Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Dec. 7.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice-Chairman Kiefner led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Vice Chairman John Kiefner called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Present | |
| Kimberly Mitchell | Commissioner | Present | |
| Hugh Stipan | Chairman | Absent | |
| Barbara Peterson | Commissioner | Absent | |
| John Kiefner | Vice Chairman | Present | |
| Roger Bettenhausen | Commissioner | Present | |
| Matthew Gugala | Commissioner | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Lauren Dubois, Kris Mazon, Lisa Napoles, and Marguerite Kenny.
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 - Nov 2, 2021 6:30 PM
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 3-0, with no corrections or additions. Carruthers and Mitchell both abstained from the Vote since they were absent the last meeting.
| RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 0]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSTAIN: Carruthers, Mitchell ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Vice-Chairman Kiefner announced that Zoning Variances stop at this Commission, so you need a mandatory 4 "Yes" votes to pass. If you do have one of those Cases and you feel uncomfortable with only 5 Commissioners present and again, you must get 4 out of 5, you may ask Staff to table this until the next meeting.
For Map Amendments and Special Uses, we are just a recommending body so all we need in that case is a majority. Since we have 5 present, we would need 3 "Yes" votes for those Cases.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner swore in the public sitting in the gallery.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I assume everyone has done what they have to do to make sure that their phone is not ringing during the meeting.
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for zoning case ZC-21-017, RDK Ventures, LLC, Owner of Record, (Mac’s Convenience Stores, LLC (Couche-Tard US, Inc.) (50.01% interest); Equilon Enterprises (Royal Dutch Shell, PLC) (49.99% interest); full list of interests are on file) and Ryan Swanson, Arc Design Resources, Inc., Agent , requesting (M-21-005) Map amendment from C-2/C-3 to C-4, (S-21-008) Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Major Motor Vehicle Fueling Station and (S- 21-006) Special Use Permit for Package Liquor Sales, PIN # 19-09-24-101-013-0000; 19-09-24-101-016-0000 (Petition of Consolidation #2021-39), in Frankfort Township also known as 7654 Lincoln Highway, Frankfort, IL, County Board District # 2
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said since this Case was tabled before, we need to bring it back up on the board to request to table it again.
Matthew Gugala made a Motion to un-table this Case. Roger Bettenhausen seconded the Motion.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is there any need to discuss this?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken to un-table this Case. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said Staff would like us to table this again. Any need for discussion on this Case?
No response.
Roll Call Vote was taken to Table this Case until the January Meeting. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/4/2022 6:30 PM TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee
MOVER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-075, which takes place in Plainfield Township.
This Case is a request for 3 Variances. A Variance for minimum street setback from 35 feet to 15 feet on Howard Street. A Variance for minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 3.7 feet on the east side. A Variance for minimum street setback from 35 feet to 32.4 feet on Link Lane.
The owner and applicant is Richard James.
The owner is looking to construct a 24-foot x 24-foot detached garage 15 feet from the right-of-way line measured along Howard Street. As a Variance is needed for this encroachment into the street setback, the applicant is also bringing additional encroachments on the property into conformance with tonight’s request.
The Zoning Map on the screen shows the subject parcel outlined in red. It is surrounded by R-3 zoning and it is also zoned R-3.
The site is deemed to be a legal, nonconforming lot as it was platted as part of the Lily Cache Acres Subdivision. It is smaller than typical lot area standards for the R-3 District. It only has 19,303 square feet.
Just as a reminder to the Commission, the accessory building area for the R-3 Zoning District is 1,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing to stay under that limit.
The R-3 District also requires a minimum 10-foot side yard setback. Since this property is a corner lot, it has 2 side yard setbacks for the property.
Looking at an aerial of the subject property, that red box is approximately where the detached garage will be sited.
The subject property is Lot 142 in Unit No. 6 of Lily Cache Acres. It is located at the northeast corner of South Howard Street and West Link Lane.
The site is improved with a single-family residence that was constructed in 1973 that has a 456 square foot attached garage. You will see from the Plat of Survey on a later slide that there is a 49 square foot moveable plastic shed and there’s 2 frame sheds. One is 260 square feet and the other is 80 square feet that are located along that eastern property line.
The applicant is looking at adding a 24 x 24 detached garage where that red box is. Also in the backyard, you will notice that there is an above ground swimming pool. The applicant’s septic field is actually between the swimming pool and the house. So, in order to maintain that 10-foot setback, the garage does have to encroach closer to Howard Street.
Looking at the Plat of Survey, the yellow circles are all the different structures that encroach into the setbacks. I do want to point out that, per the Plat of Subdivision, there was a 35-foot building line that was required along both Howard Street and Link Lane that appears to not have been adhered to by the subdivision. You can see that the single-family residence was built 32.4 feet from the right-of-way line along Link Lane. The applicant is requesting a Variance to bring that into compliance.
That shed in the northeast corner is located 3.7 feet from that eastern property line and the applicant is looking to bring that into compliance. The applicant was thinking he could turn the shed to meet the 10 feet along that northern property line, so he is not requesting the Variance for that northern property line.
For the proposed detached garage, given the septic field and keeping the 10-foot separation distance that the Health Department requires, it will push it 15 feet from that right-of-way line along Howard Street.
Staff also wanted to mention that the proposed location for the detached garage is probably the best suited location on this property given that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 8-foot setback from the swimming pool. Also, since the applicant is intending on using the existing driveway from Howard and Link Lane, they wouldn’t have to add additional impervious surfacing to the property.
This next slide shows the existing building lines for the subdivision. The dotted lines are roughly where the existing side elevations are along Howard Street as well as Link Lane. The applicant is also looking to match the same building lines that are given in the existing subdivision.
Now we will be looking at some photos of the property. This is looking from the corner of Howard Street and Link Lane. This is looking from Link Lane towards the subject property, so from the other corner of the property. This is looking east at the proposed location of the detached garage and the backyard. This next one is actually looking at 2 different views. You are looking west on the left image. On the image on the right side, you’re looking east along Link Lane. It does appear that the residences are encroaching into that 35-foot building line setback. This is looking east along Link Lane at the neighboring properties and then looking directly east along Link Lane. This is looking down the existing fence line and per the Plat, that shed in the back is 3.7 feet from the property line. In this image, it does look like it’s a little bit closer. This is looking north along Howard Street from Link Lane. These are looking at adjacent properties. The image on the left is along the property directly south of the subject property and the image on the right is directly west. Then we’re just looking at the proposed location of the detached garage as well as the street setback.
Staff has the criteria in your Staff Report with a detailed analysis. Staff finds that there are unique circumstances based upon the physical characteristics of the property that result in the applicant’s need for the Variances for the encroachment. The septic field does push the detached garage towards the street setback. Also, the residence was built encroaching into the street setback and the same with the accessory structure along that eastern property line. While the Variance is needed for the Building Permit for the detached garage, the applicant voluntarily offered to apply for those other 2 Variances to bring it all into compliance.
Staff also finds that if granted, it will be unlikely to alter the character of the locality.
Staff is recommending approval of all 3 Variances.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is the owner Mr. James here?
A gentleman in the gallery raised his hand.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody that wishes to speak regarding this Case?
No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said you’re welcome to come down and speak Mr. James if you want, but Staff is recommending approval and I don’t see any objectors.
Richard James introduced himself to the Commission. My wife and I are just trying to build an extra garage. We have a large family and my daughter has been living in the existing garage. In the future I’d like to fix it up because the ceiling is starting to collapse. During the Plainfield tornado, that one west wall started coming out and the ceiling is starting to collapse. I would like to get that fixed up and I need to have that extra storage in the new garage to move the stuff that’s in there. All of my kids have left everything for us to store for them, because they don’t have room in their apartments and everything else. That’s basically it, I just wanted to build a garage, but I just don’t have room for it and we’re trying to keep it legal.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, does anyone have any questions?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said thank you very much.
4. Motion to Approve a Variance for Minimum Street Setback on Howard Street from 35 Feet to 15 Feet(V-21-089)
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said Staff would like to table this Case.
Motions were made.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, would anybody like to discuss this?
Voice Vote was taken. Motion to table this Case to the January meeting passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/4/2022 6:30 PM TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission
MOVER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-067, which takes place in Manhattan Township.
This is a Map Amendment request from A-1 to E-2 and a Variance for minimum street setback from 100 feet to 41.3 feet.
The owner of record is William W. Mancke Trust, dated December 21, 1999 where William W. Mancke is 100% beneficiary.
The attorney representing Mr. Mancke is Timothy McGrath of McGrath Law, P.C.
The subject property is located on the north side of Baker Road east of Eastern Avenue.
The parcel is currently zoned A-1 and meets the minimum lot standards and is roughly 16 acres. The applicant wishes to reconfigure the lot lines with the adjacent 1-acre property to the south. Since the subject property is about 16 acres, that would create a 14.43-acre A-1 parcel and leaving this subject property only 2.8 acres. Since the property is deficient for A-1 standards, typically it's 10 acres, the applicant is requesting the Map Amendment to the E-2 District in which the parcel would meet the minimum lot standards.
Looking at a couple aerials, you have the subject property currently as a 16-acre parcel outlined in red. The top right is roughly what the 2.8-acre remnant would be.
The applicant has submitted a Petition for Consolidation and Division to reconfigure the lot. Once that Petition is actually executed, it would become an illegal A-1 lot.
Per the Illinois Plat Act, when abutting properties reconfigure property lines, it is one of the exemptions under the Plat Act so they do not need a Plat of Subdivision. Typically, when lots are created less than 5 acres it typically requires a Plat of Subdivision.
There is both floodplain and floodway on the subject property. Jackson Creek does run through the subject property.
You can also see that both properties are improved with single family residences.
Looking at the Plat of Survey, the image on the bottom of the Plat is the subject property. Per the assessor records, the residence was constructed in 1958 and it was built 74.3 feet from the center line of Baker Road. Due to the Baker Road and Jackson Creek Bridge being improved within the next year or so, the road authority is looking to potentially take some right-of-way resulting in the residence being closer to the road than what it currently is.
You can see the Plat of Highway Dedication, which is just a proposal, but it would be 41.3 feet from the house. The house is not moving, it’s just in terms of the land owned and how much street frontage that the house would have. So, the applicant is requesting a Variance for this setback to again, bring it into compliance with present day Codes.
Looking at the Zoning Map, it is surrounded predominantly by A-1 to the north, east, and west. To the south we have some R-2 single-family residential, estate residential within the Village of Manhattan, as well as some agriculture.
With regards to the criteria for Map Amendments, the full details are in your Staff Report. I do want to point out that a LESA score was not calculated for this request.
Staff used a 1-mile radius to look at the existing uses in the area. Those uses include agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, public, and institutional within unincorporated Will County and the Villages of New Lenox and Manhattan. You can see on this image that the City of Joliet is located outside of that 1-mile radius, but it is located within 1.5 miles. The City of Joliet was notified of this Map Amendment request and they did not provide any comment.
Some of the recreational uses within the area are the Wauponsee Glacial Trail as well as the Baker-Koren Round Barn Farm Park, which is a Will County Historic Landmark. The Round Barn Farm is directly south of the subject property.
The predominant uses are residential, whether it be stand-alone or subdivisions. The Ranch Oaks Subdivision is located to the southwest. Bench’s Farm & White Feather are within the Village of Manhattan also to the south and southwest.
Looking at the Zoning Districts within the 1-mile radius, we have a mix of agricultural (A-1, A-2) estate residential (E-1, E-2), single family residential in unincorporated Will County (R-1, R-2, R-2A, R-3, and R-4) and we also have a little section, which is the light blue in the bottom right-hand corner that is light industrial (I-1).
Within the Village of Manhattan, the Districts include estate residential (ER), general residential, single family residential (R1), multi-family residential (R3, R5), general business and business park.
Within the Village of New Lenox predominantly to the north, we have single family residential.
As I previously stated, the City of Joliet limits are outside of the 1-mile radius.
Looking at the suitability of the property now. Technically, the Petition is still in progress. It generally takes about a year for the Petition to be processed and new PIN numbers be assigned. Once that Petition is finalized, it will be created as an illegal A-1 parcel, which means that the property would not be able to get any sort of Building Permits for agricultural uses. If the applicant wanted a stable, they would need a Building Permit to build that structure and the applicant would be unable to get it unless they came in either for Variances or some sort of zoning action.
With regards to the request for E-2, a lot of the uses that are permitted by right in A-1 are considered permitted as accessory uses in E-2. Predominantly the primary use in Estate Residential is residential and the property is used residentially. Staff believes that this use is appropriate for Estate Residential.
Looking at the trend in development, this parcel was created in 1987 as a 16-acre A-1 parcel. Since that time, you can see the trend in development has been towards residential subdivisions and annexation into the municipalities. The City of Joliet has expanded southward. New Lenox has expanded southward. Manhattan has also been expanding northward.
In terms of conformance with the County’s adopted plans, this request is in conformance with the County’s Land Resource Management Plan. It is within the Suburban Communities Development Form and traditional residential is one of those appropriate uses. Within the Village of Manhattan, this subject parcel actually lies within the Midtown District within their Comprehensive Plan and with that they do show medium density residential use as being an appropriate use.
Now we will be looking at some images. This is looking northeast at the subject site. This is looking northwest, so from the other side of the residence. This is looking northeast towards Jackson Creek. Again, looking east from the subject parcel. Looking east along Baker Road. Looking south, so across Baker. Looking west along Baker Road. The residential R-2 Districts are south of Baker. Looking west from the subject parcel and you can see Jackson Creek in the foreground.
As I pointed out, what’s going to happen with the right-of-way dedication, is even though the house is not physically moving, the fact that the property lines are physically changing and there will be less street frontage for the property, the applicant is looking to bring that into conformance. That constitutes a unique circumstance in Staff’s perspective.
Staff finds that the Variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The house has been on the property for nearly 63 years with the same footprint and that’s not changing.
Staff is recommending approval of both requests.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I see that Mr. McGrath is here. Is there anybody in the gallery that wants to speak about this Case?
No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said Mr. McGrath, we have a recommendation from Staff for approval.
Timothy McGrath introduced himself to the Commission. We’re in agreement with the approval. The backdrop is that it’s father and son and it’s a family thing. The father owns land on the other side of the creek that he can’t access, so he’s combining it with his son who lives across the creek. That’s the backdrop of why this is being done. Do you have any questions?
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, does anyone have any questions for the Agent? No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said thank you.
9. Motion to Approve a Map Amendment from A-1 to E-2 (M-21-016) Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Kris Mazon indicated that the Map Amendment will proceed to Land Use next Tuesday. That meeting will be online at 10:30 AM.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-046, which takes place in Manhattan Township.
This is for a Special Use Permit for an animal care/boarding facility. A Variance for minimum setback for an animal care/boarding facility from 500 feet to the nearest dwelling unit to 394 feet. Finally, a Variance for minimum setback for an animal care/boarding facility from 250 feet from the nearest R-Zoned District to 225 feet.
The owner of record is the Amanda Denwood Revocable Trust, dated May 29, 2020. Amanda Denwood is the Trustee with a full list of interested parties on file. The attorney is Priya Thennarasu of Sosin, Arnold, & Schoenbeck, Ltd.
The applicant is seeking the Special Use Permit and Variances to operate a kennel, in this case for a dog rescue, on the property.
I would like to point out two editing errors in the Staff Report. On Page 1, the Zoning Case number is listed as ZC-20-046, it should be ZC-21-046 as previously stated. On Page 5, the Special Use Permit request is listed as for light equipment sales/rentals. It should read “for an animal care/boarding facility.” Staff regrets the errors.
The subject property is improved with a single-family residence with an attached garage and an accessory building to the west of the residence.
On May 13, 2021, the applicant submitted a Special Use Permit Application in order to establish a dog rescue on the property while residing in the principal residence.
The applicant has requested that the Special Use Permit apply to the entire property and that the Special Use Permit not be transferable to subsequent property owners.
This is the applicant’s first request for this special use.
The applicant plans to operate a foster-based dog rescue, open to the public by appointment only, on the property.
If the applicant is approved to establish the dog rescue, the applicant will be required to meet the stipulations of Section 155-11 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires one parking space per employee plus accessible parking facilities. There are currently no parking spaces provided on the property.
The anticipated hours of operation for the dog rescue will be Tuesday through Saturday, by appointment only.
The applicant estimates that 3 to 7 people per day will visit the property Tuesday through Friday, and that 10 to 15 people will visit on Saturday, which will generate 3-7 trips Tuesday through Friday and 10 to 15 trips on Saturdays.
The applicant estimates that the rescue will accommodate approximately 25 dogs and will employ two Staff members who will be assisted by volunteers. The applicant has not stated how many volunteers will work on the property.
The applicant expects that the animal care use will result in a minimal increase of noise on the property due to dogs barking while outside.
The applicant met Staff during the site visit on the property and stated that the accessory building will be renovated to accommodate the animal care use.
The applicant has not yet applied for a Building Permit.
The building will need to be brought to Commercial Code to be in compliance.
The applicant informed Staff that the existing fence which encircles a small, wooded area south of the accessory building will be replaced in order to provide a play yard for the proposed animal care facility.
The property is zoned A-1 as are the properties to the east, west, and south. The parcels to the north are zoned A-2.
The parcel meets the lot standards for the A-1 District and is legal and conforming.
This is a view of the subject site looking west. This is a view from the subject parcel looking west. This is a view of the subject parcel looking east showing the accessory building on the property. The shaded grassy area to the west will be the proposed play yard. This is a view of the fenced area proposed for the play yard showing the fence to be replaced. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking northeast. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking northwest. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking south. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking north. This is a view of the adjacent parcels looking south.
The criteria by which Staff, Commissioners, and County Board Members evaluate Special Use Permit requests are shown on the screen. A detailed Staff analysis can be found in your packets.
These are the criteria by which Staff, Commissioners, and County Board Members evaluate Variance requests. A detailed Staff analysis can be found in your packets.
Staff is recommending denial of all 3 requests.
Should the Commission recommend approval of the Special Use Permit and Variances, Staff recommends the 8 conditions seen here.
Of the agencies notified and who provided comments, the only objection was from the Manhattan Township Board of Trustees. The Township Board held a hearing on July 13, 2021 for the requested special use and unanimously voted to not support the Special Use Permit due to neighboring property owners concerns about a dog rescue operating in close proximity to their homes.
As stated previously, the nearest dwelling unit to the north is 394 feet from the proposed use and the nearest R-Zoned (R-2) parcel and is 225 feet to the south.
A letter from Manhattan Township Board is included in your packets. I can take your questions.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, any questions for Staff?
No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is the Agent here, or the owner of the property? 2 women raised their hands in the gallery.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody here in the gallery that would like to speak about this Case other than the Agent or owner?
Numerous people in the gallery raised their hands.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said the Agent can come down and say whatever you wish to say. Staff is indeed denying on all 3 counts so if you have any additional information that you would like the Commission to hear, come on down.
The Agent, Priya Thennarasu, passed out a handout to Staff and all the Commissioners that were present.
Priya Thennarasu introduced herself to the Commission. Promise Rescue was established by Amanda Denwood in 2013. She has been operating out of Wilmington until now. She is seeking to continue her work in the community. Amanda is an expert in her field. As you’ll see in the books, she has recommendations from the former coordinator of Joliet Animal Control, a recent request from the Joliet Animal Control requesting that Amanda train the staff, and a recommendation from friends of Oak Forest Animal Control Commission, Alderman Laura Gray. There’s also 11 letters of recommendation from the community. In my opinion, Amanda has indicated the scope of what she wants to do. I understand their concerns so we’re looking at no more than 1 appointment per day and no more than 4 appointments per week. There will also be no more than 25 cats and dogs total on the property and Amanda is not looking to expand. There’s currently 1 employee and Promise Rescue is willing to develop a parking area and is willing to expand the driveway, if necessary. Also, a few clarifications. There is not going to be new construction on the property, there’s already an existing building. There’s only going to be some minor improvements such as flooring and painting, and we understand that there is going to be an inspection to make sure the building is up to Code. The fence mentioned in Lisa’s report has been replaced and there are photos of it in the book. Amanda wanted to add an additional security gate to make sure that no dogs get out.
Amanda Denwood introduced herself. We chose this site over a year ago for our dogs mostly because it would give more of a homelike environment while they wait for their special home to come along. A huge majority that we have are seniors, not easy to place due to high energy breeds, and dogs that have anxiety which is an over stimulated mind. These are truly what is surrendered to shelters because people don’t have the time to train or the environment to sustain them. This is why I am very huge on keeping a calm, structured, and highly enriched environment. This means more mental chores and training gets them to use their brain and burn them down stimulusly. With this said, nuisance excessive barking will add stress to these dogs and diminish their quality of life within the kennel environment. Choosing this building also gave us an opportunity to have multiple rooms and playrooms. The way we know Chicago weather is you go from 100 degrees to a polar vortex. After a while it got harder at our previous property to keep them exercised, keep them trained, and take them out. So, to me, quality of life is huge. We do euthanize our dogs for mental and physical health, which most rescues do. We are a no-kill just because we don’t take in everything at our door, we have a choice to turn them away. My husband and I have been doing this since 2013. So, we’ve had the rescue open for 8 years and I’ve been in rescue for 10 total. I started this rescue because I was in a larger organization that pull them in from the south where we were getting in 40-50 on buses a week. It was chaos and I felt the animal’s quality was diminished. I watched a lot of sad situations that were supposed to be a rescue. So, I opened up my rescue wanting quality over quantity. We do also have some foster homes and we really push to do that. We would like to see them grow up in a home and it’s easy to transition into placement to a new home, but sometimes it’s not feasible. At our previous location we did build a small little kennel so we could take them in, help them, and work with them. Like I said, a lot of them are anxiety ridden or just older dogs that nobody really wants to foster because everyone wants puppies. We’ve made these environments to keep them comfortable. We just adopted out a 7-year-old previously that was with us for 4 years. So, that was very nice to see. At this point, we’re waving all adoption fees. All of our people that come on our property do have to fill out applications and we do background checks and so forth. I do have 4 children on the property and it is my home so I’m not inviting any Joe Schmoe. We do all of that before we even schedule any appointments. We are a non-profit organization, which means all adoption fees, if any, cover all basic vetting. No profit is made, we are not known as a business in the State of Illinois, we are known as a non-profit organization. In the past, I’ve hosted and taught many education classes and behavior modification training and leash skills as a community outreach program. This program was done both on and off our previous premises. Some were free of cost and some were for minimum donations to the Rescue. I wanted to do this to help the community become safer. I want to simply give the people the knowledge and try to keep these animals out of the system. I am aware of the concerns of creating more traffic, so I’m completely fine doing all of this off-site, that is not a problem. As for people coming to our home to meet adoptive dogs, like I said, we are low volume and it’s more of a private facility. All visits are by appointment only. We still use foster-based homes. Basically, over the year we’ve built this place and we wanted to create this environment for them. Eventually all the dogs will get good homes or natural causes will come and that choice will be made. Eventually we would like to turn it into an education center. I do see the concern with bringing that in. My husband and I are just asking for this Permit to be able to “home” the dogs we have left before natural causes with the seniors take its course. We want to keep them comfortable until then. We’re not looking to expand or increase. Any intakes we have are mostly cats and kittens that are going into foster homes. We want to slow down and close down because I’ve been doing this for a long time. I want the best quality for the dogs that are left, which are all mostly over the age of 7. A lot of the citizens were concerned with the drainage at Township. We do have limestone put down, limestone screening. I’ve done a lot of research in the past and it’s great for filtration, keeping odor down, no parasites such as fleas or ticks. So, it’s safe for the dogs, and it’s good for the dogs. It’s easy to clean and keep clean. As the water drains and goes through it, it is a filter system. They do recommend it to keep a clean, odorless dog run, so I have an article here. I do have an article in my bag, but I really didn’t want to pull it out. It’s a really neat story from Texas about how they put limestone in all of their ponds. Within 3 years in these 2 ponds, they did a water test and it was completely drinkable. I researched this forever, just in Wilmington we had low power lines and I couldn’t get trucks in. I’m really excited to be able to start this project. This is a scale of our fencing now that is black chain-link with wind screens. It is a main gate to come through, through the drive, in case we need to bring in any dog food loads or anything like that. We have a little play yard off the patio and just a potty portable area off the small door here at nighttime so that they can go to the bathroom. No dogs are left outside unattended, we are always with them. Working so close with Animal Control and Lost Dogs Illinois, I am very big on safety and not letting the dogs get out. I feel like the dog roaming the yard is a bored dog so it’s going to do bad things like dig and things like that. So, we do stay outside with our dogs. We did keep the previous insulation that was in the pole barn area where the dogs will be held. It was about an R-30 and it was already there when we moved in. On the walls, we did add some R-19 behind the OSB boards and we did add about 2 inches of foam on the top and all the way around into the attic everywhere. This will help to keep the sound in. As we learned in our last 2 buildings, the one with drywall was allowing the noise to leave a lot more. The 1-inch OSB boards were keeping more of a seal. These are some of our animals that are in rescue at this moment and they are still searching for a home. We also have worked with the Chicago Pet Show many times teaching classes and working on calm with our dogs and teaching them to be calm. I want to finish up with any future improvements that we want to do if we do get approved for this. We plan to change the existing exterior doors to commercial-grade doors to hold in more sound. The sliding door to the back patio would be a soundproof glass sliding door. We also plan to continue working on the drainage issues. We’ve had multiple contractors come out and there has just been no conclusion. The more they kept trying to diagnose to figure things out, the more water came up, so I stopped it. We’re still working on that and we’re still calling around and trying to talk to people on how we can move it. I’ve noticed it in the area and talking to neighbors down the road in previous homes that were built, it seems like once they start digging a foundation water comes up. So, we’re still working on that. That area will be for 2 parking spaces that we will be putting in for road-mix. We also plan to do basic painting and everything inside and we plan on my husband and a friend of his putting on new siding on the residential side and painting the pole barn side gray. A water softener will also be added and more security kennel panel gates in front of all entrance doors to the east. There’s already one to the west along with the perimeter fence. All the exterior doors have latches and locks on them at this moment so just in case a dog jumped on it, we don’t want that sliding. Any questions or concerns about anything that I touched base on?
Michael Carruthers said I see that you’re redoing the fence, right?
Amanda Denwood said the fence that they showed in the picture, that’s just going to be torn down. We’re probably not even doing anything over there. In the future maybe, but for now we’re just tearing down that chicken wire/barbed wire fence.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, the pictures that you have in this pamphlet, is that the current property? That’s not the previous place, is it?
Amanda Denwood said yes, that is the new fence now. The previous picture that was put on the screen, we’re just tearing that down. It is old chicken-wire fence and it’s just garbage.
Michael Carruthers said I see that your neighbors are a distance from you along Carriage Lane.
Amanda Denwood said yes.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I figure there’s like 6 properties that have a back yard against her side yard.
Amanda Denwood said yes.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said so you currently have a number of dogs that are at your residence.
Amanda Denwood said yes, we were holding off. We moved into the house in June so the kids could start school. I brought a few over just because they are the ones that need more TLC. My husband stayed at the previous property doing that. I would then go over there while he was at work. Previously, at the end of September or beginning of October, there was a surge on the property with electricity. ComEd came out and it was a faulty wire from the line going onto the post from the property. The house was built before 1900 and was very old, so the house had some old wiring in it which we had issues with. The building in the back also had some issues. Since the surge, it all needs to be re-done. The wiring to the well was gone, so we had no water over there. The heat wasn’t pulling that much in voltage once ComEd fixed that line. I couldn’t leave all the dogs and my husband there with no water and heat. We did have to move them over earlier than we wanted, which was the weekend of Halloween.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, are you there on the property with the animals regularly?
Amanda Denwood said yes, 24/7. It’s myself, my husband, and then I have a friend that lives with us also that helps me out with the animals and the kids.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, have you had any complaints from the neighbors?
Amanda Denwood said everything at Township right now, they discussed their concerns…
Kimberly Mitchell said no, I mean has any neighbor…
Amanda Denwood asked, come to the home? No, we had one neighbor come and he just didn’t want this here at all. When we put up our zoning sign to call the number for the hearing, he knocked on our door and just said the neighbors in the area are getting together, threatening to sue, and they don’t want us there. I did speak to him and we shook hands at the end. I hope he understood where I was coming from and this wasn’t an organization that was going to keep growing and getting bigger. He was misinformed that more buildings were going to get built, etc.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, so nobody has come with a specific complaint about odors, barking, or anything?
Amanda Denwood said nothing at this moment.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, nothing that you’re aware of?
Amanda Denwood said no. The only neighbor that we do consistently talk to is the neighbor to the south at the residential lot. I always ask him and he said no, and we speak to him a lot. That’s the only one that we really speak to.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, and the County has had no complaints about the property and its operation?
Lisa Napoles said we have not.
Kimberly Mitchell said okay, those are my questions. Thank you. Matthew Gugala said you’ve had dogs in the past at the other place, right? Amanda Denwood said yes.
Matthew Gugala asked, have you had any complaints at that other place?
Amanda Denwood said no, we had no neighbors. We had one and she was maybe a mile and a half down the road. She worked at the library and would drop off blankets.
Matthew Gugala said thank you.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said with a book like this, it’s kind of hard to look at something like this when the meeting is going on. You can take a seat over here. You will have a chance to speak after the concerned citizens, if you wish to. At this time if there’s anyone that would like to come down you can.
Charles Albin introduced himself to the Commission. I’d like to thank you for your time. I’ve known Amanda for about 5 years through my wife and the rescue. In that period of time, with us being involved with Promise Rescue, we’ve seen Amanda do a lot of things for the community. She does put on classes so people who have a situation where they’re just not in-tune with their animals or having issues with the animals can get help. I’ve seen her personally take those people aside at her residence in Wilmington and train with them. There’s a lot of happy results that she gets from the people that deal with her. I just wanted the Commission to understand that. Also, the animals, when they come into the rescue, a lot of them come in from different animal control centers. They’ll come into the rescue and Amanda will try to get them fostered out. The thing that she also does is that she makes sure they have a microchip. There’s a lot of dogs out there right now running the streets. If you were to scan the dog, if they have a microchip you could go and try to find the previous owner. With every dog that she has, that’s a concern of hers for accountability. Every one of these animals that she receives is fully vetted. Amanda works with different veterinarians in the area. Some are local and some are as far north as Plainfield. So, it’s not only her doing it, it’s the commitment of all the fosters that help her with it as well. So, there’s a lot that goes into this with making sure the animals are healthy. These animals are also spayed and neutered. After somebody comes into the rescue they have to fill out an application for adopting one of these animals and the dog is spayed or neutered before it leaves. Promise Rescue basically focuses on the safety of not only the animals, but the community and the people that own these animals. I was asked to come tonight as a character witness for her and I can guarantee you, from what I’ve seen in the last 5 years, that her area being adjacent to Manhattan, it’s going to be a big benefit for the people that live in that town. It’s not only placing the animals, it’s also being able to provide training. You can train an animal, but sometimes you have to train the owners too. I think that she’ll do a fine job. Any questions?
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said thank you very much. The next one that wants to speak can come on down.
Christine Johnson introduced herself to the Commission. Thank you for having us all tonight. My husband Mike and I share a Joliet home with a dog and 2 cats, all rescues. We are also horse owners, she’s not on the property, it’s not zoned, no worries. I am currently employed as a certified saddle fitter at a premier English tack shop. I’ve worked at animal hospitals as a receptionist, kennel manager, and veterinary assistant. I have volunteered my time to various rescue organizations for as long as I can remember. As a professional photographer, I was a photographer for the Chicago Pet Shows. The focus on Chicago Pet Shows was on rescue organizations, adoptable animals, and education. Amanda became a big part of the Chicago Pet Shows. Peggy Ruh, who was the director of the Chicago Pet Shows, on my recommendation, invited Amanda from Promise Rescue not only to have an adoption booth there, but invited Amanda to come onto the floor and give seminars on teaching to calm. She educated owners on how to help their dogs remain calm and stay in balance. I met Amanda while I was working at a veterinary clinic. I’ve never met anyone as passionate and compassionate as Amanda. I think it was the way she advocated for the animals that she brought into the clinic that day. I admired her confidence, and I liked her instantly. Since that day, and during the last 10 years, I have had the privilege and honor of working with Amanda. Amanda’s mission has always been clear, educating people to keep their dogs safe and balanced. Safety has always been a priority for Amanda, not just for the animals in her care, but to herself, her family, volunteers, and the community whether on her property or at another venue. Amanda’s commitment to building and maintaining one of the cleanest and safest facilities I’ve seen is a testament to her high standards. In rescue you learn very quickly that you cannot save them all. Amanda has the ability and capability to identify and understand each individual dog’s needs. So many animals have been failed by humans. Those humans did not take responsibility for them, that’s why Amanda has. For every dog that is adopted or lives out their final days in a sanctuary setting like Promise Rescue, there is a dog whose quality of life is so diminished that the kindest thing to do is end their suffering. I have had many late-night phone conversations with Amanda. Sometimes both of us were sobbing because she had to make the hardest decision in rescue. It is a responsibility she does not take lightly. Personally, I don’t know how she does it. Rescue is tough, you have your heart broken more times than you can count. The harsh reality is that we cannot save them all. Some days are tougher than others then there are the days when we’ve made a difference. Maybe we saved only one, but we made a difference for one dog. We saved one animal, that’s the reward. Those are the days that we celebrate. Amanda’s character and integrity is reflected in her work and dedication. She is a fighter, a champion for the underdog, and a voice for those who cannot speak. She has dedicated her life to making the world a better place for all creatures great and small. I wish more people had hearts like Amanda. Thank you for your time.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I believe we’re going to listen to everybody, everybody gets a chance to speak. I’m going to request that you try to keep your comments to 3 minutes and under, which is our rule.
Traci Frazier introduced herself to the Commission. First of all, I don’t want to discredit what you are doing Amanda, that’s wonderful. However, the couple people that I’ve heard speak on her behalf, the one thing that I want to say is that they are not living near this. They are adopting from her, however they’re not going to be listening to 25 possible rescues from a quiet area that we’ve moved to purposely to have that peace and quiet. I’m not sure how she’s handling the feces, that was not discussed. I know she’s talking about drainage, however there’s more to it. So, I have not heard anything as far as that goes. The other concern that we have is that we have a lot of children in the area. I have not heard what the height of the fence will be. I know dogs have jumped over 5-foot fences and if you’re talking about anxiety ridden dogs, what are they capable of? If they do get out, what are they capable of? You have children that live down the street and you have children that live in all directions of that facility, so how are you going to ensure they’re protected? I understand locks on doors and I understand locks on fences, but that doesn’t always work. If there was something that occurred, what would we do to protect those children from the animals? We’ve had situations on our street where somebody was walking their dog and along came a loose dog and attacked them. Now we’re just making that problem even more so possible. I have witnessed that. I don’t want to put the residents in that area at risk. We shouldn’t have to listen to it and we should not have to be concerned for safety. Thank you.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, anybody else?
William Frazier introduced himself to the Commission. I am the neighbor who went and talked to her and shook hands with her. Out of respect I shook her hand, but that does not mean at all that I agree with what she wants to do. We live on a nice quiet street, and like my wife said, we moved there on purpose, for that reason. Not one house on that street has a yard and most of us have dogs. Most of us have very well-trained dogs who stay in their own yards. When I’m out with my dogs working or training, I shouldn’t have to worry about a dog from a rescue. I understand right now they’re all elderly dogs, but this Permit doesn’t give a date stipulation a year and a half from now when all their dogs die that she isn’t going to get new ones that will be younger dogs. They are going to be anxiety ridden, high strung and want to jump out of a fence to get into my yard and attack my dogs or my granddaughter playing out in the yard. It’s just not fair for us to have to worry about. This is a residential area. That property backs right up to us. That kennel is very close and to get out one of those doors or any of those kennel panels, they’re right in our yard. It’s a direct path for them and we shouldn’t have to be out in our yards worrying about this. As far as the drainage issue, we’ve lived there for a long time. The drainage issue around there is horrible because of the fact that the water drains down there and it sets up. There’s no solution to it, you just have to keep pumping it out all the time. That’s about all I have to say.
Paul Gaynor introduced himself to the Commission. I’ve been here for over an hour sitting in those chairs and I can’t hear a word that’s going on down here. I don’t know why the microphones are not on. I am hard of hearing and I’m a Vietnam veteran with hearing aids. I have them turned up as loud as I can and I can’t hear what’s going on. These people stated their case and I have no idea what they’re talking about. I live on this street and I’m afraid for my kids. I have a dog and I’ve been a dog lover all of my life. My dog is always on a leash or in a fenced yard. My grandkids and my great grandkids come to visit at times. This is a problem for me to have this happen in the neighborhood. You want to have a horse rescue or a cow rescue, that’s fine. There’s no problem with that, they’re not going to attack anybody. I don’t know what these dogs are going to be like if they get loose. Are they going to bother my kids? Are they going to attack my kids? This is ridiculous, but the main thing is I can’t hear anybody in here tonight. It’s wrong, we should be able to hear this lady’s statement and whatever she wants to do in our community and I cannot hear it. What’s wrong with this? I’m sorry, but that’s all I have to say.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said thank you for your comments. Most people normally don’t have a problem hearing me.
Paul Gaynor said well I do. I’m sorry, but I can’t hear it.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I’m just saying, most people usually don’t have a problem with me, but I do have to wear this mask.
Paul Gaynor said I understand everybody has to wear a mask but turn the damn microphone up. It’s bullshit.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, would anybody else like to speak on this matter?
Cheryl Lyons introduced herself to the Commission. I’ve known Amanda about 5 years. My husband was a police officer in the City of Wilmington where Amanda had her previous kennel. The problem was not from Amanda, it was from homeowners whose dogs get out, who get loose, who have problems and then are brought to Amanda. We had a couple that were brought to the Wilmington Police Station that were dumped and the owners no longer wanted them. We ended up fostering through Amanda and we ended up adopting them. She helped us with these anxiety dogs because their owners dumped them. They’re wonderful pets for us. We have grandchildren that are 2, 5, 7, 16, and 19 and they all come to the house. The dogs are well behaved for us. She helped with training my son’s Boxer. He has very young children and she helped to train them with the dogs so that they knew how to handle it. Her facilities are always clean. She takes care of the animals and she teaches people. We have a 17-year-old Chihuahua that somebody dumped in a snowstorm. We talked to Amanda through the rescue and she helped us with the vet. The dog will have been with us for almost a year now. It has 2 teeth and had some health issues, but she’s good now and she’s living her best life until it ends. Amanda helps, she doesn’t hurt. For irresponsible owners in the area, they’re the threat. She never had a dog get out and there were never calls. She’s just there to help. Thank you.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else to speak on this Case?
A few other people raised their hands in the gallery. A gentleman started to walk down to the podium.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said you can’t deny them to speak.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, is everybody else ready to vote? Roger, are you ready to vote?
Roger Bettenhausen said we need to let the people speak.
Kimberly Mitchell said if they’re all for the Case, and we’re ready to vote… Roger Bettenhausen said they’re not all for the Case.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I don’t know until they speak.
Amanda Denwood said to the man standing at the podium, John, we should be fine.
Kimberly Mitchell said ask the lawyer.
Priya Thennarasu, Attorney for the owner, said for purpose of time, they don’t need to speak, I understand.
Amanda Denwood said the last two are for us, so they don’t have to.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else that would like to speak on this Case? What I’m specifically looking for is from what I see there are two residences that this Variance particularly affects. I want to see if they’re in attendance. The 500 feet, it looks like there might be three residences, but they’re asking for 394 because that’s the closest, correct?
Paul Gaynor asked, are they really legal now?
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is that correct?
Lisa Napoles said yes, the closest residence is to the north and it is 394 feet from the property. The R-zoned property to the south is 225 feet from the property.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said there may be a couple more to the north, but they’re just farther than that 394.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said and they would have been notified. Lisa Napoles said yes.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said so, they could be here.
Lisa Napoles said they could be.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said or they could have submitted comments.
Lisa Napoles said any property that is immediately adjoining this property as well as the properties across the street have all been notified.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said good, that’s what we want.
Matthew Gugala asked, so the six properties right behind there have been notified?
Lisa Napoles said they all have, yes.
Matthew Gugala said there are two that are adjoining so that leaves four that are not here. Does that sound about right?
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said that’s the way I look at it by looking at the maps. Anybody else care to speak?
No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I don’t want to silence anybody.
Kimberly Mitchell said I’ve listened to…
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I understand your frustration.
Kimberly Mitchell said I can listen to the objections. It’s the continued positive feedback.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said there’s no doubt that there are plenty of people here to attest to the character of the person who has the dog rescue. The true Case before this Zoning Board is whether or not the use is appropriate and whether or not the people who live closest to it would like to object.
Kimberly Mitchell said I’d like to hear them if they’re here.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said at that point I will close the floor for comments. Roger Bettenhausen asked, do the applicants have any rebuttal?
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said the applicants can come back if they have anything that they would like to add. Actually, I would like you to come up here because I do have one question.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, can somebody ask him to sit down?
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said Traci asked about the height of the fence. Can you tell me how tall that fence is?
Amanda Denwood said 6 foot.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said it is 6 foot.
Amanda Denwood said 6 foot and the wind shield is on the inside and not the outside so they can’t get through the chain link. That area is not a free rein play area, it is a perimeter. We don’t do any off leash, we do long line work and things like that. They stay on a leash over there. The play yard to the south is where they’ll be off the leash if they’re just going potty and doing their thing while I’m out there.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said okay, that answers my question. Is there anything else that you’d like to add? Does anyone else from the Commission have anything else?
Priya Thennarasu said that one of the stipulations from the Staff Report was a Waste Management Plan, and that is included in the packet.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said no more public comment, Commissioner discussion. Does anyone have anything else?
Kimberly Mitchell said I have some comments to make, but I will wait until we vote.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said we can definitely have comments after the Motion.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said without the Special Use, the other ones are pretty much useless. I saw this Case and I saw the Staff denial. To me the important thing here is the immediate neighbors, what do they think of this?
Kimberly Mitchell said I have listened to all of the comments that have been presented. I heard a lot of concern for what might happen and I've also heard a lot of positive comments for what has happened. In my mind, the history of what she's done for the community that she has lived in and provided a service for, far outweighs the comments of what might happen. I think she should be given a chance. I think that a person has the right to prove themselves. We have a County that can be contacted if things go awry. If things don't work out, there are remedies. I feel like the presentation for what she's doing has been very positive and I feel like she deserves a chance.
Michael Carruthers said the Special Use Permit also goes from year to year, correct?
Lisa Napoles said no, it will stay on the property. It is permanent unless that use is abandoned.
Michael Carruthers asked, so when someone else takes over?
Lisa Napoles said or if the current property owner discontinues that use and it expires.
Marguerite Kenny said there is also a revocation process if one of these conditions is not met. The applicant would be notified of the violation of the conditions and have a chance to bring it into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, the Special Use could be revoked.
Kimberly Mitchell said even a stronger reason of why she should be given a chance.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, any other comments from the Commissioners?
12. Motion to Approve a Special Use Permit for an Animal Care/Boarding Facility (S 21-014)
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-1 with the 8 recommended 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. The special use permit is only applicable to Amanda Denwood/Amanda Denwood Revocable Trust, dated May 29, 2020.
3. The number of rescue dogs housed on the property will not exceed 25.
4. The applicant must obtain the proper building permits to bring the existing structure which will be renovated to house dogs to commercial code.
5. The owner must notify Staff of any increase or expansion of dog runs or play yards in order to confirm if additional variances are needed.
6. The owner must submit a manure plan to the County detailing how the dog waste will be removed from the property.
7. The owner must obtain a site development permit to construct a parking area for employees, volunteers, and customers/visitors and any paved dog runs. 8. The applicant must obtain all necessary approval from the Manhattan Township Road District, including widening and improving the entrance to the property.
Kris Mazon announced that the Special Use will go to Land Use next Tuesday and that meeting will be online. The signed Ordinances for the Variances will be emailed to you.
| RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Bettenhausen, Gugala NAYS: Kiefner ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-070, which takes place in Lockport Township.
The property is located on the east side of New Avenue less than 600 feet or so from the intersection of Arthur Avenue and New Avenue.
The owner is Five Star Landscape Company where Omar Benitez is 100% interest. Mr. Benitez is also acting as the agent.
The subject property is currently unimproved and is 1.85 acres with 400 feet of lot frontage, but is only 192 feet wide at its widest point.
The property has significant grade changes along the eastern and southern parts of the property and possible pipelines running through the southern portion of the property, which significantly limits the development potential for this property.
The property also has shallow bedrock which makes building a structure or any type of foundation difficult.
The applicant is here tonight requesting a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage yard for his landscape business to operate on the site.
The applicant has a similar location further north along New Avenue.
As the property is currently zoned C-1, the applicant is requesting to re-zone the parcel to I-1 in order to request a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage yard.
Given that the property is relatively narrow and limited with the availability for outdoor storage, the applicant is looking to request a Variance for fence height within the street setback from 4 feet to 8 feet to allow for appropriate screening of the outdoor storage yard.
I have the Aerial on the screen as well as the Zoning Map. In terms of the property, you can see a little bit of the orange line, which is the elevation. I believe your Staff Reports might have a better rendering of it, but it does have about 30 feet or so of grade change along that eastern property line and southern property line.
You can also see that there is a mix of Zoning Districts in this area. We have A-1, which is agricultural. In the City of Lockport, we have M2 (heavy manufacturing), which is the Shell Refineries on the west side of New Avenue. To the north, we have I-3, which is our intense industrial. It actually is a truck terminal that’s operating adjacent to them. To the east we have local commercial. I believe it is a local church and a pizzeria. To the east there is R1, which is single family residential, in the City of Lockport. To the south we have multiple family within the City of Lockport.
I do have the Alta Survey on the screen for you, a better rendition of it is in your Staff Report.
Again, we have a Conceptual Site Plan. The applicant is proposing along the northern side of the property that they would have bins for gravel, sand, and landscaping type materials. Along the back would be equipment parking. Along the front would be the fence and some vehicle parking and employee parking. Then, he would have a 10-foot buffer around the edges of the property for that 10-foot setback. As typical for the I-1 District, the street setback is 30 feet from the property line.
Fences are typically only allowed to be 4 feet tall within the street setback. The applicant is requesting 8 feet to provide sufficient screening.
With regards to the Map Amendment, the criteria is shown on the screen as well as provided with in-depth detail in your Staff Report.
A LESA score was not conducted for this request.
Looking at the existing uses within a mile of the subject property, typical are industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, and institutional within the City of Lockport, Village of Romeoville, and unincorporated Will County.
Within unincorporated Will County, we have the truck terminal directly north, a church which is one of the commercial properties along State Street, a pipeline, a pool company, a pizzeria, and the Lockport Golf Club within the area.
Within the City of Lockport, we have the refinery, which I believe is under Shell ownership, manufacturing companies, a truck repair facility, the Ludwig Elementary School, which is on Archer east of the subject property, downtown Lockport to the south, strip malls and residential along Archer Avenue.
The only parcel within the Village of Romeoville is the quarry across from the I&M Canal.
We also have the I&M Canal Trail and the Runyon Preserve within the near vicinity of the subject property.
Looking at the zoning, again it’s a variety of Zoning Districts. We have residential, industrial, and commercial within unincorporated Will County. Heritage residential within the City of Lockport and then heavy industrial within the nearest vicinity of the subject parcel. You can see the dark purple all around the subject property. It is an area that has pretty intense industrial.
Looking at the suitability of the property, I have a CONNECTExplorer image of the subject property on the screen. You can see by the tree line, that signifies that grade change. So, the applicant is looking to use the larger portion to the north and towards New Avenue for his storage.
In terms of what’s typically permitted in the C-1 District, most uses that are permitted require a principal structure. Given the topography of this site, it would be very difficult to put a foundation and a well and septic field on this property with shallow bedrock as well as pipeline easements and things of that nature. Also, considering the other industrial uses in the area, the proposed outdoor storage is probably a better fit than any type of local commercial use.
Looking at the trend in development, you can actually see this area is being a little down zoned. You can see the refineries actually smaller scaled than it was back in the 1970’s, but the amount of industrial uses occurring along New Avenue have expanded since 1970. A lot of it has expanded further north along New Avenue. This particular parcel, back in 1978, was down zoned to local commercial, C-1 and before that it was zoned I-2, heavy industrial.
Looking at the conformance with adopted plans, this subject property and the proposed use is considered Freestanding Industry or Office and it is an appropriate use within the Urban Communities Development Form.
Within the City of Lockport, the subject property is shown as being zoned heavy industrial. Again, with the Future Land Use Map of the City of Lockport, you can see that it is indicated as being purple, which is industrial uses.
Looking at the subject property, this is looking at the site looking northeast. This is looking at that southern portion so you can see it starting to slope up towards that higher elevation. This is looking at the back towards those higher elevations. This is looking north along New Avenue, so looking at some of those industries that are adjacent. This is looking northwest and then looking southwest across New Avenue. This is looking south along New Avenue. This is actually looking further north along New Avenue at one of the properties that has a security fence along the street. It does appear to be taller than 4 feet in height and it is chain link. This is looking at potentially another property that has a solid fence within the street setback that also appears to be taller than 4 feet. So, it is not out of the question to have screening or a fence within the industrial uses within this area.
Now we will be looking at the Special Use Criteria by which Staff, Commissioners, and the County Board Members evaluate these Special Use Permit requests. Staff finds that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the outdoor storage yard will not be detrimental to or endanger the public so long as the use adheres to the County’s regulations and proposed conditions of the Special Use Permit.
This section of New Avenue starts a long line of industrial and intensive uses and the proposed use falls within similar uses.
Should the Special Use Permit be approved, it would be required to obtain a Site Development Permit and adhere to the County’s adopted Codes and Ordinances regarding stormwater. If there’s an excess of impervious, detention’s going to be required on the property.
Any outdoor storage is going to be required to be screened, which is why the fence Variance is being requested.
With regards to the Variance, Staff finds that there are unique circumstances based upon the physical characteristics of the property basically due to the steep slopes on this property. It pushes the development closer to New Avenue, which in terms of screening, it’s going to push it closer to the setback and necessitate the Variance request.
Staff finds that the Variance, if granted, the 8-foot-tall fence would likely not alter the essential character of the locality as well.
Staff is recommending approval of the Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1 as well as the Special Use with 9 Conditions.
Most of them are regarding the standard site inspection. Condition #2 is a condition that the Health Department required that the applicant provide a portable toilet since there will not be facilities or a building that would have the appropriate water or restroom facilities. Also, that it should be properly maintained. Condition #3 deals with the Lockport Fire Protection District comments that were provided in your Staff Report that they work with the Fire Protection District to address any concerns that they may have. Their approvals would be required as part of the Site Development Permit. Starting with # 4 and the rest are regarding our Resource, Recovery and Energy Department regulations for landscaping. So, no open burning would be permitted. Manure and storage piles, those are pretty much 3-sided storage bins to control run-off or any type of contamination. #7, bulk material in 3-sided bins and things of that nature.
Staff is also recommending approval for the Variance of the fence height. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, any questions for Staff?
Roger Bettenhausen said I just had a question about the fence. Is there any consideration regarding the type of fence that it needs to be, or is that just up to the applicant?
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of the County, as long as it provides screening, it could be a solid wooden fence. In terms of the gate and the actual access onto the property, the County has a vision clearance provision where a solid fence cannot obstruct the vision coming on and off of New Avenue and onto the property. Aside
from that, it could be a solid fence, it could be concrete blocks if that is what he wants to use, or it could be chain link with slats. It just has to provide continuous screening.
Roger Bettenhausen said okay, thanks.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is the applicant here?
A gentleman in the gallery raised his hand.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else that wishes to speak regarding this Case?
No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said we have a recommendation from Staff for approval. If you’d like to come down and make your Case you can, however we don’t have any objectors.
The gentleman in the gallery said something that could not be heard.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said okay, I will take that as no comment then. Any discussion from the Commission?
No response.
16. Motion to Approve a Map Amendment from C-1 to I-1 (M-21-017) Voice vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Kris Mazon announced that the Map Amendment and the Special Use will go to Land Use next Tuesday and it will be online.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
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. The applicant shall provide one portable toilet on site which is properly maintained (pumped and cleaned) in accordance with Health Department regulations. Should a principal structure be constructed, the building shall have sanitary facilities (i.e., bathroom) for employees.
3. The applicant must comply with all codes and regulations enforced by the Lockport Fire Protection District.
4. Open burning of any substance on site is prohibited, except clean wood as a fuel source within structures.
5. A permanent structure shall be constructed around any manure storage piles. Structures shall be compliant with all local ordinances.
6. Manure must not be stored on site longer than 6 months. Manure must be stored more than 100 feet from any water well and more than 100 feet from any downgradient surface water.
7. All bulk organic product or material, including manure, shall be stored in a manner to prevent contact with storm water run-off or run-on. Bulk storage areas shall be located outside of drainage ways, swales, and depressions.
8. Any storage of herbicide, pesticide or any other toxin used for landscaping business must be kept indoors.
9. 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.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Voice vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
1. 11567 : AAD-21-002, Motion to Approve the Zoning Administrator's Action
Marguerite Kenny presented AAD-21-002, which is an appeal of Administrative Decision regarding an extension of a Special Use Permit as having not been timely filed.
The owner is Ocean City Logistics, Inc.
The Attorney, Nathaniel Washburn of Kavanagh, Grumley & Gorbold, LLC is representing the owner.
The property is vacant property on Cherry Hill Road in Joliet. The PIN # is 30-07- 25-400-014 and it is zoned I-1.
This property is 14.51 acres with 780 feet of frontage along the west side, which is Cherry Hill Road.
A previous Special Use Permit for a truck terminal was approved October 17, 2019, which was former Zoning Case # ZC-19-036. The County Board approved the Special Use at that time.
The signed Ordinance also contained a date where the County Executive signed the Ordinance, which was October 28, 2019. So, there’s a 2-week difference between the dates.
The applicant was notified that their Special Use was going to expire and that they needed to apply for an extension. The applicant applied for this extension October 28, 2021 believing that, that was the date that the Special Use Permit expired.
Staff also advised the applicant that October 28, 2021 was the expiration date. However, it was Land Use Departments common practice, as well as what the Ordinance says, that it is the date approved by County Board. So technically, since it was approved on October 17, 2019 and they are good for 2 years, the expiration date of the Special Use Permit would have been October 17, 2021.
So, the Department informed counsel that when they did apply for the Special Use Permit extension that it was after the fact and we administratively withdrew the extension request, but also notified them that they could appeal our decision. So, that is the request before you tonight.
In terms of the Ordinance that they are questioning, it is Section 155-16.40-(J)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. The County Board is authorized to extend the expiration period for good cause up to 180 days each. Requests for extension must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator before the Special Use Permit expiration date.
With regards to J-1, which says “an approved Special Use Permit will lapse and have no further effect two years after it is approved by the County Board.”
So, the request before you is that the Administrative Adjustment decision being appealed is an error and the Zoning Administrator is hereby required to accept the Special use Permit extension application for this property known as Vacant Property, Cherry Hill Road, Joliet, IL 60433 and identified by PIN # 30-07-25-400- 014-0000 provided all other application requirements are satisfied.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I have one I guess. When you notified them that it was going to expire, did you state specifically in your letter when it was going to expire?
Marguerite Kenny said yes. We do this out of courtesy to just give them a heads up of when their expiration is to occur. It was stated that it was October 28, 2021. However, in terms of the Ordinance and the regulations, it does state that it is County Board approval. Once they get the Ordinance, they are responsible for adhering to their Ordinance. If they need to file a Special Use extension they are aware of it at the time of getting their Special Use Permit that they have until that expiration date.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, do you know the date of when you sent them that letter?
Marguerite Kenny said it would have been the 19th, the Monday after 18th of October.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, so you didn’t notify them before it expired. My question was, did you notify them before…
Marguerite Kenny said I notified the attorney of the original Zoning Case. The property did undergo a sale so there’s a new owner. He did have a Site Development Permit on file, so it was just a matter of getting the word out that they needed to apply for that extension.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said so you had done your due diligence to notify who you thought was the appropriate party.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, anybody else?
Kimberly Mitchell asked, prior to the date, prior to October 17th?
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Michael Carruthers said looking at this, there’s a difference of 11 days. Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Michael Carruthers said there’s a miscommunication on both sides.
Marguerite Kenny said yes. I was notified by the current property owner on the 18th of October that they were inquiring on when the Special Use extension would be. So, its technically a day after the expiration.
Michael Carruthers said with the way the economy is today…
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said we’ll get to listen now.
Marguerite Kenny said we had a similar request where the previous Administrative Decision was also for a truck terminal. It was a similar circumstance except they completely missed the extension deadline. In this Case, they’re actually within the window of the 2 dates. So, the question to some extent is which date is to be the clear date of County Board approval.
Vice-Chairman said I guess I can follow this up with another one with the State’s Attorney’s representative. Is the County Executives signature even required for a Zoning Case?
Chris Wise from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said the State law requires the County Executive to pass on any measure whether it be an Ordinance or a Resolution and until that happens, it’s not a final action. The Executive can Veto, including a Zoning matter. The other thing that I would point out is you certainly cannot pull a Permit from the point in time in which the County Board approves it and the County Executive signs it. So, when you say 2 years, I don’t want to advocate for the applicant because frankly I think I can justify our Zoning Administrator’s decision as well, it says the County Board. That’s what our Code says. On the other hand, you can certainly see that there might be some ambiguity in the whole process here that maybe we should clean up.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said my thought maybe was that the signature from the County Executive would justify.
Chris Wise said it’s not a pro forma thing in any manner, it’s a State Statute.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said that pretty much answers all of my questions. If the representative would like to come down and speak, you are more than welcome to.
Nathaniel Washburn of Kavanagh, Grumley and Gorbold, LLC introduced himself to the Commission. I would like to reiterate some of the points. I apologize, I don’t want to take too much of your time, it’s been a long meeting. Tom Osterberger at our firm processed the original Zoning Case for the Special Use Permit a little over 2 years ago now. He was notified by email from Margie at Land Use on the 18th, which was a day after the supposed filing deadline for the extension. We were notified on the 18th that we had until the 28th. We filed prior to the 28th on behalf of the new property owner. As Margie correctly pointed out, there was a change in ownership during that time. We reviewed the Ordinance and we believe and continue to believe that without the County Executive’s signature which has the lovely language “Approved By” and has the County Executive’s signature of October 28th, that October 28th should be the appropriate filing deadline. In that case, we were timely filed. We understand that there may be an Ordinance issue that may need some further clarification in the future. We would respectfully ask that you take that into consideration and approve or support our appeal and send this to the County Board for our extension. I’m here to answer any questions if you have any.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, does anyone have any questions for Mr. Washburn? No response.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said okay, thank you.
Nathaniel Washburn said thank you.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner asked, would the Commissioners like to discuss this? I thought I would have to go with Staff, but the County Executive’s signature really does stand for something. I think I have to go with the 28th.
Kimberly Mitchell said it is something that needs to be cleaned up. Roger Bettenhausen began to make a Motion.
Chris Wise from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said I’m sorry to interrupt you. I think we need to always make the Motion in the affirmative. So, the Motion, no matter how you vote, the Motion should be to approve the Zoning Administrator’s action.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, can I just say that?
Chris Wise said yes, you can say that.
Roger Bettenhausen made a Motion to approve the Zoning Administrator’s action. Michael Carruthers seconded the Motion.
Chris Wise said remember, a Yes vote means that you're not going to give the applicant...
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said let me rephrase this. I have a Motion from Bettenhausen and a Second from Carruthers in favor of the Zoning Administrator's decision to reject the Special Use extension request. An Aye would be ruling in favor of the Zoning Administrator and a Nay would be against.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [0 TO 5]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Michael Carruthers, Commissioner NAYS: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
Matthew Gugala made a Motion at 8:31 PM to adjourn the meeting. Roger Bettenhausen Seconded the Motion. Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Carruthers, Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Stipan, Peterson |
Alerts Sign-up