northern side setback.
The applicant is here requesting a Variance for side yard setback to bring the building into conformance and allow the Permit to be issued.
On the screen I have a couple aerial images of the subject property and a zoomed in image of the particular location on the subject property.
The subject property is improved with a single-family residence and a heavily wooded area to the west.
The applicant uses the property as a hobby farm, which the buildings you can see are oriented along the eastern side of the property. The sheep pastureland's are centrally located.
The property accesses Farrell Road to the east via an approved gravel driveway.
The subject parcel is zoned A-1. To the north there are A-1 parcels as well as to the east. However, around the vicinity, is the City of Lockport where there are single-family Residential Zoning Districts. So, we have R-1 and R-2 also within the area.
Upon Staff’s site visit for this Zoning Case, Staff noticed that the replacement structure has already been erected without the Permit being issued. So, while the County has not received a complaint against the structure being built without a Permit, the property is not in active violation with our Code Enforcement Department. However, Staff does want to note for the record that Building Permits are required to be issued before buildings can be erected.
The building constructed is 51’4” x 72’ with a 15’ wide covered porch to the south. The building does meet the minimum street setback from Farrell Road. The only encroachment is that northern property line.
Looking at the subject property, we’re looking west from Farrell Road. This is looking at accessory structures, so the other farm structures on the property. Looking at that new farm building that’s encroaching into the setback. The image on the right shows the 17.74 foot distance to the property line. This is looking northwest from that encroachment to the adjacent property to the north. This is looking northwest at adjacent properties from Farrell Road. This is looking north along Farrell Road. Looking northeast. Looking east at the adjacent property also owned by the applicant. Looking southeast, south, and then southwest.
In terms of Variances, your Staff Reports contain Staff’s analysis in depth. Staff at this point just wanted to hit on a couple key concepts. Based on the criteria, the plight of the owner is not considered a unique circumstance. The applicant could have built the same size structure and had the Building Permit issued. The applicant’s preference is to rebuild slightly larger which actually extends the amount of the nonconformity. With regards to criteria (b), Staff finds that it is unlikely, should the Variance be granted, to alter the essential character. There is a mix of Residential Zoning Districts, which typically have smaller side yard setbacks. In terms of our Zoning Districts for Residential, our setbacks can range between 20 feet for a side yard setback to 5 feet. However, this is the City of Lockport that’s in the area, so their setbacks may be comparable in size, but Staff does not know those setbacks for sure.
In terms of the other criteria, Staff did not find a hardship resulting from the physical surrounding. The foundation that has existed for a number of years for the previous building is the basis for the request. Since the foundation is to be increased in size due to a larger building, the applicant could have changed the foundation to meet the 50 foot setback requirement. Staff finds that while the Zoning Ordinance would allow for the smaller footprints, the applicant’s desire is triggering the request for this Zoning Case.
It is Staff’s professional opinion that the granting of the Variance could potentially be detrimental to public welfare as well as impacting property values as the applicant already built the structure without getting the Permit issued. Of the Agency’s notified, none have commented or objected.
Staff is recommending denial of the Variance for minimum side yard setback from 50 feet to 17.74 feet.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anybody have any questions?
John Kiefner said, for clarity, there’s a row of homes to the west. How many of those homes were notified for this Variance request?
Marguerite Kenny said I believe all of them that shared the common property. John Kiefner said about half a dozen.
Marguerite Kenny said yes.
John Kiefner said my map on my phone isn’t lining up with what’s on this front page. Is the Village of Lockport to the south? And, has that been developed?
Marguerite Kenny said the property to the south is zoned Residential in the City of Lockport, but it does not appear to have been developed.
John Kiefner said ok. They have PIN #’s, but it’s not developed. So, there really wasn’t any people there to be notified.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
John Kiefner said obviously, the owner to the north who is the one this would affect, has been notified.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions of Staff?
Barbara Peterson asked, Lockport didn’t answer you at all?
Michael Carruthers said the setbacks normally, from what I understand, is 5 feet. Is that correct?
Marguerite Kenny said the City of Lockport is not required to be notified of Variances.
Barbara Peterson said I’ve always objected to that. I think a Variance is just as important as a Map Amendment or anything else. It’s still a change.
Marguerite Kenny said to answer Commissioner Carruthers, in terms of setbacks, I do believe it is proportional to the lot size. I don’t know exactly what that proportion is. Typically, an R-3 property, which is roughly about 20,000 square feet, would be a 10 foot setback.
Chairman Stipan said okay.
Barbara Peterson said John, do you represent Lockport?
John Kiefner said no, I just know the area. I just want to confirm the neighbors were notified because she did say it could be detrimental to the area. I’m assuming that Lockport would have seen the public notice about this Variance. If they wanted to weigh-in, they could have.
Chairman Stipan asked, is everybody okay?
John Kiefner said yes.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you very much. Are the owners or agents here? Mr. And Mrs. Maloney, would you please come down? You see that Staff has recommended denial. Would you care to make a comment as to why it should go ahead?
Peter Maloney introduced himself to the Commission. There was an existing building there that burned down and I wanted to use the same foundation to build a new one.
Chairman Stipan said okay. Why didn’t you get a Building Permit first? Just out of curiosity.
Peter Maloney said I applied 3 times. The first 2 times it was either lost or misplaced. I couldn’t get ahold of anybody in the County Land Use Department. I emailed and I did get some emails back with whatever they required. I just never heard back from them. So, this is my third attempt at getting the Permit. I did email some of the people in there. I gave them the rafter requirements and whatever they needed. I emailed back to whoever viewed it and they said okay, everything looks good I’m signing off on it. Then, I expected to hear from them and that was it until I heard may 6 or 8 or 9 months later that you need to follow up on the Permit. I went in several times and you can’t get ahold of anybody because of COVID. You call there and they say anybody that you’re looking for is at home. I did have a really nice conversation with the person that approves the plans.
Barbara Peterson asked, do you remember their name?
Peter Maloney said it was Needham.
Barbara Peterson asked, who?
Peter Maloney said Needham, Owen Needham.
John Kiefner said you weren’t completely stiffing the Building Department, it was just because of COVID.
Peter Maloney said not at all. I followed up on everything that they said. You asked earlier about how many people were notified. I think there was about 32. Is that right?
Marguerite Kenny said there was quite a few.
Peter Maloney said I only have about 2 or 3 neighbors. I own the property around it myself.
John Kiefner said they probably considered that your property so you had to go further.
Peter Maloney said way further.
Barbara Peterson asked, do you own the property right next door?
Peter Maloney said across the street. There’s a 20 acre property to the north of me and the guy has a building. He’s in agriculture too. He has a building that’s pretty close to where this building is.
Chairman Stipan said ok, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Maloney? No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Do we have any call-in users or anybody here to object or protest this Case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said so, no concerned citizens or objectors here. Is there anyone online?
Marguerite Kenny said there is one. Let me check. James Anderson, I am unmuting you. Are you here for Zoning Case ZC-21-020?
No response.
Lisa Napoles said I believe he’s here for -015.
Marguerite Kenny said okay. Mr. Anderson, are you here for ZC-21-015? No response.
Marguerite Kenny said we have no comments.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Dawn Tomczak said sir, you're paperwork will be emailed to you. So, you passed your Variance. Please continue to work with our Department for your Building Permit. Thank you.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-026, which takes place in Green Garden Township.
This is for a Variance for minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet on the west side.
The owner of record is First Midwest Bank Trust Agreement, dated March 18, 2004, Trust # 18173. David and Patricia May are 100% interest as joint tenants and right of survivor. Contingent is Tyler May and Gabrielle May, joint tenants with rights of survivorship.
The Agent is David May.
The applicant is requesting the Variance to construct an accessory building for personal storage.
The subject property is Lot 27 in Pine Ridge Estates Subdivision recorded as Document No. R2003-139915 on June 18, 2003 in Green Garden Township.
The parcel, outline in red on the aerial, measures 2.5 acres in lot area with 103.51 feet of lot frontage and is Zoned E-2.
The parcel meets the minimum lot area for the E-2 District, but is deficient in lot frontage. Because the parcel is unchanged from its date of creation, it is deemed legal, nonconforming.
The applicant submitted Building Permit Application # 2100562 in March, 2021 for an accessory building to be sited 10 feet from the west property line. The minimum side yard setback in the E-2 District is 20 feet, necessitating this Variance request.
The subject property is Zoned E-2, as are the other parcels in Pine Ridge Estates.
This is the Plat of Survey for the property with the proposed accessory building outlined in red.
For the Variance requests, I provided full details in your report, but I will run through a summary here.
In regards to criterion (a) by which the Zoning Ordinance evaluates Variances, Staff does find a unique circumstance. The parcel is relatively narrow for the E-2 District and the septic field for the parcel is centered behind the house. Per Will County Health Department requirements, septic fields require a 10 foot setback. The proposed accessory building could not be sited 20 feet from the west property line and meet the 10 foot setback required for the septic field.
In regards to criterion (b), it will not alter the essential character of the area. The subject parcel is located within a subdivision characterized by residences on large parcels. Aerial views of the subdivision show eleven parcels with detached accessory buildings, including the parcel to the immediate west of the subject parcel.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking southeast from Pine Ridge Drive. This is the view of the backyard on the property looking southeast. This is a view of the subject parcel looking southeast toward the proposed location of the accessory building. This is a view of the subject parcel looking northwest toward the site of the proposed accessory building. This is a view of the adjacent parcels showing the accessory building on the parcel to the west. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking southwest along Pine Ridge Drive. This is a view looking west toward the adjacent properties.
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request.
I can take your questions.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, is David or Patricia May here?
Two people raised their hands in the galley.
Chairman Stipan said you don’t have to come down unless you want to speak. We’re going to check and see if there’s any objectors or concerned citizens. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this Case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said nobody here. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens on the line?
Marguerite Kenny said Mr. Anderson, are you here for Zoning Case ZC-21-026 for the property on Pine Ridge Drive? You are unmuted.
No response.
Marguerite Kenny said there are no objectors.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Dawn Tomczak said you will be emailed your signed Ordinance. Please come in and continue with your building process. Thank you.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-015, which takes place in Washington Township.
This is a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2.
The owner is Ostego Mall, LLC. Ian and Sarah Riley 20% interest, Nick and Rachel Kerzman 20% interest, Court J. Anderson 20% interest, and the Karen S. Anderson Revocable Trust 40% interest of which Court J. Anderson is the Trustee with Rachel R. Kerzman 50% interest and Sarah E. Riley 50% interest.
The Agent is James Anderson.
The Attorney is Nathaniel Washburn of Kavanagh, Grumley & Gorbold, LLC.
The parcel is located on the northwest corner of South Klemme Road and East Brunswick Road. It measures 40 acres in lot area and approximately 1,325 feet lot frontage on South Klemme Road and East Brunswick Road and is zoned A-1.
The parcel was created on July 1, 1967 and meets the lot standards for the A-1 District.
This is the Plat of Survey showing the proposed division of the subject parcel into seven tracts.
The minimum lot standards for the E-2 Zoning District are five acres and 180 feet of lot frontage. The proposed seven parcels meet these lot standards.
The blue arrow shows where pipelines enter the property on the east and continue south and southwest.
The applicants are pursuing a Map Amendment to E-2 with the intention of dividing the parcel into seven residential parcels in the future.
These are the Map Amendment Review Criteria used to review the proposal. For this Case, a LESA score of 214 was calculated.
Staff evaluated the existing uses and zoning classifications within a one mile radius of the subject property. Within this radius, Zoning Districts include Residential, Agricultural, and Commercial. There are no municipalities within 1.5 miles of the subject parcel.
The residential uses within this vicinity are all single-family residential, characterized by stand-alone residences on larger parcels and former farmsteads. The residential use is concentrated mainly along East Offner Road at South Yates Avenue and South Klemme Road and at South Yates Avenue south of East Eagle Lake Road.
The overwhelming majority of the parcels within the one-mile radius are dedicated to active farming. While the residential uses are far fewer than the agricultural uses in the area, they are consistent with the applicant’s proposed use, making the applicant’s request compatible with the surrounding uses in the area.
Within a one-mile radius of the subject property, Zoning Districts include Residential, Agricultural, and Commercial.
Residential Zoning Districts include R-2, R-2A, and R-3, all single family residential. In total, Residential Zoning Districts constitute roughly 4% of the total land area within a one-mile radius.
Both Agricultural Zoning Districts, A-1 and A-2, or Agricultural-Residential Rural Estate are found within a one-mile radius of the subject parcel. In total, Agricultural Zoning Districts constitute 95% of the total land area within a one mile radius.
At the northeast edge of the radius is a portion of a parcel zoned C-6, which is the location of the Emerald Trails Campground.
While there are no E-2 Zoned Districts within one mile of the subject parcel, there are A-2 zoned parcels in the area. The minimum lot area for A-2 parcels is 2.5 acres and the minimum lot area for E-2 parcels is slightly over 2.4 acres. While there are no E-2 parcels in the area, there are residential uses found within the area and the proposed parcels meet the lot standards for the E-2 District. There are E-1 zoned parcels west of the one mile radius.
The property is currently zoned A-1/Agricultural. The property was previously used for agricultural purposes. Due to its large size, the parcel is suitable for agricultural uses under the current A-1 zoning classification.
The subject site was originally zoned “F” for farmland when the parcel was first created in 1967. This Zoning District later became A-1 in 1978.
Since 1967, the trend in development in this area has been towards the division of larger agricultural parcels into smaller parcels and stand-alone residential uses.
The Map Amendments to Residential Zoning Districts in the area occurred between 1978 and 1993.
The applicant’s proposal to rezone the parcel to E-2 is in conformance with the trend in development in this area. The applicant’s proposal to rezone this parcel to E-2 is in compliance with the County’s Land Resource Management Plan, or LRMP.
The parcel is located within the Rural Areas Development Forms. There are scattered stand-alone residential parcels surrounded by farmland.
The LRMP includes in its description of rural areas, “Single family homes not associated with farms, generally on larger lots ranging from two acres and larger.”
The proposed parcels for this development will be between 5 and 7 acres. Therefore, this Development Use Concept is permitted in the Rural Areas Development Form.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking north. This is a view of the subject parcel looking northwest. This is a view of the subject parcel showing pipeline equipment. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking west along Brunswick Road. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking north along Klemme Road.
Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment request.
While none of the agencies contacted objected to the Map Amendment, in Natural Resource Inventory Report # 5277 dated March 2, 2021, Daniel Jay, P.E., Resource Conservationist, stated that the most significant concerns for the parcel are as follows:
1. Construction concerns may occur if soil issues are not addressed in the planning and construction of the facilities on this parcel.
2. The proposed change may not be compatible with the surrounding area land uses. 3. Soil absorption rates are limited.
That concludes Staff’s recommendations.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much, Lisa. Is the Agent, Nathaniel Washburn, or Mr. Anderson here?
Nathaniel Washburn introduced himself and said I am here.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you.
Nathaniel Washburn said if you’d like, I will speak a little bit here. I represent the property owner and petitioner, Ostego Mall, LLC. We generally stand behind Staff’s Report and would request approval of our Map Amendment from A-1 to E 2.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens?
Two people raised their hands in the galley.
Chairman Stipan asked, you are objectors or concerned citizens?
Those same two people said yes.
Chairman Stipan said okay, please come down to the podium.
Mike Woods introduced himself to the Commission. Terri Woods introduced herself also.
Mike Woods said the parcel in question here is roughly 40 acres. Out of that 40 acres, I believe I read 17.5 is saturated soil. I believe it’s on one of these pages under the Will County soil and land use survey or assessment. I just have concerns about where all that water is going to go if 7 parcels are created and people start building there. Where is that water going? Has anyone looked into that?
Chairman Stipan said our water management staff, which is part of the Land Use Department, goes out and makes sure there’s no change in the flow of water to anybody’s property. If required, they will call for a detention or retention pond. This could also mean re-ditching in areas, or whatever is necessary to make the water flow so that it doesn’t hurt other people.
Mike Woods said understood. The report also indicates that the soil is saturated. Nearly half of the property is saturated.
Chairman Stipan said I understand that.
Mike Woods said I just want you to realize that.
Chairman Stipan said as we all know, especially if you farm at all, you could have saturated soil one week and two weeks later you have cracks in the soil. It all depends on the weather and the conditions that the world treats you with. Thank you for that information. Do you have any other thing that you’d like to add?
Terri Woods asked, is it normally 10 acre lots that they split it up into? When we built out there, the property was split up into 10 acre pieces, nothing smaller.
Chairman Stipan said there is no normal.
John Kiefner said this is a 40 acre parcel that is A-1. The County Code requires A-1 to be 10 acres. So, they could divide this into 4, 10 acre tracts, to my knowledge. Staff can correct me if I’m wrong. Without even coming here, they could divide into 4 separate PIN’s and then I would say the lot would be the same size as yours.
Terri Woods asked, could they build on it then?
John Kiefner said I’m pretty sure it would be completely compliant with zoning and they’d be able to get a Building Permit.
Chairman Stipan said 10 acres is the minimum required for A-1 zoning.
John Kiefner said they could not divide into 5 lots without being rezoned. I will have a follow-up question on this when you’re done.
Terri Woods said we live across the street and we know the water flow. It’s always flooded over there. We were just worried if you’re putting all those houses in there, like he said, where’s all that water going to go? Is it going to stay in our yard?
Chairman Stipan said it’s a good worry. I would be worried too if I didn’t know that the County requires the engineering to be performed before they issue the Permits.
Mike Woods said I sure hope they did their work.
Terri Woods asked, people can’t just put things up without a Permit, can they? John Kiefner said well, you were sitting here earlier.
Terri Woods said I think I saw an example of that earlier.
Barbara Peterson said they have a very reputable law firm, they truly do. It’s a shame that law firm isn’t physically here so you could get their information. I was contacted by an adjacent property owner, Melvin Oldendorf. He contacted me hysterically. He said he was going to be here tonight, but he’s not here. Water is the biggest issue there. He said he’s going to get all of their water. So, I want that to be made as part of the record. Melvin Oldendorf, adjacent property owner, contacted me with that concern. He made it very clear that he is not against the building of the houses or the rezoning. Water is his only concern. We all know what water can do. I see it all the time, every time it rains. It’s treacherous. I would make a note.
Mike Woods said I’m not sure if anyone’s familiar with that area over there on the eastern part.
Barbara Peterson said I’m not even familiar with it. I’ve been there, not knowing where I’ve been.
Mike Woods said there’s standing water on it right now, and it’s dry. This is a dry year, a very dry year and there’s standing water there now.
Chairman Stipan said at the end of this week there may be even more standing water according to what is predicted.
Barbara Peterson said it’s something that you’re going to have to watch. You’ll have to be very diligent about it, because other properties can be ruined by it. The County does have a lot of stops put in place, but when you own something, you better watch out for it.
Mike Woods said I don’t know how far they dug into this, but there’s a 16” or 18” field tile that runs diagonally across that field.
Chairman Stipan said I also saw there was a pipeline.
Mike Woods said that’s separate of what I was talking about.
Chairman Stipan said okay.
Mike Woods said that’s a main feeder trunk that runs up to the ditch north of Offner.
Will County, Illinois Posted: 6/21/2021 Page 15
Minutes Will County Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021
Barbara Peterson said if you call me, I have the attorney’s phone number. I would be more than happy to give it to you.
Chairman Stipan said the attorney will respond to you shortly.
Michael Carruthers asked, within the Site Plan itself, is there a pond located for the retention of all this water?
Mike Woods said not that I’m aware of.
Lisa Napoles said we have not received Site Plans for these proposed parcels. They will obtain Building Permits as they are developed individually. When I took those photos, there was not a pond on the parcel. I understand there may be standing water this week as the weather has changed. As was said, the Building Permit process requires an engineering review. As Building Permits are applied for with each individual parcel, an engineering review will be required. An engineering review will evaluate the water flow on each individual parcel and make recommendations as to how any adverse effects may be mitigated. This will be done one parcel at a time.
Chairman Stipan said when they do that, the site engineer also makes sure that nothing is raised where it’s going to cause water to run away from it unless it’s mitigated and it runs away to a detention/retention pond.
Mike Woods asked, they’re going to do that per parcel or per that tract?
Lisa Napoles said no, per parcel. This Map Amendment is in anticipation of the 40 acre parcel being divided into 7 tracts. This was not proposed as a subdivision. The future plans of the owners are not known to us at the time, whether they’re going to be all developed at once or they’re going to be developed individually. Either scenario is possible. We haven’t seen a full-on subdivision in our Department in quite some time. If history follows, these individual Building Permits for each of the individual 7 parcels will be obtained. Then, that engineering review will happen for each parcel as it’s developed.
Chairman Stipan asked, would you please remain here and we’ll talk to their attorney?
Mike Woods said okay.
Chairman Stipan said Mr. Washburn, would you care to respond to this and maybe clarify this for them?
Nathaniel Washburn said yes, thank you. At this point in time, we’re coming in seeking rezoning from A-1 to E-2 for the future development of this property. Right now, we’re proposing 7 potential parcels as that is essentially the most we could put on an E-2 zoned area while meeting all other E-2 requirements. At this time, there are no concrete plans to develop any of the lots. The intent is to allow flexibility for the marketing and sale of these lots for future rural residential development. There’s a chance, given the known conditions on the site, that one or more of these lots may be sold together to an individual to pull a Building Permit. We were looking for how we could maximize the property, but there could end up being one house built on these lots or there could be seven. We really don’t have a firm plan. As each lot is sold or comes to the County to be developed, we will comply with all Ordinances regarding Stormwater detention and/or Building Permit requirements. As you already mentioned, the County has Staff that closely monitors how water flows across the property and whether or not we’re required to increase the size of any ditches or put in on-site detention. We would be complying with all of that at the time of construction and the issuance of any Building Permits.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir. You have now heard his comments. Do you have any more questions or comments?
Mike Woods said no, I’m fine. I just wanted to state my concerns in regards to the water.
Chairman Stipan said I understand that entirely. For a long time, I lived 9 feet below the grade of a highway that was near me and 12 feet below the grade of the subdivision on the hill above me.
Mike Woods asked, whose responsibility would it be to take care of the water issue if you’re going to sell the pieces in individual tracts or parcels? Would it be the owner or would it be the individual buyers of these lots?
Lisa Napoles said if the parcels are sold individually, as each individual parcel is developed, each individual home will obtain its own Building Permit. Then, the engineering review would take place and then the owner of that individual parcel would have to address any engineering concerns raised by the engineers on Staff.
Mike Woods said so the current owner has no responsibility. It’s pushed over to the person who’s purchasing it.
Lisa Napoles said yes, because this owner will no longer own it. Mike Woods said so he doesn’t have any responsibility.
Chairman Stipan said unless he develops the properties himself.
Mike Woods said correct.
Chairman Stipan said if he does that and sells the homes, then he holds all the responsibility. It all depends on conditions. As the attorney said, they’re holding off on determining that until they see how the properties could possibly sell.
Mike Woods said okay, thank you.
Terri Woods asked, does Will County have any rules of what they can build on that property? For example, what types of homes? Can they put up a trailer?
John Kiefner said I want to ask a couple questions that could possibly help with this. I’m going to ask Staff, what is the minimum lot size for E-2?
Lisa Napoles said the minimum lot size for E-2 is 105,000 square feet, which is about 2.41 acres. All of these parcels meet that minimum requirement. Actually, they all exceed it.
John Kiefner asked, what is the minimum lot size for E-1?
Lisa Napoles said for E-1, it is 215,000 square feet.
John Kiefner said so, closer to 5 acres.
Lisa Napoles said it is right about 5 acres.
John Kiefner said I’ve just been doing the math in my head. Its 40 acres divided by 7.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
John Kiefner said it’s over. So, technically these would have qualified for E-1, unless I’m missing something.
Lisa Napoles said some of them, yes.
Mike Woods said I think they all qualify for E-1.
John Kiefner said they’re not asking for E-1.
Lisa Napoles said right, they’re asking for E-2.
John Kiefner said what is the minimum lot coverage of an E-2 lot?
Lisa Napoles said I believe it’s 20%.
John Kiefner said the main structure could be 19.99% of that lot.
Lisa Napoles said it absolutely could. If you will leave your contact information with Dawn and Kris, I can send you the lot and building standards for residential properties. That is what we use to evaluate all residential developments. For each zoning category there are lot and building standards specific to that zoning category and that pertains to the size of the lot. To answer your question, an A-1 parcel needs to be 10 acres. As I said, for the E-1 parcel, which is a residential parcel, it is 215,000 square feet. For E-2, its 105,000 square feet and it gets smaller from there.
Mike Woods said they’re going for E?
Lisa Napoles said E-2. They exceed the lot standards for the E-2 District. That is a single family home Residential District. Only single family homes can be built. The maximum building coverage on a property in most of the Residential Districts and this one in particular, is 20%. Whether it’s a home, garage or pole barn, a chicken coop, or a shed, only 20% of the total lot area can be covered by building. That is all evaluated as part of the zoning review, which every Building Permit undergoes.
John Kiefner asked, what is the minimum road frontage for an E-2 lot? Lisa Napoles said the minimum road frontage for an E-2 is 180 feet. Mike Woods asked, for an E-2?
Lisa Napoles said for an E-2, which means the length of a property line that runs along a road.
Mike Woods said sure, I’m very familiar with that.
John Kiefner said I guess this would be my last question. Looking at the road frontage and the total acreage that they have, is there anything to stop them or another owner from coming in and carving this 40 acres in 13, 3 acre lots instead of the 7 that is now proposed?
Lisa Napoles said in order to further divide the parcels to be legal conforming and buildable lots and be able to obtain Building Permits, another Map Amendment would need to be applied for and approved to a smaller Residential Zoning District.
John Kiefner said the way I understand it is that there’s 40 acres here and the E-2 is only 2.4 acres, there’s technically enough acreage there. I think what’s limiting them now is the road frontage.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
John Kiefner asked, what if they put in a new road?
Lisa Napoles said that would be a subdivision process.
John Kiefner said ok, that’s where I’m trying to go here. They just can’t be different than the 7 parcels without another review from this Committee.
Lisa Napoles said if they were to further divide the parcels, if not a full-on Map Amendment for the parcels to a smaller Zoning District, then individual Variances would need to be applied for on each individual parcel to accommodate the smaller road frontage. If they were to propose putting in a road to the parcel, creating a brand new road, that would have to undergo the subdivision process. That is a much more involved and lengthy development process, which is what would pertain to an entire subdivision development.
Chairman Stipan said we’ll go back one more time to Mr. Washburn. Do you have anything that you would care to add to this conversation?
Nathaniel Washburn said yes, all great comments and great points raised by everybody including the Commissioner. I would say this. I mentioned earlier that our proposal is 7 tracts of land, because in our opinion, that maximizes what we can do. Here is why. The road frontage is only sufficient to meet the E-2 requirements for 7 lots. At one point in time we had considered rezoning to E-1, but E-1’s road frontage I believe is 300 linear feet and we would have had far fewer lots. By that I mean we would have had maybe 5 based on the way the road frontage all worked out. So, we went with the 7 tract plan. To the other concern about could we subdivide this into more and more lots in the future? Just to be clear to everybody, based on my understanding of the Zoning rules, we can’t go any lower than a 5 acre tract without applying for a subdivision, per the Plat Act. So, the smallest we could carve up without coming back to you for further approvals, would be to 5 acres, which we could still do it in E-2 and I’m going to be upfront about that. That’s not our intention, because a 5 acre lot just doesn’t make sense the way the property is currently laid out. Anything less than 5 acres would automatically require us coming back because it wouldn’t comply with the Plat Act. Also, anything as previously mentioned that requires us putting in a new road would require the subdivision process and therefore we would have to come back and ask for further permission. If we wanted to reconfigure these lots in anything that required less than 180 feet of frontage, we would also have to come back either for a further Map Amendment or for a Variance for the lack of lot frontage. So, practically speaking, while we may or could look at taking 2 of our proposed tracts and combining them into 1 for various construction or drainage purposes, it’s highly improbable that we would be making any more than 7 parcels out of this due to the frontage constraints and the Plat Act constraints that would necessitate a subdivision. At this time we’ve put this 7 tract proposal together, because in our opinion that’s the maximum we can do with it. There’s no guarantee that it ever becomes 7 tracts. We’re going to put these up for market, from my understanding, but there’s currently no offers and no contracts. It’s not like we’re going to flip one of these tomorrow if we get approval. So, at this point in time, 7 is our intention. There’s no guarantees obviously, that we will ever sell all 7 or that all 7 will actually become separate tracts.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, sir.
Dawn Tomczak said I also want to mention that if you ever see irregular activity, we have a Code Enforcement Division and we will come out and answer any questions that you have.
Chairman Stipan said thank you.
John Kiefner said I would like to make one more statement here. 20 years ago I was told by a Natural Resources Conservation Service Agent that there is a legitimate argument that large estate lots have less water run-off than agricultural fields. I found this unfathomable at first. As a farmer, I always practiced no-till farming. I've researched this and in the last 25 years of driving through the countryside, I have confirmed that he is right under certain parameters. He mentioned that there's water standing. I saw the pictures of this field and it was worked conventional till. The science from the soil scientists say that when you perform tillage, the bottom of your tillage implements create a compacted layer. They used to call this plow pan, then they called it soil density change and now they call it the compaction layer. Even though you worked that little bit of soil, the first raindrops hit the soil and break it into tiny particles and you could actually feel the soil. You could have a sideways 3" rain come in an hour and 4" down the water won't even soak in, because of the different fragments and sizes of the soil. You could have incredible sheet and gully run-off. Yet, if you have these beautiful 2-1/2 and 5 acre yards that you see where people mow all weekend, that well prepared sod never compacted and will actually have far less run-off than most agricultural fields. However, we see all the Zoning Cases where people get their nice estate lot then the want the man cave. Then they want the in-ground pool. Then they want the 4 car driveway. Then they want the bigger shed. Then they have the collection of cars and motorcycles and they need another bigger shed. All of that creates more water run-off. So, you have your give and take there. I've seen the 5 and 10 acre lots that are half weeds, motocross tracks and huge parking lots. That's where compliance with the County really becomes important to help hold that amount of water that can sheet off a heavy rain. So, I hear their concerns.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Dawn Tomczak said please note that this Case will forward to Land Use Development Committee on June 8th and County Board on June 17th.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-024, which takes place in Wheatland Township. This is a companion Case to ZC-21-025.
These last 2 Cases are companion cases and will be presented together.
I will break them down since each request is slightly different, but they are the same parcel.
This concerns a 1.5 acre parcel for ZC-21-024 and an 8.65 acre parcel for ZC-21- 025.
The subject parcel was a 10.16 acre A-1 parcel. The 1.5 acre parcel was divided off earlier this year creating 2 illegal lots.
The applicant is here tonight to request zoning changes to Residential Zoning Districts that reflect the proper lot standards for the R-1 District and the E-1 District for each Zoning Case.
The owner of ZC-21-024 is Andrew and Karrera Neely. The owner of ZC-21-025 is Joseph Vitacco and Tonia L. Deluca-Vitacco.
The Agent for both Cases is Brian Bart of Bart Homes.
The Attorney representing both Zoning Cases is Nate Washburn of Kavanagh, Grumley & Gorbold.
On the screen I have the aerial image of each of the 2 parcels. As previously mentioned, earlier this year the subject parcel for ZC-21-024 was divided off creating a 1.5 acre parcel that is zoned A-1. So, it was created as an illegal lot. The remainder of that parcel is ZC-21-025, being an 8.65 acre parcel. The applicant is requesting the respective Residential Zoning Districts.
The division of the 1.5 acre parcel qualified under a Plat Act exemption resulting in an actual subdivision not being required in this instance. So, this subject parcel existed before the 1973 requirement of the Plat Act.
You can also see by the aerial that there are wetlands, floodway, and floodplain existing on this parcel that does restrict some of the usage of the subject property.
Looking at the Site Plan, ZC-21-025 is improved with a single family residence and a large accessory structure. In this instance, the E-1 District is typically 215,000 square feet with 300 feet of frontage. It would meet that for ZC-21-025. The single family residence and attached 4-car garage and large barn would meet that 3,000 square foot accessory building area limit. It also meets the setback requirements for the E-1 District for that existing residence.
With regards to ZC-21-024, they are proposing a single family residence on the property and has since applied for the Building Permit. They will be waiting on the decision of the Map Amendment before that Permit can be issued. They are proposing an R-1 Zoning District. R-1’s are typically 60,000 square feet with 165 feet of frontage. In doing so, the proposed residence would meet the minimum setback requirements for the R-1 District.
Looking at the subject parcel associated with ZC-21-024, this is the 1.5 acre property. Looking at the 8.65 acre property associated with ZC-21-025 with the single family residence and the metal pole building. Looking along West 119th Street, I believe this is actually looking east. No we are looking west. Looking southeast. Looking south and southwest. Looking northeast at the adjacent properties towards Route 30. This is looking at the Rolling Acres Subdivision that is adjacent to the subject property to the west.
With the criteria by which Map Amendments are reviewed upon, Staff will go through and hit upon each of these criteria. An in-depth analysis is contained in your Staff Report.
With regards to the first and fourth criteria since they go hand in hand with the existing uses and trend in development. Looking at the aerial, the trend within a one and a half mile radius has been towards residential subdivisions within the incorporated areas of Plainfield to the south, Naperville to the northeast, and Aurora to the north.
This parcel has been zoned A-1, or farmland, since the 1947 Zoning Ordinance. When the parcel was actually created, it has been agricultural ever since. Since then within Will County, the majority of the uses are either agricultural or residential. Within Kendall County, the uses are agricultural or low-density residential. Within the Village of Plainfield, its residential subdivisions or related support institutions. For example, Plainfield North is within this area and the Edward Medical Center is along 127th Street. Within the Village of Naperville, we have residential subdivisions, but they are located 1 mile northwest of the subject property. Directly adjacent, as I mentioned, the Rolling Acres Subdivision was platted in 2003 and is directly west of the subject property. North of Rolling Acres is Sunny Farms Acres Subdivision, which was platted in 1990. Then we have Fry’s Wheatland Plains Unit 2 located 1 mile southwest of the subject property. There are a few industrial uses primarily along Route 30 and 111th Street to the north.
With regards to the Zoning Districts within a mile and a half, there are a mix of residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial within unincorporated Will and Kendall County, the Village of Plainfield, City of Aurora, and City of Naperville. In the immediate vicinity of the subject parcels you can see that there is A-2, which is a grandfathered Zoning District. A-2 is very similar and compatible with E-1, Estate Rural Residential Districts, and E-2, Estate Residential Districts. We also have R-2 and R-2A in the area.
With regards to the suitability of the subject property for uses permitted under the A-1 zoning, the subject property is not used agriculturally while residential uses are permitted in the A-1 District.
In terms of the 1.5 acre parcel, it is considered an illegal lot and would not be able to get any type of Building Permit for a farm structure or residence until the lot area and lot frontage are addressed. Since it is more suitable for residential use, rezoning to a Residential Zoning District would be more suitable for the current parcel.
With regards to the 8.65 acre parcel, again it is used residentially. The E-1 District does allow accessory farming and husbandry uses, but it is reduced in scale due to the smaller lot area and lot size.
In terms of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, a LESA score was not calculated for either of these requests.
In terms of consistency with adopted plans of the County, the subject parcel lies within the Suburban Communities Development Form, which would indicate that the proposed uses being more along the lines of traditional residential developments be in conformance with the plan. Typically, density requirements for traditional residential are 1-5 dwelling units per acre. While this is a little bit larger than that, it is typical in terms of having a residence in a large conservation yard or open space.
With regards to the other adjacent municipalities within the area, the parcel lies outside of the City of Aurora and Naperville’s Comprehensive Plan. However, within the Village of Plainfield, their Comprehensive Plan actually stops just south of the subject property and shows residential being to the south as low-density residential.
Of the agencies that were notified, none have objected. The NRI identified that the activity taking place on the subject property will have little to no effect. The EcoCAT did not produce any record of State-listed threatened or endangered species, Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Sites, dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves, or registered Land and Water Reserves in the vicinity.
Staff is recommending approval of both requests. For ZC-21-024, approval for a Map Amendment from A-1 to R-1. Also, approval of a Map Amendment for ZC-21- 025 which is a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-1.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone have any questions?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this Case?
No response.
Marguerite Kenny said there is nobody online.
Chairman Stipan said okay. Mr. Washburn, would you care to comment? We have no objectors and we have a recommendation of approval from our Staff. Would you like to make a quick comment?
Nathaniel Washburn said thank you. I appreciate your time this evening. I think Staff did a great job with giving a report on these 2 properties. We agree with Staff’s report and would respectfully request approval of our zoning request from A-1 to R-1 and A-1 to E-1 for the 2 parcels respectively.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Dawn Tomczak said please note that these Cases also will go to Land Use and Development Committee on June 8th and County Board on June 17th.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
For Staff Report and comments, see previous Zoning Case, ZC-21-024, which is this one's companion case. Both of these Cases were presented together.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Dawn Tomczak said please note that these Cases also will go to Land Use and Development Committee on June 8th and County Board on June 17th.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Thomas White, Vice Chairman SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
1. 21-101 Amending Sections 155-16.10 (D)(3)(c), 155-17.10 (B)(1)(c) and 155-17.10 (C)(12) of the Will County Zoning Ordinance, Common Provisions and Review and Decision-Making Bodies and Section 164.141 of the Water Resource Ordinances, Applications for Variance
Barbara Peterson made a Motion to go into public hearing. Michael Carruthers seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6- 0.
Brian Radner said this is a public hearing for a couple sections of the Zoning Code that pertain to Zoning Administrator duties and the PZC Secretary duties.
As I've stated before when we discussed the By-Laws, Staff has taken over the majority of these functions, if not all of them.
In the Zoning Ordinance, it references the Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary for providing public hearing documents and sworn certification. The change is scratching that out and replacing it with Zoning Administrator.
The other part of this deals with appointment of the Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary, and that has been stricken from the Zoning Code in this Text Amendment approved by the Land Use and Development Committee that's here before you tonight.
There's also a section of the Zoning Code that is for the Zoning Administrator duties. In #12, we have added "signing the Variance Ordinances after they are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission." So, this is after this Commission takes its vote on Variances that do not advance beyond this Commission. They used to be signed by the Secretary and they will now be signed by the Zoning Administrator.
Finally, there's a section of the Water Resource Ordinance that pertains to Variances. We don't really see that one that often, in fact, I don't think I've ever seen it to be honest, but it does reference the Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary. So, that has been replaced with Zoning Administrator.
That’s all that these changes are about. Tonight you are taking any testimony by the Commission and the public. That will be taken to the Land Use and Development Committee at their next meeting.
With that being said, I’ll sit back and listen to see if you guys have any questions. Chairman Stipan asked, we also need to vote on this tonight, correct? Brian Radner said correct.
Chairman Stipan asked, we do that after we go into the meeting or during this section?
Brian Radner said I’m pretty sure you’re going to take any public testimony. Then you’re going to close the public hearing. Then I believe, you’re going to take a vote. The State’s Attorney, Chris Wise, could verify that.
Chris Wise from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said that’s correct, Brian. Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. We have nothing but Commissioners here and we’ve all heard the testimony. Does anyone have any questions? No response.
John Kiefner made a Motion to close the public hearing. Michael Carruthers seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6- 0.
Roll Call Vote was taken to approve the Text Amendments to the Zoning Code as noted. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
Not needed.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Stipan said I wanted everyone to please take note that our next meeting will be on June 15th. We have a lot of people that go away over the Holiday.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn The Meeting
Barbara Peterson made a Motion at 7:58 PM to adjourn the meeting.
John Kiefner seconded the Motion. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Barbara Peterson, Secretary SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: White, Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner ABSENT: Bettenhausen |
Alerts Sign-up