Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Aug. 3.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Barbara Peterson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chairman Hugh Stipan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Thomas White | Vice Chairman | Absent | |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Present | |
| Barbara Peterson | Present | ||
| John Kiefner | Commissioner | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present |
Chris Wise was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Planning and Zoning Commission - Public Hearing - Jul 6, 2021 6:30 PM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Minutes were approved unanimously, 6-0, with no corrections or additions.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Barbara Peterson SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
1. WILL COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 155-10.20 OF THE WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ZONING ORDINANCE Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as amended, for Temporary Use Permit , TUP-21-006, Matt L and Cheryl M. Krudup, Record of Owner, Karl Krudup, Agent; requesting a temporary use permit for a music and camping event , for Pin # 22-23-18-300-008-0000, in Washington Township, commonly known as 30129 S. Yates Avenue, Beecher, IL
Brian Radner presented TUP-21-006.
This request is for a Temporary Use Permit for an event of public interest, that’s what the Zoning Ordinance classifies concerts and camping related uses. Although we call it an event of public interest, this will be for a music festival with overnight camping.
The owners of the property are Matt and Cheryl Krudup. Karl Krudup is the agent for this request.
The property is roughly 10 acres and is located at 30129 S. Yates Avenue, Beecher, IL 60401.
This is some of Staff’s analysis that is also included in your packet for this use.
There’s about 300 feet of frontage on this property. It is located on the east side of Yates Avenue.
The applicant is intending to limit the event to 150 people. That’s based on the number of tickets or wristbands that are sold.
The west side of the property is relatively flat. The band will be located near the east side of the driveway. During the site visit, the applicant informed Staff that there will be no stage and there are no proposed temporary structures.
Food vendors will be on-site to sell food and beverages to attendees. The applicant is not seeking approval for alcohol sales.
The applicant informed Staff that parking and security will be handled by volunteers. The applicant indicated that they are fully aware that no parking could take place in the right-of-way, that means no parking on Yates, and that traffic needed to be managed to reduce congestion in the public streets. Given the rural nature and limited number of tickets available, traffic congestion should not be a problem.
Camping will take place overnight on August 14th and will end by noon on August 15th. In the red box, you can see the outline of the property. This was taken from our GIS 2020 aerial.
This next one is a zoomed in picture. The structure is on the west side of the property, just east of Yates Avenue. There is a concrete driveway. Towards the end of the driveway onto the grass area is where the stage would be set up. There would also be food vendors. At the top of the property, along the north property line, you see an accessory structure. That was the area that was designated for porta-potties.
Here is a Zoning Map of the property. This is primarily an agricultural area, everything is pretty much zoned A-1 in that immediate vicinity.
Here’s a couple photos of the property. This is the subject parcel, looking east from Yates. This is looking west, across Yates Avenue from the applicants property. This is looking at the accessory structure that’s on the north property line. The deck is immediately to the east of the home. This is looking north from the driveway area. Part of this area is where the septic field is. The Health Department has stated in their letter that no camping can take place on the septic field area. Also, no parking of vehicles on the septic field area, so that would have to be avoided. This is a photo looking east from the end of the driveway. You’re looking at the applicant’s property in the vicinity of where the stage would be set up.
Here’s a Plat of Survey of the property showing the home, driveway, and accessory structure.
This is a proposed Site Plan. It is not the final Site Plan. If the applicant is approved he has to have a Site Plan that does meet all of our requirements.
I did talk to the Fire Protection District today and they want to make sure that they have ingress and egress onto the property. I have talked to the applicant about that previously and they indicated that they could do that. There would also be some requirements associated with fire extinguishers. The Fire Protection District would conduct an inspection of the property before the final approval would be issued.
This Site Plan also shows camp sites in the septic field area. I’ve also talked to the applicant about that. If this is approved by this Commission, there is a condition that you can’t have any septic field parking to meet that Health Department condition. That would have to be moved slightly out of that area right in front of the home.
Those are the recommendations up there on the screen.
Since the last meeting I wanted to call your attention to two communications. This is since the Staff Report was prepared. We did receive a letter from the neighbor that lives immediately north of this property. They had several concerns related to damage of their property and others in the neighborhood. Who is going to make sure that the music ends at 11 PM? There’s concerns of drugs and alcohol. Who is going to clean up the trash? How would the extra police patrol handle everything in this area? That letter was included in your packet.
Prior to this meeting, Staff did receive communication from the Washington Township Supervisor. He indicated that the Washington Township Board of Trustee’s is recommending that they are against this request. They say specifically, we do not recommend the Temporary Use Permit for this event, based on the following:
∙ They are not familiar with events similar to this. They’ve had a lot of complaints of family rodeos that have gotten out of control. They’ve had problems with traffic, large crowds, underage drinking, noise, and curfew violations.
∙ Once word of an event like this gets out, there is no way to know how many people show up despite what the permitted maximum crowd is.
∙ There is no age restriction, so although not the intention, there will be underage drinking.
∙ Security and traffic control is stated to be done by volunteers. Their recommendation is that this should be handled by trained volunteers or professionals.
∙ There is no indication on noise volume. There are 2 homes adjacent to the north of the site who will be affected by this noise.
∙ Overnight camping brings a number of questions and concerns, for example, campfire's, restroom facilities, noise and garbage.
∙ Since there is an admission fee to enter this event, it is considered to be open to the public. Nothing has been addressed concerning ADA for parking, travel, restrooms, etc.
So, until those items are addressed, they have to recommend No.
Now we’ll get back to Staff’s Recommendations. Staff is recommending approval of this request.
The Temporary Use Permit would only be valid on Saturday, August 14, 2021 through Sunday, August 15, 2021.
The concert is only permitted on August 14, 2021 from 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM. 11:00 PM is the cut-off time for noise in the county. Anything after that time, a Noise Ordinance violation could be issued by the Sheriff’s Office.
The applicant is required to submit a Site Plan that complies with all conditions prior to issuance of the Permit.
The applicant shall comply with all applicable Will County Building Code requirements for temporary uses prior to issuance of the Permit. That will address things such as what the Fire District is looking for and also making sure all the electrical is to Code. It would also make sure that the right number of porta
potties are there based on the Health Department’s recommendation.
Condition # 5, the applicant shall provide evidence of approval from the Will County Health Department regarding temporary sanitary facilities.
Condition # 6, any food vendors are required to have proof of Food Service Permits from the Will County Health Department.
Condition # 7, camping is not permitted within ten feet of the existing private sewage disposal field.
Condition # 8, all parking for the Temporary Use Permit shall be on the subject parcel, nothing can be offsite. Ingress and egress for emergency vehicles must be provided and kept clear at all times.
Condition # 9, the applicant is responsible for providing traffic control.
Condition # 10, noise levels associated with the event of public interest shall comply will all applicable noise regulation of the Will County Code of Ordinances. Chapter 93 is what regulates noise in unincorporated Will County.
Condition # 11, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Beecher Fire Protection District.
Condition # 12, no sign in connection with a Temporary Use are permitted except in accordance of the Zoning Ordinance. Temporary signs shall not be located in the right-of-way. All temporary signage must be removed immediately upon cessation of the Temporary Use Permit.
That concludes Staff’s analysis and recommendations. I’m here to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone have any questions of Staff?
Kimberly Mitchell said I have one. Brian, can you tell me, have there been other events like this in the County?
Brian Radner said there have been other events of a similar nature in the County.
The County issues several Temporary Use Permits every year for events of public interest. Sometimes they are concerts, a tractor show, or a vintage fair. Sometimes the Staff even has the ability to issue them in-house. We do not have the ability to issue this one in the office and that’s why it’s before the Planning and Zoning Commission, for two reasons. One is because it includes overnight camping and two because the use of the property is primarily residential. Picture a commercial use maybe a bar or restaurant and they want to have a concert. If it was that type of situation, we could issue it in-house. Because the primary use is not related to events or a gathering of some sort, it’s a residence in agricultural, it has to come before this Commission. Yes, we have had other people come through for things like this that we have been able to approve in the office and then other events that this Commission have approved over time.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, any history on whether or not there have been any problems with those concert type events?
Brian Radner said the only one we’ve have trouble with, and it’s really only one. The trouble is really related to the fact that they were operating on days they weren’t allowed to operate. They didn’t properly ask for rain dates and they just took it upon themselves to operate on other days they were not authorized.
Kimberly Mitchell said okay, thank you.
John Kiefner said on the Trustee’s statement, they said they are unfamiliar with events like this and they’ve had complaints about family rodeos and such. They’re not specifically referring to this property though, are they?
Brian Radner said I do not believe that any event has taken place on this property in the past, that we are aware of. I do know of complaints in the Yates Avenue/Eagle Lake area of other people that have been operating illegally, meaning without Permits. They’ve been holding different kinds of events, whether they’re commercial or not, I can’t tell you. They’re just allegations that people have made about large parties and noise in the general area. I can assure you that we haven’t issued any Permits for those types of events.
John Kiefner said, so, like I thought, they’re not specifically stating this address.
Brian Radner said when I was looking at this property, we have no violations on this property and no complaints on this property.
John Kiefner asked, do you know if the Township Trustees were able to hear this Case, because we did table it last month? Did the applicant make a presentation to them?
Brian Radner said I do not believe the applicant made a presentation but the Township Board voted to object to this. They met and submitted the letter that was presented to you.
John Kiefner said without the applicant making their case.
Brian Radner said I do not believe that they did.
John Kiefner said thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked, are there any other questions?
Barbara Peterson said I wanted to make a statement. This area is two miles from the Indiana state line. Yates Avenue is two miles from the Indiana state line. It is the eastern egress to and from Beecher. There has never been anything like this before. The Trustee’s did hear this Case Thursday. We met on Tuesday and they heard this Case in its entirety. The applicant totally bypassed the Township one hundred percent and went directly to Land Use in Joliet, which that was finally straightened out. If I was to ask for hands here this evening, I bet you not too many people have even been in eastern Will County. We’re a long, long way from the Sheriff’s Office and the Fire Department. The Fire Department is being very good with everything. We just got a new Fire Marshall in our area. The problem is that they’re going to sell tickets. Pretty soon word will get out that there’s a concert and they’re not going to be able to handle people just coming in, especially that area. The Trustee’s went specifically and went through the Agenda and the Case and they came up unanimously with a No vote. We have to protect the residents who built this County and these people are. I don’t have a horse in this race. I am all the way west in the Township compared to this. The Township is looking for a No vote on this, because they are in charge and trying to protect the residents of the area.
John Kiefner asked, Barb, do you know firsthand if the applicant made a presentation?
Barbara Peterson said no, the applicant didn’t call them. There’s been no contact at all and I find that questionable. I’m sorry, I do. There has never been anything like this in eastern Will County or in the Washington Township area. As far as the rodeo, these are pop-ups. If there’s an acre, somebody moves in 1, 2, 3, there’s no water, no toilet facilities and they have big parties. And, they charge for these parties. They have been very diligent and the Will County Police also have been very, very good. Right now, everything’s been very quiet. I think I’ve more or less developed a reputation on this Board for protecting the people who have built this County. That’s part of our zoning responsibility. With that, I’m asking my Trustee’s to acknowledge the will of the Washington Township Board of Trustee’s and grant this a No vote. I’ve never done this before. We’ve never had this before. I don’t know why all of a sudden somebody wants to have a concert.
They are charging, but I don’t know what it’s going to be.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone else have any questions of Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this Case? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, may I hear from the agent or the owners? Either Karl Krudup or Matt Krudup? Are they here?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, nobody’s here for this Case?
No response.
John Kiefner asked, can I ask Staff another question then? Mr. Radner is it your impression that they knew that there was a meeting tonight and that this Case would be heard?
Brian Radner said it is my impression that they knew there was a meeting tonight. I have not talked to the applicant in a couple of weeks.
John Kiefner said okay.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, did Washington Township ask you to speak on their behalf?
Barbara Peterson said no, they did not. I didn’t go to their meeting. I’m just here to make sure everybody realizes how important this letter is to this Commission. Every one of the Trustees were on the Supervisor to make sure that he sent a letter on their behalf. From what I understand, their meeting lasted a long time that night, but I didn’t go.
Roger Bettenhausen said I’m just surprised the Supervisor wasn’t here tonight to express his opinion.
Barbara Peterson said as busy as you are, he is too. I don’t think they thought it was necessary.
Chairman Stipan said I think we should suspend this discussion at this point and go on to the vote. Staff has made a recommendation of approval. Keep in your mind what Staff has recommended and what you heard tonight.
John Kiefner said I would have to admit that I was on the fence. I heard what Barb said and given Staff's recommendation I thought we don't want to penalize them because of other things that have happened in the Township. I'm not too sure that the Township gave them due process. The fact that they didn't show up at this meeting that sways my vote.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed unanimously, 0-6, with 12 conditions.
1. The temporary use permit is only valid Saturday, August 14, 2021 through Sunday, August 15, 2021.
2. The concert is only permitted on August 14, 2021 from 2:00pm-11:00pm. 3. The applicant is required to submit to submit a site plan that complies with all conditions prior to issuance of full temporary use permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Will County Building Code requirements for temporary uses prior to issuance of full temporary use permit. 5. The applicant shall provide evidence of approval from the Will County Health
Department regarding temporary sanitary facilities prior to issuance of full temporary use permit approval.
6. Any food vendors are required to have the proper food service permits from the Will County Health Department.
7. Camping is not permitted within ten (10) feet of the existing private sewage disposal field.
8. All parking for the temporary use permit shall be on the subject parcel. Offsite parking is prohibited within the right-of-way. Ingress and egress for emergency vehicles must be provided and kept clear at all times.
9. The applicant is responsible for providing traffic control.
10. Noise levels associated with the event of public interest shall comply with all applicable noise regulations of the Will County Code of Ordinances (see Chapter 93 of Will County Code of Ordinances).
11. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Beecher Fire Protection District.
12. No signs in connection with a temporary use are permitted except in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance section 155-13. Temporary signs shall not be located within the right-of-way. All temporary signage must be removed immediately upon cessation of the temporary use.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [0 TO 6]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner NAYS: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case ZC-20-088, which takes place in Troy Township.
The applicant is Griselda Davalos and the attorney representing the applicant is Tom Osterberger of Kavanagh, Grumley, & Gorbold.
The applicant recently purchased a 10-acre A-1 parcel from a larger A-1 parcel.
The applicant is hoping to operate D&J Landscape, a landscaping business that specializes in designing and installing parks and playgrounds, but also provides lawn maintenance, landscape construction, and winter services. Most of the materials related to this business are shipped directly to the job sites.
The applicant would like to operate the landscape business from the rear two acres of the subject property, more to be able to store vehicles and equipment related to the use and also operate the business from a 4,000 square foot pole building.
The rear two acres is delineated on the Site Plan in your Staff Reports.
The hours of operation will be 7 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday with an occasional Saturday workday. There will be 2-3 employees associated with the company on the property, primarily arriving to pick up company vehicles and equipment. Until the storage building is constructed, the applicant is wishing to use the home for the office administrative activities occurring on the property. Based on the number of employees in the business, there is an estimated 3-4 daily trips from the site. Only a slight increase in noise will be associated by the commercial vehicles being on the property.
Looking at the Zoning Map, we have the subject property delineated by the blue dotted line. The Special Use area is that southern two acre portion in the red. You can see this area is still primarily agricultural. However, you can see that there is the Village of Shorewood starting to expand southwest ward. The City of Joliet is also starting to move southward with residential subdivisions. You can also see there is an I-1 property, which is a landscape and feed store. It also has a Special Use for the storage of ammonia fertilizer and gas.
Looking at the aerial, again you can see most of the area is still prime farm land. The subject site itself is improved with a single-family residence, some grain silos, and a playground.
The applicant is proposing to have a horse on the property, which is a permitted use in the A-1 District.
In terms of the two acres, here you can see that there’s going to be some material storage outdoors. It will be required to be screened from all sides of the property. There is a proposed storage office building. This is a conceptual Site Plan, so once they actually come forward for a Commercial Building Permit, they will have to comply with the County’s regulations. These plans might change slightly in terms of meeting setbacks or the size and design of the building to meet the compliance requirements.
Looking at the subject property, this is looking south from Black Road. You can see the residence and the silos. That Special Use area is behind the silos and the residence. This is looking on the property, southwest, at the proposed Special Use area. You can see the existing trucks and equipment being stored on the property. There is no Building Permit issued, so the equipment being stored on the property right now is not permitted. There is currently no active violation against this property. This is looking straight south at the proposed Special Use area. This is looking southeast from the proposed area. This is looking north from the Special Use area towards the residence and Black Road to the north. This is looking at the adjacent property to the northeast. This is looking towards that industrial zoned property, which is that feed and supply store in the distance, so this is also looking northeast towards Black Road. This is looking northwest from the proposed Special Use area. There’s not a lot of development happening yet within this area, it’s still mainly cropland. Then looking from the subject property along Black Road, you can start seeing the City of Joliet residential subdivisions coming forward. Looking northwest from Black Road. Looking north. Looking northeast, and then looking east along Black Road.
The criteria by which Special Use Permits are reviewed upon, the full analysis is contained in your Staff Reports. The proposed Special Use area is roughly 957 feet away from Black Road and will be screed by the existing buildings to the north and the adjacent properties. Staff has also recommended a condition to require a seven foot solid fence and landscape along the exterior fence line to provide additional screening of the vehicles and equipment. Other conditions recommended derive from the Resource Recovery and Energy Division regarding landscaping businesses and environmental regulations. Staff finds that these proposed conditions will help allow the landscape business not to impact, be detrimental, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or welfare of the immediate area.
With regards to criteria #2 and #3, the surrounding area is currently farmed agricultural lands within unincorporated Will County. While the Village of Shorewood foresees this area to be residential developments in the future, the development is not yet adjacent to the subject property. Staff also finds that the current uses and the proposed special use will not substantially diminish or impair property values or impair normal and orderly development for uses permitted in the A-1 District.
With regards to criteria #4 and #5, the subject property is already improved with a single family residence, silos and a gravel driveway accessing Black Road to the north. Permits will be required for the site development for the building as well as the parking area for the commercial uses. This will also be subject to conforming to the County’s adopted Codes and Ordinances, including Fire and Health Department Codes.
With regards to agency comments, the Will-South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District did produce a LESA score. It was classified as Potential Growth and Incorporated Areas.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources did not find any identified State listed threatened or endangered species, Illinois Natural Area Inventory sites, dedicated Nature Preserves, or registered Land and Water Reserves in the vicinity.
The Health Department does not object. However, they will require sign-off for the new building, which may require water service. So, that may require Septic Permits from the Health Department.
The Troy Fire Protection District did provide comments including ensuring that the new building is adequately improved with fire extinguishing equipment, emergency lighting and signage, and fire alarm system. Fire Protection District approval would part of that permitting process for the Building Permit and a condition of this Special Use Permit. I will review those conditions shortly.
The Village of Shorewood has passed a Resolution to formally object to this Special Use request. The letter and Resolution has been provided as a Memo. Unlike Map Amendments, where recorded objections may trigger a super majority vote, the Special Use is still a simple majority vote for approval. Staff has added a condition regarding screening in an effort to provide close to 100% screening of the vehicles and equipment associated with the business to help mitigate the aesthetics and looks of having a more industrial use in the area.
Staff just wanted to provide a picture of the Village of Shorewood’s Future Land Use Plan. You can see that the subject property is between residential and commercial areas. Black Road is eventually to become a major collector road in the village. It still is a 1-lane roadway in the east and west directions.
Staff is recommending approval of the Special Use Permit with seven conditions. The first is our typical site inspection. The second being within six months of County Board approval, if it is approved, the applicant shall be required to submit a Site Development Permit that includes a landscape plan in accordance of the Zoning Ordinance. Outdoor storage needs to be screened by a seven foot tall solid fence with landscape around the outside of it following the typical landscape requirements. Approval by the Troy Fire Protection District, Will County Health Department, and Troy Township Road District would be required prior to Building/Site Development Permit issuance. The fifth being the burning of any substance on the site is prohibited, except clean wood as a fuel source within structures. Landscape wastes shall not be transported to the site except generated as a result of the services provided by the applicants. The waste brought to the site shall be stored within the vehicle and transported off the property within 24 hours. Bulk material or wastes stored on site which create odors that are detected off site shall be removed from the site within 24 hours.
Staff did receive an Objection Memo with the official Resolutions from the Village of Shorewood, which this Commission should have received as a Memo.
Staff also received a letter from an adjacent property owner regarding the Special Use. I can read it into the record and it is also on the screen. It’s dated July 20, 2021 to the Will County Planning & Zoning Commission, care of the Will County Land Use Department. This is regarding a Special Use for Landscaping Business, ZC-20-088. “Dear Chairman and Commission Members. My name is William Kobe. I reside at 25745 W. Black Road, near Shorewood. I have lived there for over 17 years. I wanted to let you know that I am opposed to allowing a landscaping business adjacent to my homestead. There are currently stockpiles, cargo containers, and dump trucks using the property for the landscape business, which are disturbing me because of the noise and other issues. I request that you deny the request for the Special Use Permit. Sincerely, William G. Kobe”
I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan said I have one question for you. You mentioned that they’re going to store liquid fertilizer. What type of liquid fertilizer will they be storing? Are you talking about ammonia?
Marguerite Kenny said this property is not planning on storing any liquid fertilizer. That I-1 property that is less than a half mile to the east of this property does store liquid ammonia and related fertilizers.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for Staff?
Michael Carruthers said I’m reading these letters and just had a question. Mr. Kobe has a trucking firm there at his address, right? Also, is there a Tri-County Stockdale delivery within the vicinity?
Marguerite Kenny said in term of the adjacent property, they are zoned A-1. I did not see any Special Use Permits related to outdoor storage or related trucking companies. Per the Zoning Ordinance, if there’s parking of trucks or equipment, it would not be permitted in the A-1 Zoning District. It would be required to have an Industrial type Zoning District usually as a Special Use with a truck terminal.
Michael Carruthers said thank you.
John Kiefner said I have a couple of questions. The two acres with the Special Use, that is enforceable by the County and it is just limited to those two acres, correct? If it spills over into other areas, then you can have enforcement action then?
Marguerite Kenny said that is correct.
John Kiefner said okay. Is there any requirements for retention or detention of water in this Special Use?
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of the site development, if they exceed over 25,000 square feet of impervious, which is building, gravel, and anything that isn’t basically dirt and grass, that could trigger the need for detention on the property. In terms of the site development, we won’t know if they need it until they show us their plans for how much impervious is going to be put down.
John Kiefner said 25,000 isn’t much considering how deep they are on the property. Then I guess I should ask this question. Shorewood has asked that if we approve, we put restrictions on that. Can we even legally do that?
Marguerite Kenny said you can always make a motion to add additional conditions.
John Kiefner said but apparently they’re not part of the current conditions that you have?
Marguerite Kenny said some are already regarding the screening, but a lot of those conditions that Shorewood had comments regarding, will be applied as part of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Screening of any outdoor storage is required by Code. In terms of the number of parking spaces required, it’s usually required based on the number of employees. There are certain requirements of how far away they are from the office. Accessible parking spaces would be required and those need to be paved. As far as requiring asphalt versus gravel, the County doesn’t have design standards regarding that.
John Kiefner said that one seems cumbersome as well as putting equipment in and no fuel pumps or tanks on the property. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much. Are there objectors or concerned citizens to this Case?
Two people in the gallery raised their hands.
Chairman Stipan said don’t come up, I just want to see how many we have. There’s two of you. First we’ll hear from the owners or their agent. We have Griselda as the owner and Mr. Osterberger as the agent.
Tom Osterberger introduced himself to the Commission. Mrs. Davalos is here tonight to answer any questions. I just want to quickly go through this. We agree with the Staff Report and everything that Margie said. One thing that hasn’t come out is, and it ties together, along Black Road you have approximately six, ten acre farmettes. We know in Will County you can be A-1 and you can have your farm. You’re not going to farm much on ten acres, but you can have your accessory buildings. So, you have these along Black Road. You have Tri-County Stockdale that is basically a country store for all of the farmers. These ten acre farmettes are not going to go away when Shorewood objects and they say we have a plan. People like those 10 acre parcels. They love them and they need the accessory structures. Whether they’re using those for their business and trucks and going elsewhere, I don’t know and I don’t care. They’re not zoned for that. With the exception, if you look at a couple that have quite a few trucks on them, they’re valuable. People like them and they are not getting it broken down into quarter acre lots. That’s not going to happen. Mrs. Davalos purchased this property that was cut out, ten acres that has a house on it, so that she can have A-1 Zoning. The request for a Special Use for a landscape business fits in the Ag zone. Shorewood is suggesting that somehow it’s an industrial use and it’s not. It’s an Ag use and that’s why it’s a Special Use in the Agricultural Zoning District. Our suggestion is that what the applicant wants to do is consistent. Say for example with Mr. Kobe next door. Mr. Kobe has ten acres and he has a farm operation. I wasn’t going to bring it up, but Mr. Carruthers did. If you go on the website you’ll see Bill Kobe Trucking. He has trucks there. Whether he can have them there for his trucking business or not, it’s not my concern and I’m not here to object to that. For him to object to a landscape business next door when he has a farm operation and trucks going all the time is ludicrous. I’m not sure what his problem is. I will point out that I told our applicant when she called me a month ago to please call Mr. Kobe and talk to him and see if he’s okay with it. If he’s against it, I’m not going to take your case. She talked to him and he was fine. Then when I talked to the mayor, apparently Mr. Kobe changed his mind. If Margie goes back to the Site Plan, it shows Mr. Kobe’s property. He has a large farm operation sitting there, with or without trucks, I don’t know. This small operation on two acres is not going to create a problem. It is critical that we understand that the ten acre parcels not only are not going to go away, but we’re probably going to see more of them before that area gets developed. I don’t know how long it’s going to take for Shorewood to get there. Their concern should be, is this from a geographic standpoint and from a size standpoint going to be a problem for our development, number one. And, number two, is the use going to be a problem? The conditions imposed, which Mr. Kiefner asked about, are more than sufficient. We close it in and we make sure it’s of a size that's not going to create a lot of noise. It’s a small family-run business. The truck goes out and it goes to the jobsite. There are approximately nine workers and most of them go directly there. You’re going to see very little activity. A lot less activity than you might see on a ten acre farm with trucks coming and going throughout the day. The conditions imposed are screened, kept in good shape, and there’s going to have to be some Site Plan review. Margie talked to the applicant and 25,000 square feet is going to be exceeded. There’s going to be a lot of engineering if they’re going to do what they’re suggesting they’re going to do. We’re seeking approval and I think it’s consistent with what else you see out there. If you look at the Site Plan, all of what they want to do can be accomplished on 1.3 or 1.4 acres. The applicant would be willing to reduce the 2 acres to 1.4 acres to try to relieve people’s concern that this is going to grow out of control. It’s going to be completely screened and very few in and outs. We think it’s consistent and meets the criteria and we ask you to approve it.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir. Would you please take a seat over there while we hear from the concerned citizens? Would the first concerned citizen come up please?
Kelley Chrisse from the Village of Shorewood introduced herself to the Commission. I am the Economic Development Director for the Village of Shorewood. I am here representing the Village of Shorewood in opposition to this petition. I understand the applicant’s perspective on this. I do want to reiterate the fact that this property has already started to be used for this purpose without having received approval. This is within our planning jurisdiction and we absolutely have the right to try and achieve our vision. Our vision does not align with the proposal that’s being presented. We understand that the plans can be modified and things may change, but from our zoning perspective this land use is industrial. You saw the photos that have the trucks, there’s also material storage.
This is not a nursery where people will come in and out and it’s more of a retail type location. This truly is more of an industrial use. I’m happy to answer any questions on behalf of the Village, but I do want to make it clear that the Village is in opposition to this request.
Chairman Stipan said I have a question for you. You refer to an industrial use, but exactly what industrial use are you referring to in a landscape business?
Kelley Chrisse said the landscape business itself is classified in our Zoning Ordinance as an industrial use. It is only permitted in Industrial Zoning Districts. That is how we classify that use.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you very much.
Michael Carruthers asked is the trucking business industrial also? Or how do you classify that?
Kelley Chrisse asked, a trucking business?
Michael Carruthers said yes, Kobe Trucking.
Kelley Chrisse said that is unincorporated and we’re not asked to weigh-in on that property. In terms of the use, a trucking use would be considered industrial from our perspective.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Are there any other questions? No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Would the next objector please come up?
Mark Fecht introduced himself to the Commission. We actually farm the ground around this property and have a long term lease on the property. In addition, we own 230 acres to the west of this property. It is right along County Line Road on the western edge of the county. I echo a lot of what Mr. Osterberger said. Mr. Kobe does operate his trucking business at the adjacent location in addition to some trucking storage to the east of this property. I do respect the Village’s wishes with the land plan with it not being consistent. I would note that there were 66 single-family residential building permits issued in 2019. Last year there was 65 issued. That compares with over 120 in 2018. If you were to visit the Village of Shorewood, you wouldn’t see any residential development. There has not been any residential development in terms of moving dirt and those kinds of things in quite some time, I would suggest maybe back to 2010. You can certainly correct me on that point if I am wrong. It’s going to be a long time before the property is developed in the Village of Shorewood. They’re wanting to pursue their economic interest in the property. I’d also note that there is a large recapture agreement filed against this property by the Village of Shorewood. They are the beneficiary of this recapture agreement. If this does not come in as residential zoning, that recapture agreement would probably not be collected on by the Village. There’s over 2000 acres underneath that recapture agreement. It seems a little bit unfair to tie them to the recapture agreement. That’s all I have, but I can answer your questions.
Barbara Peterson said I have one question. What is your job, your day to day job?
Mark Fecht said I’m a retired banker. I grew up on a farm in west central Illinois. I’ve always wanted to farm. At first I started out with 145 acres.
Barbara Peterson asked, where is that at?
Mark Fecht said the 10 acres that is the subject of this application and the 135 acres surrounding it. We sold them that property.
Barbara Peterson asked, so it’s in Will County?
Mark Fecht said yes it is.
Barbara Peterson said good for you, I had to ask.
John Kiefner said I just wanted to clarify something because you didn’t come flat out and say that you’re in favor of this.
Mark Fecht said I am in favor of this, yes.
John Kiefner said that’s the way I took that. Thank you.
Kelley Chrisse from the Village of Shorewood said I just wanted to speak to the recapture comment. The Village actually is not the beneficiary of the recapture agreement. The recapture agreement was entered into between the developer and the Village. The Village collects that when the utilities are tapped on to or when there is a plat for development. However, there is no benefit for the Village because that is a pass-through cost that’s passed along to the developer that implemented that recapture agreement. So, the Village has no interest in terms of a financial incentive. This is really a matter of the Village looking to further plan and be able to accomplish the goals that were set forth in that plan.
Barbara Peterson said I have a question. What is the date of this latest plan of the Village of Shorewood?
Kelley Chrisse said the Comprehensive Plan that we’re talking about today is from 2007.
Barbara Peterson asked, 2007?
Kelley Chrisse said correct.
Barbara Peterson said thank you.
Thomas Osterberger said I have one final response. I understand the villages like to plan. As Mr. Fecht said, 66 permits in a year is not a lot. I think the issue is, this 10-acre parcel is never going to go into the Village. It doesn’t make any sense unless some day they need sewer and water. The use that we’ve set forth is quiet, it’s reasonable, and it’s appropriate for a 10-acre parcel. Those other 10-acre parcels are most likely going to continue operating the way they are. I want to make one further point. They Mayor of Shorewood lives on a property very similar to this. He has equipment that this County approved for that use. It is a mile or a mile and a half south of here on Mound Road. It’s clean, it’s nice, and it’s appropriate. I’m not saying that the mayor can’t take a position on behalf of the Village. My point is that if this use wasn’t consistent with the very expensive homes in the area then he wouldn’t be doing it. There’s nothing wrong with this use. We’re not asking for anything other than a small business on a large parcel. If you’d like to approve it and condition it smaller, that’s the only thing that we can offer to assure that we’re not going to grow out of control. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said okay, everyone has had a chance to listen. Does anyone have any questions?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0, with 7 conditions.
1. Upon fourteen (14) days of written notice to the owner of record and/or operator at their last known address, Will County Land Use Department and Will County Sheriff’s Department employees are hereby granted the right of entry in and upon the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises and uses thereon for compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use permit.
2. Within six months after Will County Board approval, the applicant shall be required to submit a site development permit that includes a landscape plan in accordance with sections 155-12 and 155-14.100 of the Will County Zoning Ordinance.
3. Outdoor storage shall be screened by a seven foot tall solid fence with a landscaped area at least ten feet in width with at least one evergreen tree and one deciduous (shade or understory) tree per 30 linear feet along the exterior side of the fence line.
4. Approval by the Troy Fire Protection District, Will County Health Department and Troy Township Road District is required prior to building/site development permit issuance.
5. Open burning of any substance on site is prohibited, except clean wood as a fuel source within structures.
6. Landscape wastes shall not be transported to the site, except those generated as a result of services provided by the applicant(s). Landscape wastes brought to the site shall be stored within the vehicle which transported the waste to the site. All landscape waste transported to the site shall be transported off site for proper disposal within twenty-four (24) hours except for weekends or holidays when forty-eight (48) hours will be allowed.
7. Bulk product, material, or wastes stored on site, which create odors that are detected off site, shall be removed from the site within 24 hours from the time the odor was detected or the time the odor complaint or notification was received.
Dawn Tomczak said, please note Land Use and Development Committee will be August 10th and County Board August 19th.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-048, which takes place in New Lenox Township.
The owner is First National Bank of Evergreen Park Trust # 7040, with Danette M. Wasilowski, Trustee and Raymond A. Wasilowski, Trustee.
The agent is John Leibold of Leibold Irrigation, Inc.
The attorney representing this Zoning Case is Gary Davidson of Castle Law.
The Staff Report contains an error on the first page regarding the size of the property. Staff wanted to take a moment to clarify the size. The request is for two PINs that have a Petition for Consolidation completed to join the two parcels into a single parcel. It would create a 5.38 acre parcel with 300 feet of frontage. Just so everyone is aware, it takes Mapping and Platting about a year to assign a new PIN number for any division or consolidation. Right now we have the Petition # that has been assigned and the new PIN number will probably be reflected sometime next year.
The agent is looking to purchase the property and operate a golf course irrigation business from the subject property. Staff has met with the applicant and has classified this use as part of the “construction services” category, which is a permitted use in the C-4 (highway commercial) Zoning District.
The applicant is requesting a Map Amendment to C-4 in order to be able to use the property for his business.
Looking at the Site Plan and Plat of Survey, you can see that its 5.38 acres and it will have 300 feet of frontage, which is along Maple Road or US Route 6. It is within a half mile to three quarters of a mile from the I-355 Interchange. Silver Cross is in the area as well.
The applicant stated that the intended use of the property will be for a new office building and storage space to store construction equipment and supplies related to the construction of irrigation systems used by golf courses. The applicant intends to store all vehicles and equipment inside the structure.
The proposed hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
There will be an estimated 5 employees working from the site, generating an estimated average of 12 daily trips.
As mentioned and you can see by the Site Plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a 6,600 square foot building to be used for the business office and storage garage.
Per the Zoning Ordinance, the C-4 Zoning District would allow for outdoor storage, but is required to be screened from view of all property lines. For the development of this property, additional requirements such as parking, landscaping, and signage will be applied to this development at the time of the Building and Site Development Permit Application phases.
Looking at the aerials of the subject property, it is currently unimproved and is used as farmland. Combined, it is 5.38 acres. In this area, Route 6 is under the jurisdiction of IDOT and it is seen as an arterial roadway. So, it is a major roadway with a lot of traffic and connecting points to local roads within the area.
The subject property is also located less than a half mile east of I-355, which is just off of this image. Again, like I mentioned, Silver Cross is just on the other side of I 355 in this area.
Looking at some photos of the subject property, this is looking west towards 355. This is looking northwest. This is looking west along Maple Road, so again towards 355. This is looking north at the subject property. This is looking east along Maple Road.
The criteria by which Map Amendments are evaluated upon, the majority of the analysis is in your Staff Reports. I will just point out some tidbits for you and briefly walk through it.
With regards to existing uses of the property and trend in development, on the left you have an aerial from the 1970’s GIS. The subject property was re-zoned to A-2 in 1980 per a zoning request. It was planned in this area to be a residential subdivision, but never got platted. So, they went through the zoning and they never executed the Subdivision Plat. The image on the right is showing current conditions within the surrounding area.
Staff looked within a mile and a half radius for existing uses. In terms of the existing uses, most of the uses are agricultural or residential. Teerling Nursery is located less than a half mile north. Within the Village of New Lenox we have residential subdivisions, Silver Cross Medical Campus, and a gas station at the corner of Cedar and Route 6. Within Homer Glen, the primary uses are residential subdivisions. Most of Homer Glen is to the north and northwest. New Lenox is more to the south, east, west, and a little bit north of the subject property.
Looking at the zoning classifications of the general vicinity, again we’re using that mile and a half radius.
Will County has a mix of Agricultural Districts, Residential Districts, and some Commercial Districts. In terms of commercial, they are local commercial and recreational commercial along Parker Road to the east of the subject property.
Within New Lenox, there is a mix of agricultural, residential, multi-family residential, two-unit residence, 3-4 unit residence, local commercial, general commercial, and hospital. The closest Zoning District to the subject property in the Village of New Lenox is general commercial and regional commercial. This is located around the interchange.
Within Homer Glen, their land use is primarily residential.
Just to point out, the C-4 Commercial Highway District is primarily intended to accommodate retail, service, and auto-oriented commercial uses. So, it does fit into a regional commercial atmosphere.
With regards to criteria 3 and 6, a LESA score was not calculated.
With regards to the suitability of the subject property for uses allowed under the A-2 Zoning District, the property is currently farmed. A-2 uses would include a dwelling, a winery without retail sales, you can be a wholesale nursery, and you could be a school. There’s other uses similar as well that would be permitted as a right.
What the applicant is proposing would not be permitted in the A-2 Zoning District.
With regards to Route 6 being the access point for the subject property, having a school or some type of less intense use, it might not be the best location.
With regards to the Consistency with officially adopted plans of the County, the subject property falls under the Freestanding Industries and Offices Development Use Concept, which is a permitted use under the Suburban Community Development Form.
With regards to the Village of Homer Glen Comprehensive Plan, the subject property which is indicated by that white star, is located in a commercial area. So, it would be seen as being in compliance or compatible with that intended use for the Village of Homer Glen. Based on plans, it does appear that the subject property lies within the Village of New Lenox’s side of the boundary agreement with Homer Glen.
Looking at the Village of New Lenox, you can see that their future land use plan shows a Mixed Use District revolving around Silver Cross. More specifically, this subject property is actually located within the residential blocks of the Mixed Use District, or the Silver Cross District. It does not appear to be in compliance with their future land use plan. However, the Village of New Lenox has not officially commented on this zoning request. They are undergoing a public hearing process within the Village regarding this Case. Last Staff has communicated with both the applicant and the Village of New Lenox, the applicant is going through potentially a pre-annexation agreement with the Village regarding this proposal. New Lenox is set to hear this on August 23rd at the public hearing meeting.
Of the agencies notified, none have objected. The Natural Resource Information Report indicated the activity taking place on the subject property will have little to no effect. The EcoCAT identified the northern long-eared bat as a protected species within the area, but further evaluation from the IDNR concluded that adverse effects are unlikely. The Will County Health Department stated that they do not have an objection, but would require soil evaluation for the development of the building.
Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment from A-2 to C-4. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan said I have no questions. Does anyone have any questions? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, are there any concerned citizens or objectors here? Someone in the gallery raised their hand.
Chairman Stipan asked, is Gary Davidson from Castle Law here or John Leibold of Leibold Irrigation, Inc.?
Michael Miracle of Leibold Irrigation introduced himself. I can answer any additional questions that anyone has. The Staff Report is very well done.
Chairman Stipan said take a seat and we’ll let the concerned citizen or objector come up and speak.
Michael Mossario introduced himself to the Commission. I am a lifelong resident and I live with my mom, Beverly. I am here representing her and she is a lifelong resident as well. I am with my mom here today. We are not really objecting, but we’re just a little bit torn. We’re actually the parcel that was kind of cut out. If you could go back to the Plat of Survey you will see it. We’re that small little half acre. A little bit of a back story on this. My dad purchased that little property in 1958 after graduating from a tool and die apprenticeship with General Motors. It’s been a big part of our family. I remember him paying taxes on that and working really hard up until 1980, when they did change the zoning. Mom’s on Social Security and she’s 82. I got hit really badly with COVID and I’m on disability. We’re just concerned about what ramifications this is going to have on us owning that land that’s right there. I’m not in a real position to help her. We’re both at an age where we’re looking to get rid of it, but that’s neither here nor there. Mom’s in good graces with Mrs. Wasilowski and she has even reached out to her. So, we’re supportive of her getting rid of this, or moving on from having this. Honestly, I think everyone thought that this whole corridor was going to blossom before 2008 hit. Backing up a little bit, dad worked until 1998 and then in 2006 he passed and left it to mom. We were told that Walgreen's would pay you $1,000 per square foot and it’s going to be great. That was in 2006. Then 2008 happens and here we are. We’re kind of interested in being involved, but we’re moved concerned with what’s going to happen to our little block of land that’s adjacent to that if the zoning does change. Will the taxes go up? Will we be in trouble? Just wondering if someone could address that. Just also wondering why we weren’t included. That’s all I have to say.
Chairman Stipan said we’ll try and get some answers for you. If you talk to that woman right there, she will get your information and maybe answer some questions for you.
Michael Mossario said thank you sir.
Chairman Stipan asked, can you respond to that gentleman at all sir? Do you have any idea what this could do to his property?
Michael Miracle from Leibold Irrigation, Inc. said we were not even aware that they were looking to sell this subject property, or move on from it. At this point we’re still going through this process. For his sake, it’s going to be all grass to a building. Under the next steps of the pre-annexation with New Lenox, it looks like we’re going to have additional requirements with them. It’s not going to be an eyesore. We have 5 employees regionally and most of our employees go straight to a jobsite. We’re doing everything in our power to make this beneficial to New Lenox and Will County.
Chairman Stipan said you’re going to store as much materials as you can inside. Michael Miracle said correct, that’s the plan.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you sir. Any other questions for anybody? No response.
Chairman Stipan said okay.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: John Kiefner, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-045, which takes place in Green Garden Township.
The owners are Alan and Amanda Siegel.
The attorney is Pamela Visvardis of Reveliotis Law, P.C.
The owners are seeking this Map Amendment to bring an illegal, nonconforming parcel into conformance in order to obtain Building Permits.
The subject parcel is located on the north side of West Bruns Road west of South 80th Avenue and measures 5 acres in lot area with 330 feet of lot frontage.
The parcel is deficient for lot area for the A-1 District and due to its date of creation on December 13, 1994 is deemed illegal and nonconforming.
The parcel is vacant and unimproved, with Forked Creek dividing the property near the north property line.
The owners applied for Building Permit # 2101053 to construct a single-family home in April of 2021. At that time, Staff notified the owners that the parcel is illegal and would need to be brought into conformance to obtain a Building Permit for a residence.
The applicants are requesting a Map Amendment to E-1 as the parcel meets the minimum lot standards for the E-1 District.
This is the Plat of Survey for the property.
These are the Map Amendment Review Criteria used to review the proposal. For this Case, a LESA score was not calculated.
Staff evaluated the existing uses and zoning classifications within a one mile radius of the subject property. Within this radius, the uses of the properties are agricultural, residential, and commercial. Residential uses include stand-alone residential parcels, the Canterbury Lakes and the Preserve at Charlevoix Subdivisions and the as-yet undeveloped Fairway Lakes Subdivision. The commercial use in the area is the SPG Green Garden Country Club.
Within a one mile radius, the zoning classifications of the properties within the general area include A-1, A-2, R-1, R-2 and C-6.
Due to the relatively small size of the parcel, it would be suitable for small-scale agricultural uses under the current A-1 zoning classification.
Due to the illegal status of the parcel, Building Permits for residential uses cannot be issued. Agricultural uses that do not require permits would be permitted.
The subject parcel was zoned A-1 as part of a larger parcel in 1978 when the County was comprehensively re-zoned.
The current parcel was created as a deficient A-1 parcel in 1994. Since that time, the general trend in the area has been for the division of agricultural parcels for stand-alone residential development as well as larger residential subdivisions.
Between 1990 and 2006, the parcels immediately adjacent to the subject parcel on the north, east, south, and west all re-zoned to either E-1 or E-2. The Canterbury Lakes and Fairway Lakes Subdivisions were re-zoned to R-2 in 1998 and 2003 respectively. There are as-yet undeveloped large vacant parcels to the north and south of the subject parcel that were re-zoned to R-2 in 2003 and 2006.
The applicant's proposal to re-zone the parcel to E-1 is in conformance with the trend in development in this area.
The request is in conformance with the County's Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Per the LRMP, the site is identified as being on the cusp of the Rural Areas and Suburban Communities Forms. The proposed used will be single family residential on a five acre parcel, which fits most closely under the Conservation Design Development Use Concept. Under the Conservation Design Use, "net development density in Rural Areas for Conservation Design Use Concept should be in the range of one dwelling per 2.5 to 10 acres."
This is a view of the subject parcel looking north from West Bruns Road. This is another view of the subject parcel looking north. This is a view of the adjacent parcel looking northeast. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking west. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking south across Bruns Road.
Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment request. Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. I can take any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anybody have any questions of Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you very much. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this Case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, is the attorney here?
A woman in the gallery said yes, and the owners.
Chairman Stipan asked, Pamela Visvardis?
The woman said yes.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you. Would you care to make any statements?
Pamela Visvardis said I think Ms. Napoles made all statements necessary. If anyone has any questions for the Siegel’s or myself, we’d be happy to answer them for you. We appreciate all of your help.
Chairman Stipan said thank you.
Roger Bettenhausen said the Green Garden Board of Trustees unanimously approved this recommendation.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-058, which takes place in Wesley Township.
This is a Zoning Case for three Variances. The first for minimum street yard setback from 100 feet to 84 feet. The second for minimum side yard setback on the east from 50 feet to 14.75 feet. The third for minimum lot area from 10 acres to 9.48 acres.
The owner is Ronald S. Siriano.
The applicant is seeking these Variances to bring a non-conforming parcel into conformance and obtain a Building Permit for a rear addition and a front porch.
The subject parcel is located on the south side of West Angle Road, east of the Kankakee River. It measures 9.48 acres in area and is zoned A-1. The parcel is deficient for lot area for the A-1 District, but due to its date of creation of August 14, 1973, is deemed legal, nonconforming. The applicant is requesting the Variance for minimum lot area to bring the parcel into conformance.
The applicant submitted Building Permit # 2100214 in February of 2021 for porch and rear additions onto the existing residence. Staff’s review of the Permit Application found that the residence encroaches into the minimum street and east side yard setbacks required for the A-1 Zoning District.
The owner submitted the application for this Zoning Case in June of 2021 to bring the residence into conformance in order to obtain the Building Permit. Should these Variances be approved, Staff could approve the zoning review of Building Permit # 2100214.
As previously mentioned, the parcel is zoned A-1, as are the adjacent parcels to the north, east, south, and west.
This is the Plat of Survey for the property showing the house located in the northeast corner of the property with a detailed view of the house at right.
For the Variance requests, I provided full details in your report, but to summarize, in regards to criterion (a) by which the Zoning Ordinance evaluates Variances, Staff finds that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The parcel is 9.48 acres in area and the owner does not have the opportunity to acquire additional acreage in order to meet the required minimum lot area and setbacks.
In regards to criterion (b), Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The owner is seeking to bring an existing nonconforming parcel and an existing nonconforming structure into conformance in order to obtain a Building Permit.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking south from West Angle Road. This is a view of the subject parcel looking east at the deficient street yard setback. This is a view of the subject parcel looking north at the location of the proposed rear addition.
Staff is recommending approval of all three requests.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. I can take any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan said thank you, does anyone else have any questions? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this Case? No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, is the owner or agent here?
A gentleman in the gallery answered yes.
Chairman Stipan said we have a recommendation for approval and we have no objectors or concerned citizens. You’re welcome to come up and speak if you want to otherwise we will take the vote, whichever you prefer.
The gentleman said just do the vote please. Thank you.
6. Motion to Approve a Variance for Minimum Street Setback from 100 feet to 84 feet
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case ZC-21-044, which takes place in New Lenox Township.
This is a Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 3,321 square feet.
The owner is John Sestak, represented by Cass Wennlund of Wennlund & Associates.
The applicant is seeking this Variance to obtain a Building Permit for an accessory building for personal storage.
The subject property is located on the east side of North Cooper Street and is comprised of a west parcel which has frontage on North Cooper Street, and an east parcel which is divided by Hickory Creek. The applicant submitted Petition # 2021-34 in June of 2021 to consolidate the two parcels. The combined parcels meet the lot standards for the R-1 Zoning District.
The 2020 aerial shows that the west parcel was previously improved with a residence, a detached garage, and a second accessory building. The applicant submitted application for the Demolition Permit # 2002936 for the existing residence and Building Permit # 2002940 for a new residence with two attached garages in October.
The residence has since been demolished while the detached garage and accessory building remain on the property.
Per the Site Plan, the existing detached garage measure 593 square feet and the accessory building 1,380 square feet, which together amount to 1,973 square feet exceeding the 1,800 square feet of accessory building area permitted in the R-1 Zoning District. Per the architectural plans submitted for the proposed residence, the combined attached garages will measure 1,348 square feet, bringing the proposed total accessory building area to 3,321 square feet.
The applicant submitted the application for this Zoning Case in May of 2021 to request a Variance for maximum accessory building area in order to obtain the Building Permit for the residence as proposed.
The subject parcel is zoned R-1, as are the neighboring properties to the south, with the properties to the north zoned R-1 and R-4.
The adjacent property to the west is zoned R-2 and the property to the east is zoned R-1, both in the Village of New Lenox.
This is the Plat of Survey for the property, with the entire parcel shown at upper left and the detail showing the proposed residence with two attached garages at center.
For the Variance requests, I provided full details in your Staff Report, but to summarize, in regards to criterion (a) by which the Zoning Ordinance evaluates Variances, Staff finds that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The owner is seeking to retain two accessory buildings on the property and construct a residence with attached garages that will exceed the maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-1 District.
In regards to criterion (b), Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. If the Variance is approved, the property will have two attached garages and two accessory structures. While accessory structures are common in the area, aerial images show only one other property in the area with two accessory structures.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking east from North Cooper Street showing that the residence has been demolished. This is a view of the applicants parcel showing the rear accessory structure. This is a view of the subject and adjacent parcels showing the other accessory building. This is the view of the adjacent parcels looking west from the site of the proposed residence.
Staff is recommending denial of the request.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. I can take any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stipan said I have no questions. Does anyone else have any questions of Staff?
Roger Bettenhausen said I have just one. The other parcel that you mentioned from the aerial view that has two accessory buildings, what is the square footage of that parcel? Do you have any idea?
Lisa Napoles said the parcels were the same size. The parcel to the west is the parcel that is proposed to have both the accessory buildings and will have the proposed residence. The rear parcel, as you can see, does have Hickory Creek running through it so most of it is covered in wetland. So, it is not buildable.
Michael Carruthers said they do have room to put this accessory for this Variance behind it, right?
Lisa Napoles said the proposed building will be on the west parcel near the street.
Michael Carruthers asked, the majority of the residences are on the west side of Cooper Road, right?
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Michael Carruthers said thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked, any other questions of Staff?
No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this Case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, would the owner of the property or their attorney please come up?
Cass Wennlund introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Sestak is here too. John and I have something in common, we’re lifelong residents of New Lenox. Also we have something in common because we’re both business owners is New Lenox. John is an electrical contractor. This is where his home’s going to be along with recreational vehicles and such. This is not where a business use is. His electrical contracting business is in the industrially zoned area off of Schoolhouse Road. Just wanted to make sure we’re clear on that. This is not a Special Use Permit to build additional accessory structures like your stand-alone structures. This is for a new home that has an attached garage so that his fiancée, Jackie, can actually pull into a heated garage that’s attached to a newer home. It’s not the dilapidated home which you talked about earlier. This wasn’t just a Demolition Permit, Mr. Sestak donated the home to the New Lenox Fire District for training. That is how that home was taken down. We’ve heard from a lot of objectors. I can give each of you the same set of pictures and the same set of letters from the neighbors. These are the neighbors to the north, to the west, and to the south that are not objecting to it, but supporting it. I have additional copies if any are needed for Staff. Mr. Sestak has the support of all of his neighbors, all with letters of no objection. This is an R-1 zoned parcel. I don’t know when that happened, maybe it went through comprehensive re-zoning. You’re looking at a 4.66 acre parcel. Additionally, the parcel to the south, the 10-acre parcel, also belongs to Mr. Sestak. To the south of that is the Webb horse farm with about 9 outdoor barns or accessory structures. Mr. Webb doesn’t object to that either. We have no objections from the Village, no objections from the Townships, and support from the neighbors. I don’t know how it will alter the essential character of the locality. Previously you had the barn, you have the outside garage and the home. Now you’ll have a new home that’s not dilapidated, the side of it is not coming off like you see in the pictures. It will also have an attached garage so that Jackie, his fiancée, can pull her car in. While some may believe that building a home with an attached garage would alter the character of this neighborhood, the neighbors evidently don’t think so. The Village of New Lenox doesn’t think so. If there’s anybody that should know whether something would alter the character of their neighborhood, it would be the neighbors. These structures on this large parcel have been there for years, they were there illegally. If Mr. Sestak had just decided to rehab the home, we wouldn’t be here today. It’s not like you’re going to see new things popping up. You’re going to see a replacement home that’s much nicer and the neighbors know that. As I said, the Village doesn’t think this lacks compliance with their plans either. The Webb farm to the south has been there for years. It’s just off the map that you saw earlier. Where the big arrow is, is where the other 10 acres is that Mr. Sestak owns. Just south of that is the entire Webb farm. In order to get to the New Lenox Park District, which we haven’t heard any objections from either, that’s the golf course east of the creek. We have no objections from them either. Again, this is not for a business use. I ask, what did the owner do to create this hardship? He’s wanting to construct a new home where a dilapidated one was and trying to keep structures that are worth money and are valuable on a 4-1/2 acre parcel. Those structures were already there. That’s what he did to create this hardship. Staff admits that granting the Variance won’t impact local property values in the neighborhood. It may increase them, but it certainly will not decrease them. Granting this Variance will not set any kind of precedent. As I said, this is a 4.66 acre parcel. What’s required in R-1, 60,000 square feet? As you see, the only other parcel around there that’s that large is Mr. Sestak’s parcel to the south with 10 acres. So, it’s not just like someone just to the north, and we have a letter of support from the property owner to the north, is going to be able to construct accessory buildings this large. This is a unique parcel. It’s a 4.66 acre R-1 parcel. It’s pretty unique. This is not going to alter the neighborhood or the locality. It has the support of the neighbors and I’d ask that the Board grant the Variance.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Does anyone have any questions? No response.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir. We have no objectors or concerned citizens. Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-061, which takes place in Lockport Township.
The owners are Daniel and Ashley Zagorski.
The agent is Thomas Brennan of TBCS, Inc.
Like many of the zoning requests tonight, there is a Building Permit associated with the need for the Variance.
The subject property is a 1.164 acre parcel with 86.6 feet of lot frontage and zoned R-2. Per the Mapping and Platting Department’s date of creation for this parcel, which is June 25, 1979, makes this is an illegal lot. In 1978, the County required R-2 Districts to have a minimum lot frontage or width of 150 feet. Since the property is deficient with that, Building Permits cannot be issued until the property is brought into compliance.
The applicant applied for a Building Permit for a 2nd story addition for the residence. The residence sits 9 feet from the western property line. The R-2 District requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. There is a detached garage located along this western setback, as well, that is 5.7 feet. The applicant is requesting the closer distance in order to bring both structures into compliance.
Looking at the Zoning Map of the subject property, you can see there is A-1 to the north. We have R-2 to the east, west, and south. There is R-1 adjacent, 1 parcel over from the adjacent eastern property.
Just a reminder to the Commission, the R-2 District requirement is 40,000 square feet with 150 feet of lot frontage or width. You can see on the Zoning Map that the 2 adjacent properties are both deficient for that 150 feet.
Looking at the aerial we have the subject property. It is improved with a single family residence. Per the Lockport Township Assessor, the residence was constructed in 1970, which actually predates the parcel itself. Staff did not confirm if this western property line existed prior to that. Since the applicant is requesting a Variance to bring it into compliance, he is addressing the encroachment.
The next slide shows the existing residence. We have an existing floor plan of the 2nd floor, as well as a zoomed in aerial. There is also a Plat of Survey. So, we have 86.6 feet of lot frontage along 143rd Street. We have the attached garage on the residence, which is 9 feet from the property line. Then we have this detached garage, which is actually 5.7 feet from that western property line.
Looking at the proposed architectural plans, the applicant is looking to add an additional bedroom above the garage. It is not cantilevered, so it is straight up from the garage on the western elevation of the residence. However, since it is a vertical addition upwards, it still is 9 feet from that western property line. It is considered to be increasing the extent of the non-conformity. So, a Variance is required for this Building Permit to be issued for this addition above the garage.
Here’s some photos of the subject property. This is looking from 143rd Street at the subject property, so roughly 86.6 feet of frontage. Looking at the existing single-family residence, closer to the residence. This is looking at the existing attached garage and the proposed addition that will be going above the attached garage. This is looking at the existing detached garage. This is looking north along that western setback of 5.7 feet to the adjacent property. As you notice, there are a lot of trees and shrubs growing between the 2 properties, so it’s very difficult to see this building from the adjacent property. This is actually looking west at the adjacent property. You can see there are a lot of shrubs and things along the existing fence line between the 2 properties. This is looking east and west along 143rd Street. This is looking northwest, north, and northeast from the subject property along 143rd Street. Then looking southeast and southwest along 143rd Street along the neighboring parcels.
Based on the Variance Review Criteria by which Variances are evaluated upon, Staff finds that there is a unique circumstance present. The residence was built in 1970 and the parcel was created around this residence in 1979 as a deficient R-2 lot. The applicant purchased this property in 2019, so this property existed configured as it was before this applicant actually purchased the property. The applicant is here tonight to bring it into compliance.
Staff also finds that Variances will not alter the essential character of the locality. It has been configured this way since 1970. Per GIS aerials, a detached garage first appeared in 2004, 5.7 feet from that side property line. The County has not received any complaints about a structure being built without a Permit. The County does not have any Permits on file for this detached garage. The residence is roughly 300 feet offset from 143rd Street. The detached garage is screened behind the residence with that thick landscaping of trees and shrubs along the western property line. It is very difficult to see the structures and does not appear to impact the development within the surrounding area or the conformity of the neighborhood.
With regards to the other criteria, the property is not able to acquire any additional property so there is a hardship with regards to the shape of the property. This is a narrow R-2 property. The conditions of the property can be applied to other R-2 parcels that were created deficient for the R-2 standards. The applicant is seeking the Variances to bring the property into compliance so they can get a Building Permit issued for the second story addition which could be seen as improving the property as opposed to negatively affecting the surrounding area.
It is Staff’s professional opinion that the Variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor will they impair other properties in the area.
Staff is recommending approval of both Variances.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. Staff did not receive any neighbor objections.
With regards to the Health Department, they did not object as long as the septic system is not impacted by construction.
I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stipan asked, does anyone have any questions of Staff? No response.
Chairman Stipan said okay, thank you. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case?
No response.
Chairman Stipan asked, are the owners or agent here tonight? Someone in the gallery raised their hand.
Chairman Stipan said we have no objectors or concerned citizens. You don’t have to come down unless you want to because there’s no objectors and Staff is recommending approval.
The gentleman in the gallery said you can just vote.
Chairman Stipan said okay.
11. Motion to Approve a Variance for Lot Frontage From 150 Feet to 86.6 Feet Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-050, which takes place in Lockport Township. This is actually around the corner from the previous Zoning Case on High Road just south of 143rd Street.
The applicants are Joe and Jane Gombosi.
The agent is Jeff Sidell of Morton Buildings.
The applicant is here tonight to request a Variance for maximum accessory building area in order to construct a 1,680 square foot accessory building to store a pontoon boat, five classic cars, and have a hobby workspace.
The applicant currently has a 441 square foot attached two-car garage and a 448 square foot detached garage/shed combination that you’ll see in photos.
The property is zoned R-2 and the applicant can legally have up to 1,800 square feet of accessory building area without needing a Variance.
It is the applicant’s desire to build a 1,680 square foot accessory building for his personal storage.
Looking at the zoning, you can see that they are surrounded by R-2 to the north, east, and west. They are abutting the R-3 Zoning District to the south. The R-3 Zoning District is limited with accessory building area of only 1,500 square feet. So, R-2 allows up to 1,800 square feet and R-3 allows up to 1,500 square feet. As you can see, there is a little bit of a difference between the two Zoning Districts.
Looking at the aerial of the subject property as well as the Plat of Survey, you can see that the attached garage is the 441 square foot building. We have the detached garage with a shed and he also covered the space between the garage and the shed and made it one continuous structure. That is roughly 448 square feet. The proposed location of the pole building is actually in the front yard. He is planning on meeting the R-2 setbacks of 47 feet measured from the right-of-way line and 10 feet from the side property line. He will also keep it under 25 feet in height. The applicant cannot put a pole building in the back yard due to the septic field location.
As the proposed pole building will exceed the permitted accessory building area by 769 square feet, the applicant is requesting a Variance to be able to obtain a Building Permit for the structure and not have to demolish the detached garage and shed and possibly reconfigure his existing garage.
Looking at another aerial just zooming out, there are two other properties that have large accessory pole buildings in the area. Based on the Lockport Township Assessor, we have the two properties identified by the yellow circles, both of which have accessory building areas that exceed what is permitted in the R-2 Zoning District. Both of those properties are zoned R-2.
This property here has roughly 2,294 square feet, so it is within reach of what the applicant is requesting, but the applicant is requesting more. Then we have this property over here that is 1,920 square feet. Both of these exceed the 1,800 square foot accessory requirement, but both accessory structures are located behind the residence.
The applicant is going to be a little bit different by being able to put the pole building in the front yard. There is not zoning requirements restricting him from being able to put it in the front yard as long as it meets the typical setback, building height, and accessory building area requirements. If the applicant can meet the setbacks, he can put a building there and get a Building Permit for that.
The applicant is proposing up to 2,569 square feet, which is combined with the attached garage, the detached garage/shed combination, and the proposed pole building.
This is looking at the existing residence. We can see the existing attached garage and detached garage in the background. The proposed pole building is actually going to go kind of behind this evergreen on the property. This is looking a little bit closer at that 441 square foot attached garage. These photos look at the detached garage that’s 448 square feet. You can see from the back that there’s a shed and that covered area that also accounts for accessory building area. This is looking northeast and east at the proposed location of the pole building as well as the adjacent property. Again, these houses on the eastern side are actually in an R-3 Zoning District. They are typically smaller lots and require a smaller accessory building area limit. These images are looking north and south along High Road. You can see that there is a bit of a hill in this area.
The criteria by which Variances are evaluated upon, a detailed analysis is in your Staff Report, but I will summarize a couple points for you. Staff finds that there is no hardship created by the applicant. He wants a big pole building to store his personal boat which is 33 feet long as well as his classic car collection. These would not fit into the existing structures.
In terms of Variances for accessory building area, you can see that it is a common request because we had one earlier tonight. It’s not necessarily about specific conditions regarding a property’s physical characteristics. It’s more of a personal preference to have more storage space.
Staff finds that the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental, per se, to the adjacent property owners because it will have to be built according to Building Codes.
Staff does find that it could alter the essential character mainly because no other structures in the area have this much accessory building area.
Within the time frame of the Staff Report being published, of the agencies that responded, none objected. After publication we did receive an objection from the Lockport Township Supervisor. That letter is provided on the screen and I can read it into the record. It was also prepared and provided to you as a Memo for the Commissioners.
It is addressed to the Will County Land Use Department and to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Regarding Zoning Case ZC-21-050 and V-21-048. “I as the Lockport Township Supervisor, a representative of the Township, oppose the Variance to build a massive pole building that is being requested at 14357 High Road, Lockport Illinois. I oppose the location of the building on the property. I am also opposing any rezoning changes to the above location.”
With regards to the rezoning, there is no Map Amendment being requested. It is not a commercial building. The applicant is simply asking for a larger building for personal storage.
With regards to additional objections, I will get to that shortly.
Staff is recommending denial of the Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,569 square feet.
Since the publication, Staff has received numerous emails of objection that have been prepared as Memos. The most recent I can read into the record should the Commission wish. Most of them are opposed to the pole building being built in the front yard as well as the size of it. Some object to the design standards. They claim that there’s visibility issues with the road being curvy. We have objectors against the pole building. Some mention a Map Amendment. Again, that is not the request before you tonight.
This is one of the last three emails. “We are sending this email to voice our opposition to this proposal of land use. We live two lots down on the opposite side of High Road from this property and building a structure this big right on High Road is not only larger than the County allows but would be an eyesore to our view and the view of our neighbors. It also changes the zoning to Commercial in the middle of a residential neighborhood. In addition to the more immediate impacts of appearance and the potential of future building in our neighborhood, this could also affect our resale property values and deter future home buyers from wanting to move into the area. We respectfully request this proposal be denied.” That is Albert and Judy Janovyak.
From Stefano Marchetti. “High Road is a beautiful residential street and should remain so and should not be rezoned as commercial just to satisfy the selfish needs of an individual who has more influence than the residents of this rural road. We have lived happily at 14510 High Road since 2008 and do wholeheartedly object to this rezoning boondoggle.”
We have another email from Ardis Doolin. “I am writing to strongly oppose Will County Land Use granting a permit for the construction of a massive pole barn at 14357 High Road in Lockport Township. High Road is approximately two miles long. In some areas of the road the homes are widely spaced, but in other areas the homes are in close proximity to their neighbors. The proposed placement of this pole barn would situate it in one of the most populous areas of the road. Pole barns, barns, and other outbuildings are not uncommon on High Road. However, none of the aforementioned structures are located next to the street, which is where the pole barn under discussion is proposed to be placed. All the High Road outbuildings are tucked in the rear of the properties and, while they are clearly visible, they somehow manage to fade into the background. The proposed pole barn should be no exception. That Mr. Gombosi, a fairly long time resident of the road, is asking for permission to do something that would have a detrimental impact on neighboring property values and mar the pleasant streetscape that has evolved over the years is downright deplorable. He’s telling people he’s going to make the massive pole barn look quite nice. Really? How? It’s kinda like putting lipstick on a pig. You can dress that porker up as much as you want, but the fact remains it’s still a pig. Ditto with a pole barn. The proposed placement of the pole barn and the sheer size of it constitutes an affront to everyone in the area. I urge the Board to reject the proposal. Thank you.
I’m happy to answer any questions or read the other letters into record.
Chairman Stipan said we have the other letters so we don’t need to read them into the record. Does anyone have any questions?
Barbara Peterson said I do. Margie, can you pinpoint either side, adjacent property owners, either side of this parcel and did we get objections from those adjacent property owners? The ones right there next to him.
Marguerite Kenny said I can look it up, but it might take me a little bit.
John Kiefner said thank you Barb, I was going to ask the same thing. Do we know how many neighbors were notified of this Case? Do we have an exact number on that? And, I was going to ask if any of those adjacent ones that were notified were any of these objections. I have been tracing down most of these addresses and I cannot determine that any of them are the immediate adjacent property owners.
Barbara Peterson said they’re the important ones.
John Kiefner said that’s what I’m saying. I have not been able to determine that any of the objections by looking at all of the addresses that she had and the ones that I have are the adjacent ones. That’s what I’m trying to determine.
Marguerite Kenny said the ones that would be required to be notified would be any properties that share a property line. Across the street it would be from 004 down to 006. It would be these R-3 properties to the south. It would be this property to the west, and then these two to the north.
Barbara Peterson asked, did they object?
Marguerite Kenny said I’m checking on that.
Barbara Peterson said I’m asking the impossible, I know.
Kimberly Mitchell said it’s a very good question.
Barbara Peterson said well, they’re the ones that would be impacted. John Kiefner said if they are here, we’ll get to hear that from them as well.
Chairman Stipan asked, can I have a show of hands for concerned citizens or objectors to this Case?
People in the gallery raised their hands.
Chairman Stipan said it looks like maybe 6. At this point, I’d like to call up the owner or agent, Mr. Gombosi or Jeffrey Sidell from Morton Buildings, or both.
Jeff Sidell introduced himself to the Commission. I am the agent with Morton Buildings on behalf of Joe ad Jane Gombosi. I appreciate Staff and the Board for taking a look at what we want to do here. The Gombosi’s have provided me with a couple of photos of the pontoon boat. He also has a couple of classic cars that he would like to store in the building, so we would like to share that with Staff and with the Board as well. As we stated, in the rear of the property there is 10,000 square feet of septic that absolutely cannot be built on. So, that’s a hardship. As it sits currently, this building can be built exactly where it is. What we’re asking for, and just to be clear and to focus on, the only thing that we’re asking for is that additional 700 square feet. This building as it sits can be built at 47 feet, where we’re proposing, from High Road. This building as it sits is also in line with, if you look at Willowbrook which butts into High Road, those homes are at 47 feet from High Road as well. If those homes aren’t distractive, then I would think that we could agree and it’s fair to say that this barn in line with those houses on Willowbrook are not going to be out further than where they’re sitting now with High Road. As it sits, we can build this building at 888 square feet. As it sits, that building could be right there at that 888 square feet. What we’re proposing is 40 feet of building going along High Road. We can still do that 40 feet, but we would just have to build a building a little narrower to comply with the allotted 1,800 square feet. This property is larger than the property to the south and to the west. That property is about 1.2 or 1.3 acres. So effectively, Joe and Jane Gombosi, my clients, has about 7,000 or 8,000 more square footage. What we’re proposing is 10% of that additional square footage to be built. Again, 10% of that. I think it would be fair to say that being in line with the homes on Willowbrook or Woodbrook, it’s not going to stick out any further. I think that we also need to be clear that the majority of those objections, if not all of them, all stated that we were rezoning. That’s not what we’re doing here. We’re not rezoning at all, we’re going for a Variance. In fact, we could go in for an Administrative Variance and get 10% on not only our peak height of 25 feet which would make the building 27-1/2 feet tall and get another 88 square feet and build the building at 970 square feet. If you take that into consideration, we’re really only looking at 600 and some square feet. At Morton Buildings, we pride ourselves in the fact that we build a very aesthetically pleasing building. Joe and Jane had submitted to you folks and Staff that they want to match the house. That’s what we’re going to do and that’s what we excel at doing. Morton Buildings has been around for 118 years. I was born and raised in Morton, Illinois. We’re right here in Illinois and I think all of you know that we are the elite. For a comment to be made that we’re dressing up a pig, I think that is quite offensive. That’s not what we’re doing here. We make dreams come true. Joe’s a veteran of this community. Not only that, but he owns a business in Lockport, Gombosi Tire and Auto. Not only that, but they’re the nicest folks ever. When we first started this and went into this, we instructed them. Dawn was great and she helped us fantastically. She said what we need to do is go and talk to the property owners right away. We did that and nobody really seemed to say anything. The one that you guys approved tonight was a lot larger accessory building area than what we’re after. A veteran, an owner in the community, and commercial business since 1978. I was born in 1979, so I’m 42 years old. He’s had this business longer than what I’ve been around. He’s been in Lockport his entire life. I think what we’re asking for is not extraordinary. I think that you need to approve this. We can’t build this in the back because we know there’s a septic back there. Everybody’s saying that we’re rezoning and we’re not. We can go through an Administrative Variance. Joe is going to build this building regardless. He’s going to build it and we can build it.
Kimberly Mitchell said I have a question for Staff. If he builds the smaller building and he’s able to put some of the things in the building and maybe have other things that he can’t fit in there, can he park those outside on the driveway?
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of parking cars, as long as they’re operable they can be parked on a constructed driveway. They are limited to five vehicles though on a constructed driveway. No vehicles can be parked in the grass.
Jeff Sidell said I would add to that. Would you rather see a pretty Morton Building or would you rather see five cars sitting out in the driveway?
Kimberly Mitchell said that was my point exactly.
Jeff Sidell said that’s a great point, thank you very much. I really don’t have anything else.
Chairman Stipan said thank you very much, we appreciate it.
Jeff Sidell said thank you very much. Joe did you have anything?
Joe Gombosi said I do want to say one thing. The Township Supervisor, Alberico, lives on High Road. He was on the list of objections. Morton Buildings built a pole barn right next to him, but it’s in the back a little bit.
Barbara Peterson asked, how many acres does he have?
Joe Gombosi said maybe 1.4.
Barbara Peterson said we’re talking about your property though.
Joe Gombosi said I’m just saying that he objected to it because he’s the Commissioner and everything. He has pole barns all down his street. They’re big ones too.
Jeff Sidell said Joe and Kathy is the client that I built for right next door to him. He didn’t have any problem with that then.
Barbara Peterson said I don’t know any of these people that you’re talking about, but it’s a point that you wanted to make and it’s a valid point.
Joe Gombosi said the people that live across the street from me has a huge garage in the back, but there were no pictures shown for that. Right next to him is another huge pole barn.
Barbara Peterson asked, is it in front of his house?
Joe Gombosi said close enough. If they didn’t have trees you could see it. I do have trees in front of my property to cover all of this stuff.
Jeff Sidell said one other thing that I wanted to mention if I could. The thing that instigated the majority of these emails and concerns was that we had a canvasser spreading false information. Someone decided to walk up and down the street, down Willowbrook and all around and distribute a letter stating that a massive pole barn was going to be built and that we’re rezoning to commercial. That’s not correct. That’s false information. That stirred everyone up. I just wanted everyone to know the back story on all of that. We were only required to notify the adjacent properties, correct? How does everybody else know? How are they understanding that we’re rezoning to commercial? That’s not what we’re doing here. I just wanted to make that clear. There were other individuals that were canvassing.
Barbara Peterson said thank you.
Chairman Stipan said we have multiple objectors. Do you all want to speak? Or do you want someone to speak for you? Looks like you all want to speak. Due to the time, I’m going to give you all about 3-1/2 minutes. So, don’t repeat what your neighbor says.
Harold Volman introduced himself to the Commission. I live right on the corner of High Road and Woodbrook Lane. I can see right through the property. I can see the trees and everything on the property when we’re sitting on our deck. Now I’m going to be looking at a steel building. It’s not going to be nice property anymore. Why should I have to look at a steel building? The other one that he’s talking about, you don’t see them by the road. They’re all behind the house or on the side of the house and off the road where you don’t even notice them. Now I have to look at a building? Whatever you’re going to do you’re going to do. That’s not right.
Chairman Stipan said the reason for that being there is because they have the septic field behind there. So, they can’t put it behind there on the septic field.
Harold Volman said I can hardly hear you, sir.
Chairman Stipan said they have their septic field behind their building and they can’t put it on their septic field, which is why they’re forced to try to put it on the side.
Harold Volman asked, so where he’s going to build the building is okay then, right?
Chairman Stipan said it’s within his property. If he owns this property and he gets permission he can build the building on his property. Just as you can build a building on your property. Unfortunately, that’s the name of the game. Everybody who owns their own property can improve their own property.
Harold Volman said in other words, this is approved already before we even come here.
Chairman Stipan said no sir.
Barbara Peterson said no.
Chairman Stipan said nothing was said like that whatsoever. Don’t put words in anybody’s mouth. You can think what you want, but don’t try to say what you think we said. I just gave you an explanation. You wanted an explanation.
Harold Volman said I can’t say what I want to say.
Chairman Stipan said you wanted an answer.
Harold Volman said I’m right.
Chairman Stipan asked, are you going to allow me to finish?
Harold Volman said go ahead.
Chairman Stipan said you wanted an explanation why it was not in the back of the house. That was the reasoning, period. Now, you go ahead and say what you want to say.
Harold Volman said the building’s going to be right off of High Road. Chairman Stipan said yes sir.
Harold Volman said from my property, I used to be able to look out and see the grass and everything. Now I’m going to look out from my deck and I’m going to see a building.
Michael Carruthers said but sir, your neighbor is not a slum lord or anything. When I look at all of your properties, these are very nice properties. I don’t think he’s going to put a massive barn there to distract you or anyone else. Morton has been around a long time so it’s going to be a very nice building. You want to see grass and he wants to…..
Harold Volman interrupted and said I understand now.
Michael Carruthers said I’m not trying to make excuses or anything. Harold Volman said in other words he’s going to build the building. Thank you. Chairman Stipan said you’re point has been taken.
Kimberly Mitchell said just to be clear, he has every right in our Ordinance to build a building where he is building it. What we are voting on is whether or not he builds one a little bigger than what our Ordinance allows. He is fully entitled to build a building where he’s building it on his property. In the front yard it’s allowed. We don’t have an Ordinance that prohibits building in the front yard. He’s allowed to do that just as you are and everyone else in the County. He’s asking for a larger building. I would say that a great majority of the cases that come to us are for the same purpose and it’s sometimes a difficult vote. What he’s asking for, he’s entitled to other than the size of the building.
Chairman Stipan asked, may I have the next concerned citizen or objector?
Tracy Panepinto introduced herself to the Commission. My tale is a cautionary one. Morton Buildings can make dreams come true for some people. I live next door to Concrete By Wagner, which is a commercial entity. CBW bought and had the property next to me rezoned to accommodate their concrete business. Bob Wagner is a good neighbor. He planted a 300 foot screen of trees and shrubs between our properties. Does this block the view of his pole barn, storage containers, and construction equipment? It does somewhat. Does it mitigate the engine noise? Probably a negligible amount. Does it lessen the dust? Some. Again, Bob Wagner is a good neighbor. He sends a backhoe over to clear my 250 foot driveway whenever there’s a heavy snow and he replaced the trees and shrubs that were eaten by deer over the winter. But even with such efforts, I would prefer CBW to not be next door to me. It diminishes my enjoyment of my home. Prior to CBW’s expansion, I enjoyed sitting on my front porch when a summer rain came through. I enjoy the smell of rain. I like the change and the feel of the air when rain is approaching. I like the sound of the rain falling through the trees I my yard. That last point, the sound of the rain is gone, because it’s replaced by a roar when even the gentlest of rains land on the approximately 8,000 square feet of pole buildings CBW has. Again, the enjoyment of my home is diminished. Sitting outside under a porch listening to and smelling the rain is not everybody’s thing and I understand that. But, it’s my thing and everyone has things about their home that they particularly value. There are cheaper places to live other than High Road and Woodbrook Lane. There are more prestigious addresses than High Road and Woodbrook Lane. So, generally the people who live here are here because we want to be here. We value the nature of the community. We made the choice to live where we do because we value the type of life that such locations give us. I’ve lost some of the enjoyment of my home because of a commercial structure next to me, a pole barn. I do not want to see the same happen to the residents of Woodbrook Lane or the surrounding High Road addresses. Mr. Gombosi is proposing to put a new structure in his front yard where it will diminish the appearance of the neighborhood. It will also be positioned to have the maximum noise impact on the immediate neighbors, diminishing their enjoyment of their homes. Further, such a structure will likely impact the community residents in ways not yet realized or imagined. Please do not approve this Variance.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Can I have the next objector or concerned citizen?
Alex Miles introduced himself to the Commission. I am adjacent to the proposed building. I do not oppose it. I think its Joe’s property and he should be able to do whatever he wants with it. I know Joe well. He keeps his landscaping beautiful. His property is in pristine condition. I have no concerns over my property value. I fully trust that he will do everything in good taste. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan said thank you. Is there any more concerned citizens or objectors?
Ellen Rendulich introduced herself to the Commission. I am across the street. Harry is on Woodruff Lane, but that would back up to his property. In this case, that would be my view across the street. High Road is kind of unique because it’s a two mile street and it’s like a community. We all care about our property values and about what goes on in the neighborhood. We’re a community. There’s no question that the Gombosi’s have a nice yard and take care of their house. It looks very beautiful. There’s no question about that. There’s a lot of concerns about things that were brought up. When it was brought up about Ron Alberico living next door to a pole barn, that’s true but they have three acres of land and it’s not a very big pole barn. It sits in the back of the property. I do understand that he can’t put it back there because of the septic field in the back. Unfortunately, that’s not my problem. My problem is, what’s going to happen to the neighborhood? What’s going to happen to our property values? A couple things were said. If he does a 1,680 square foot pole barn, that’s like having two houses on the property. That’s not very nice. I mean, that’s not very good for the neighborhood. We have a 3-car across the street that was brought up. We have a 3-car detached garage that sits at the back of the house and it’s half the size of what they’re proposing. It was brought up about the lies or whatever, the commercial. The concerns are that once a property has built such a large building, something could happen in the future, nobody knows. This is not necessarily what we’re here for. I just want to clarify, that was brought up about a possibility of rezoning. That is what could happen. As Tracy just mentioned, she said she lives next door to commercial property at the north end of High Road. We don’t want to see that happen in the middle of High Road. We also don’t want to set a precedence so that people will start building these big buildings in the front yards. That’s what is happening, he wants to build a big building. I’m sorry that he has so many hobbies and pontoon boats and antique cars. This is a residential community and we do want it to stay residential. So, like everyone else, all of the people that responded are High Road or Woodbrook Lane residents. Again, that shows how our community is one and how we care about what goes on in our community. We do want to conserve it. We’re there because we love the nature. This is going to affect us and it’s going to affect the property values. I don’t think many of you would want to live across the street from a building, I don’t care. If I would have wanted to live in the city, I would have moved to the city. Thank you.
Chairman Stipan asked, have we heard from everyone who wishes to speak? Dawn Tomczak said there’s one more.
Frank Spooner introduced himself to the Commission. I’ve lived there about 27 years. We built the house in a field. The attorney pointed out that Mr. Gombosi is a veteran. I’m a veteran. I served between 1961 and 2002. Bob Rendulich lives across the street and he’s a veteran. There’s a lot of veterans around. That’s not an excuse. I’ve lived on the road for a while. There’s not a single piece of property that has a building in the front yard anywhere on that road. That road runs for about three miles from 135th to Archer with 143rd intersecting in between. There were prior cases on that road. Alberico’s lot is on 3.1 acres. He runs from the middle of High Road to the middle of New Avenue. I live next door to him. There is a pole building next to Alberico. He has it so far back that he’s violating his covenants on his property, which he just doesn’t care about. You can’t build back more than 400 feet, this is probably 800 or 900 feet back. You can’t see it. There’s another big pole building on the other side of my property and he’s back at least 400 feet in the back. Next to Rendulich’s property, it’s not a pole barn it’s a garage. The person that lived in that house had a Mack Tool truck and he used to sell tools. He committed suicide and the property was sold. It’s a big garage, it’s not a pole barn. He has an attached garage on that property too. Other than that, there isn’t any. Like I said, there’s no buildings in front of any yards. Mr. Gombosi has antique cars, I’ve seen them. He shows them. He has a boat. He also has a big garage on State Street where he stores them and he has two vacant lots next to that building. So, he has plenty of space. That will conclude my comments.
Chairman Stipan said thank you sir. Are there any other speakers? No response.
John Kiefner said Mr. Chairman, can we have a little discussion? Chairman Stipan said yes, you may have a discussion.
John Kiefner said I'm going to try to use some words here to try to comfort the gallery. It's my understanding that we cannot stop him from building a building in the front yard. I heard the last speaker and Ellen say they don't want a building in the front yard. I can’t stop that. If somebody had said that the water runs on my property and I’m concerned about a flood, I’d be a No vote, because he’s asking for extra building which would create more water run-off and obviously a little bit more drive-way and such. That’s what I wanted to hear, because he is asking to go over and Staff cannot approve him to go over the 880 square feet. Tracy was the only one that said it would alter her life because obviously a metal roof makes quite the noise when it’s raining if you’re nearby. So Harry was the one that lived nearby it. Alex lives nearby it and he doesn’t care. So if Ellen would have told me it would be noisy or other people would have told me it would be noisy or there would be water run-off, I’d have to vote No. I’m still somewhat inclined to vote No, just to see if he would build it anyway. Maybe he would build it bigger and tear down the buildings in the back so that he could have everything in one. That’s kind of where I sit. We needed a real reason to be opposed to the additional and you’re all giving us a reason to be opposed to a building. We can’t stop that. That’s just my dilemma here. I’m seeing the exact same case as this in Manhattan. Everybody wants a stop sign on Baker Road. We’ve had so many accidents and now a bunch of fatalities. The County cannot put up a stop sign there because the traffic count isn’t high enough. They have to follow the rules and that’s where I’m kind of pinned in here too.
Barbara Peterson said I’d like to add something to what you’re saying. I live on a 120-acre farm. You can only control the property that you own. That’s the only thing that you can control, whether it’s building a building or not building a building. I would fight to my death if anybody tried to take me off of that farm where I look out at a beautiful empty field during the day and listen to owls and whatnot at night. To me, my life and my lifestyle, especially now and the older I get, is of the top importance to me. So, I can appreciate somebody saying I don’t want to see a building. I truly can. But, we cannot control any property unless we own it.
John Kiefner said but, we can control the size of it.
Barbara Peterson said yes, but if you’re going to try to stop something you can’t do it unless you truly own it. I wish my husband would have bought more property so I could have further to look. Emotions, especially with females, really tend to overcome many things that make sense to the other gender. Maybe because we have our children, they’re ours, we take care of them, and we’re the caregiver's, I don’t know.
Chairman Stipan said stick to the subject.
Barbara Peterson said this man is entitled to this hearing tonight.
Kimberly Mitchell said and he’s entitled to a building in his front yard. We can’t vote against a building in his front yard. We had one complaint over the size of the building, which is what we’re being asked to vote on.
Barbara Peterson said I know but there’s always mitigating circumstances.
Kimberly Mitchell said but we haven’t heard any of that tonight. Like John said, we heard….
Barbara Peterson said there was the one lady who said it will change her life. Kimberly Mitchell said because of the rain.
John Kiefner said but they may go with a shingled roof too. Morton can put shingles on a pole barn roof.
Kimberly Mitchell said I live on 2-1/4 acres. In my back yard, on the neighbor’s property, is a Morton Building that’s bigger than what’s being proposed. It doesn’t bother me at all. It’s just there. It’s like a house on that side and a house on the other side. I think sometimes we get a little bug in our ear about something and it seems to be this huge annoyance, but then maybe it’s not so much. What I really don’t like is neighbors that keep all of their junk outside.
Chairman Stipan said I’d like to bring this back to our discussion. Has everybody had a chance to clarify their thoughts?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion failed 3-3.
Chairman Stipan asked, what is our legal stance on this with a tie vote?
Chris Wise from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said it fails. All votes require 4 Yes votes, no matter how many Commissioners are present.
Brian Radner said as the attorney pointed out, the Motion did fail. There is an appeal process for Variances. You can appeal to the Land Use and Development Committee. If you contact our office we can discuss this with you.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [3 TO 3]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Barbara Peterson AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner NAYS: Stipan, Peterson, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
August 17, 2021 Meeting has been cancelled
NOTE; NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON September 7, 2021
Brian Radner said in regards to the September 7th meeting, we'll just have to pay attention to what the rules are at the time. Right now we can do what we're doing tonight, but things could change. We have to follow the rules that the County has and the State has for our meetings. We'll just have to wait and see what we're at in 3 or 4 weeks.
AND STAFF REPORTS
1. Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
John Kiefner made a Motion at 9:24 PM to adjourn the meeting. Michael Carruthers seconded the Motion. Voice vote was taken. Motion passed, 6-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: John Kiefner, Commissioner SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Stipan, Peterson, Kiefner, Bettenhausen ABSENT: White |
Alerts Sign-up