Will County Planning and Zoning Commission met Jan. 4.
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 6:33 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Michael Carruthers | Commissioner | Absent | |
| 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 Kris Mazon, Dawn Tomczak, Adrian Diaz, Lisa Napoles, Marguerite Kenny, and Martha Sojka.
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 - Dec 7, 2021 6:30 PM
Voice Vote was taken. Motion was approved unanimously, 4-0, with no corrections or additions.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Dawn Tomczak announced that Land Use Development Committee will meet on January 11th at 10:30 by WebEx and your invitations will be delivered. Those Cases are only the Cases that will be brought forward to the Land Use Development Committee or County Board. County Board will meet January 20th at 9:30 by way of WebEx also and your invitation will be delivered.
For our Committee, please be advised that February and March may have the 2nd meetings. We've been getting a lot of Case requests and due to scheduling, there might be a 2nd meeting, so maybe pencil that 2nd meeting on your calendars and you'll be advised accordingly.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said, but we know there won't be one for January. Dawn Tomczak said correct.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said looking at the Cases tonight, I see most of them are Zoning Variances. Zoning Variance Cases are finalized at this Commission. However, by law, we must have a full 4 votes, more than half of the Members of the Commission not more than half of the Members that are present. So, if you are coming with a Zoning Variance, you must get all 4 Yes votes to pass, 3-1 will not pass. If you're uncomfortable with that you can see Dawn and we can delay your Case another month. I apologize because I really wish we had 6 here. I don't want to hold anybody up. That is a risk of us not having the full 7, or in this case 6, because we knew the Chairman would not be able to make it.
Vice Chairman Kiefner swore in the public that was sitting in the gallery and announced to make sure their cell phones do not interrupt 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
Marguerite Kenny announced that item #1 on the Agenda, Zoning Case # ZC-21- 017 has requested to be tabled. This is the 3rd request to be tabled so this will be removed from the Agenda until they are ready to be published.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0, to table this Case.
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 2/1/2022 6:30 PM
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-068, which takes place in Peotone Township.
The owner is Bryan Batterman and the agent is Jerry Adcock of Freedom Construction.
The subject property is 3.882 acres and it’s zoned A-1. It is only 178 feet wide with the same for lot frontage along Wilmington-Peotone Road. The parcel was created in 1976 and is deemed to be legal, nonconforming.
The applicant is looking to construct a 2,580 square foot pole building within 15 feet of the western property line. As the property is deficient for A-1 standards, the applicant is requesting 4 Variances to bring the property into conformance as well as that pole barn.
The subject property, like I mentioned, is zoned A-1. It is in an area that is predominantly zoned A-1. There are some industrial and commercial zoning to the east.
There are a few smaller A-1 parcels located further west along West Wilmington Peotone Road. One of those parcels is around 1 acre and the other is 2.6 acres. Of these 2 parcels, the uses tend to be primarily residential given the small size.
This subject property is primarily used for residential and agricultural purposes primarily animal and poultry husbandry.
Looking at the subject property that I have on the screen, it is outlined in red. The property is improved with a single-family residence, a frame garage, and a multi level brick and frame barn. The residence and frame garage sit 38 feet from that western property line. The barn, which is actually located on the northern side and is that white structure, sits 34 feet from the western property line. The barn is used as animal confinement and is encroaching into the animal confinement setback. However, this barn is deemed legal, nonconforming, but the applicant is requesting the Variance just to bring it into compliance. The applicant has chickens, burros, goats, and horses.
Looking at the Plat of Survey, this is the barn and you can see that it is measured 34 feet from the property. This property is very long and rectangular. Looking at the front part of the residence and the framed garage, you can see that it’s 178 feet wide, but it is only 3.882 acres. Typically, A-1 is 10 acres and 300 feet of frontage.
The applicant is looking at building a 2,580 square foot pole building to be 15 feet, so it will be closer than the existing residence and detached garage to that western property line. This encroachment is not tied to any condition of the property; the applicant could meet both 50-foot side yard setbacks for the A-1 District and still have room to spare given the size of the building only being 40 feet wide. It is the applicants choice to have it located there to have that stone driveway and provide the driveway on both sides of the pasture.
With regards to other parcels in the area, there are farm structures on other nearby properties but they do not appear to encroach into setbacks except for the eastern adjacent property. You’ll see a small farm structure almost on top of the property line in one of the photos. However, if this Variance is approved at 15 feet, this Variance would also bring the house and detached garage into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance as well.
Looking at some photos of the subject property, this is looking north at the property from Wilmington-Peotone Road. This is just looking a little bit further in and you can see the residence, the detached garage, and then the barn in the background. This is looking west along Wilmington-Peotone Road. You can see there are some other properties that have farm structures. This is looking east along Wilmington-Peotone Road. This is looking east from the center of the subject property towards Wilmington-Peotone Road. This is looking south. This is looking southwest. This is looking west at the neighboring property. This is looking north along the western property line. The barn on the right side is actually 34 feet from the property line. You can see the other barn structure also looks like it is close to the same property line on the adjacent property. This is looking at the proposed location of the pole barn and looking west. This is looking at the existing farm animals on the property.
Since the property is used agriculturally, if the applicant were to re-zone the property, they would be looking to pursue Variances for the number of farm animals because they would exceed the number permitted based on the acreage.
Variances are evaluated upon the criteria on the screen. A thorough evaluation is provided in your packets. Staff just wanted to point out that there are unique circumstances based on the physical characteristics of the property. Its based on the desired to bring the parcel into conformance for lot area, lot frontage, and animal confinement by the applicant, as well as the fact that this property has existed since the 1970’s as a farm parcel. The fact that the pole building would be increasing that building setback from 38 feet to 15 feet, even though it does bring in the residence and detached garage, it is encroaching further. It does seem that based on the adjacent property that this is part of the configuration of the area.
Staff also finds that the Variances, if granted, will unlikely alter the character of the vicinity. You can see the adjacent property and there are parcels encroaching.
Staff is recommending denial for the Variance for the setback for the 15 feet, but is recommending approval for the lot area, lot frontage, and animal confinement setback.
Of the agencies that were notified, none have objected.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I would like a little clarification as to why the 50 to 15 feet is singled out. Is there an extenuating circumstance?
Marguerite Kenny said in the A-1 District, animal confinement structures technically have the same setback as a pole building, but they are differentiated in the Zoning Ordinance, so they are separate requests. It is the same side, but to bring the barn that houses the animals into conformance, they would need the Variance for animal confinement as opposed to the house, the detached garage, and the proposed pole building would just need the side setback.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said the first one you have says denial, 50 to 15 feet. Is it just because it’s a lot closer?
Marguerite Kenny said that and it hasn’t been built and there is room to meet the 50-foot setback.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said okay so it’s not pre-existing. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is the owner or agent here?
A gentleman in the gallery raised his hand.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else who would like to speak on this Case, either for or against?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said if you’d like to come down and let us know if you have anything to add. Staff has given approval of 3 of your Variances and I’m thinking if you wanted to get approval for that 4th one for that building that you want to build you can say why you want it and it could affect the way the Commissioners vote.
Bryan Batterman introduced himself to the Commission. Regarding the one Variance that is in question, the property is only 178 feet wide and I want to utilize most of my space around the building. That is why I am trying to get a Variance to be closer to the property line. Otherwise, a 50-foot setback, that’s 100 feet from each side and that would only leave me 78 feet. At 40 feet wide, that puts it right in the middle of the property. I’m just trying to utilize my space in the yard. If I bring a piece of equipment home, there’s a little more room for me to maneuver that around. That’s basically what I’m trying to do, is to move it closer.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, does anybody have any questions?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, does anybody else want to speak on this? No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I trust that the neighbor was notified of your request.
Bryan Batterman said all of my property neighbors across the street and next to me were notified.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said thank you very much.
Bryan Batterman said thank you.
3. Motion to Approve a Variance for Minimum Lot Area from 10 Acres to 3.882 Acres (V-21-109)
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-069, which takes place in Manhattan Township.
This Zoning Case is for a Variance for minimum lot frontage from 300 feet to 198.43 feet.
This Case was published with 2 Variance requests, but the request for maximum accessory building area was withdrawn by the applicants prior to tonight's public hearing.
The owners are Donna Lawler and James E. Lawler, who are represented by their attorney, Richard Kavanagh of Kavanagh Grumley and Gorbold, LLC.
The applicants are seeking this Variance to bring a parcel into compliance in order to obtain a Temporary Building Permit for a temporary storage structure.
The subject parcel is located on the west side of South Schoolhouse Road south of West Baker Road in Manhattan Township.
The parcel is one of fourteen parcels of similar size, all zoned A-2 along South Schoolhouse Road that were created from a 40-acre parcel.
At the time the parcels were created, the Illinois Compiled Statutes prohibited regulating parcels in Agricultural Districts.
The Statute was changed in 1998 (Resolution 98-98, Resolution 99-154) to allow the County to regulate parcels when the primary use is not agricultural and the parcels which do not have 300 feet of lot frontage were considered legal, nonconforming at that time. This allowed the parcels to obtain Building Permits at the time they were developed.
Under the current Zoning Ordinance, the parcels must receive approved Variances for any new construction.
Parcel 14-12-11-200-016-0000, immediately adjacent to the north, was approved for Variance 5127-V in 2003 to bring that parcel into conformance.
The applicant of the subject parcel was placed in violation, #20LU00558, in July, 2020 for site development without a Permit.
During a site visit to the property, Code Enforcement Staff documented a shed and the temporary storage structure which had been erected on the property without a Permit.
In response to being placed in violation, the applicant attended a Pre-Application Conference to discuss obtaining Permits.
The applicant submitted Site Development Permit Application SDP-21-AR005 in June, 2021 to address the unpermitted site development on the property. In August, 2021, the applicant submitted a Temporary Building Permit Application, #2102501, for the temporary structure.
During Staff’s review of the Building Permit, Staff found that the parcel is illegal, nonconforming which prevents Building Permits from being issued for the property.
The owner submitted the application for this Zoning Case in August, 2021 to bring the parcel into conformance and to obtain a Temporary Building Permit for the temporary storage structure.
This case previously included two additional requests: a Variance for minimum side yard setback (north) and a Variance for maximum accessory building area. The Variance for minimum side yard setback (north) was based on the Plat of Survey submitted with the initial application. Upon receiving an updated Site Plan, it was determined that the Variance for minimum side yard setback (north) was no longer needed. As stated previously, the request for maximum accessory building area was withdrawn by the applicant after it was confirmed that the accessory building will be temporary and will be removed from the property in six months.
The subject site is located within the Jackson Creek Watershed. There is no floodplain identified on the property, but there is a wetland on the west half of the parcel.
The subject parcel is improved with a house with an attached garage, two sheds, the aforementioned temporary structure, and has driveway access to South Schoolhouse Road to the east.
The subject parcel is zoned A-2 as are the properties immediately to the north and south.
The properties east of the subject property are zoned E-2/Estate Residential and the property to the west is zoned A-1/Agricultural.
The subject parcel measures 3.029 acres in lot area and has 198.43 feet of lot frontage, which meets the minimum lot area for the A-2 District but does not meet the 300-foot required lot frontage making the parcel illegal, nonconforming due to its date of creation on May 26, 1998.
This is the engineered Site Plan for the property.
For the Variance request, I provided full details in your report, but I will summarize.
In regards to Criterion (a) by which the Zoning Ordinance evaluates Variances, Staff finds that the plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances.
The parcel was created with 198.43 feet of lot frontage in 1998 and the owners acquired the property in 2020.
At the time the parcel was created, it was deemed legal, nonconforming.
Under the current Illinois Compiled Statutes and County Zoning Ordinance, a Variance is required to bring the parcel into conformance.
In regards to Criterion (b), Staff finds the Variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The owner is seeking to bring an existing nonconforming parcel into conformance in order to obtain a Temporary Building Permit.
The property has existed in its current condition since 1998, 23 years ago.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking west. This is a view of the subject parcel looking west showing the temporary storage structure. This is a view of the subject parcel looking northwest. This is the view of the subject parcel and adjacent parcels looking northeast. This is the view of the adjacent parcels looking north. This is the view of the adjacent parcels looking south.
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, any questions from the Commission?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said the agent is here. Is there anybody here to speak on this Case other than the agent or owner?
No response.
Richard Kavanagh introduced himself to the Commission. I’m happy with Staff’s Report. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny said this Case is also requesting to be tabled.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0, to table this Case.
| RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 2/1/2022 6:30 PM
TO: Will County Planning and Zoning Commission MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-086, which takes places in Lockport Township.
This Zoning Case is a request for three Variances. The first Variance is for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,300 square feet. The second is for minimum side yard setback (south) from 10 feet to 1.99 feet. The third is for minimum lot frontage from 150 feet to 100 feet.
The owner is Misty Venziano and the agent is George W. Rohde.
The applicant is seeking these Variances to bring the parcel into compliance and obtain a Building Permit for an accessory building for personal storage.
The subject parcel is located on the west side of South Forest Lane, north of the intersection of 147th Street and South Archer Avenue in Lockport Township.
The parcel is improved with a house with attached garage and a shed and has driveway access to Forest Lane to the east.
The applicant submitted Building Permit Application #2101623 in June, 2021 for an accessory building measuring 1,728 square feet.
Per Lockport Township Assessor records, the attached garage measures 319 square feet.
Per the Plat of Survey submitted with the zoning application, the shed is 217.80 square feet.
The combined 2,264.80 square footage of the attached garage, shed, and the proposed accessory building would exceed the 1,800 square foot maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-2 District.
During Staff’s review, Staff found that the shed is located 1.99 feet from the south property line which encroaches into the 10-foot side yard setback required in the R-2 District.
In response to Staff’s review of Permit #2101623, the applicant submitted the application for this Zoning Case in October, 2021.
As part of Staff’s review of the Zoning Case, Staff advised the applicant that the shed encroaches into the southern side yard setback and the lot frontage is deficient for R-2 requirements and that pursuing these Variances would bring the property into conformance.
The applicant then revised the Zoning Case to include three Variances to bring the property into conformance with the accessory building area, side setback, and lot frontage requirements.
At the time of the site visit, the applicant mentioned that the existing one car garage was too shallow to fit a standard sized sport utility vehicle which is the applicant’s personal vehicle.
The proposed detached garage is to store the applicants two personal vehicles and allow additional room for property maintenance equipment to be kept fully assembled.
The applicant currently has to disassemble some equipment in order for it to fit into the existing shed. When equipment is used weekly, it is assembled and kept outside. It is the applicant’s preference to not have to keep equipment outside when assembled.
The subject site is located within the Des Plaines River Watershed. There are no floodplains or wetlands identified on the property.
The subject parcel is zoned R-2 as are the properties to the north, south, and west.
It measures 1.04 acres with 100 feet of lot frontage. While the parcel does not meet the 150-foot minimum lot frontage of the R-2 District, it is deemed legal, nonconforming due to its date of creation on September 8, 1941 as part of the County Clerk’s Subdivision Plat, PB23-P51.
The applicant chose to request the Variances for minimum side yard setback (south) and for minimum lot frontage to bring the parcel into conformance.
This is the engineered Site Plan for the property. The proposed detached garage is shown outlined in red near the north property line. The existing shed which encroaches into the side yard setback is shown outlined in red near the south lot line.
For the Variance requests pertaining to lot frontage and side yard setback (south), I provided full details in your report, but I will summarize.
In regards to Criterion (a) by which the Zoning Ordinance evaluates Variances, Staff finds that the plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances. The parcel was created with 100 feet of lot frontage in 1941 and the owners acquired the property in 2020. Based on historic aerial images, the shed appears on the property in 2002. Staff could not confirm if a Permit was issued for the shed.
In regards to Criterion (b), Staff finds that the Variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The owner is seeking to bring an existing nonconforming parcel and an existing structure which encroaches into the south side setback into conformance. The property has existed in its current configuration since 1941, 80 years ago, and the shed has existed on the property since 2002, 19 years ago.
For the Variance request for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,300 square feet, again, I provided full details in your report, but I will summarize.
In regards to Criterion (a) by which the Zoning Ordinance evaluates Variances, Staff finds that the plight of the owners may be considered unique circumstances, but not a hardship. While the attached garage is 319 square feet and too small to fit the applicant’s personal vehicle and property maintenance equipment, it is the owners preference to construct an accessory building which exceeds the 1,800 square foot maximum accessory building area permitted in the R-2 District.
In regards to Criterion (b), Staff finds that the Variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are several other properties in the immediate area which, based on aerial images, have attached garages, and detached accessory buildings.
This is a view of the subject parcel looking west. This is a view of the subject parcel looking east, showing the shed encroaching into the south side yard setback. This is a view of the subject parcel looking northeast. This is the view of the adjacent parcels looking northwest. This is the view of the adjacent parcels looking north. This is the view of the adjacent parcels looking south.
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request for minimum side yard setback (south) and minimum lot frontage and denial of the Variance for maximum accessory building area from 1,800 square feet to 2,300 square feet.
Of the agencies that were notified and provided comments, none objected. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, any questions of Staff?
Roger Bettenhausen asked, are there other properties in the vicinity that exceed the maximum accessory building area that you know of?
Lisa Napoles said no, none that have Variances for it.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said none that have Variances, but you did say that there are other outbuildings.
Lisa Napoles said there are other properties in this area that have attached garages as well as outbuildings.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said it must be very difficult to get a GIS aerial for heavily wooded properties.
Lisa Napoles said it is difficult to get GIS aerials on heavily wooded properties, yes.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said the map I brought up on my phone, you can’t even see the house.
Lisa Napoles said right, it’s a challenge.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said but you did state that it would not alter the character.
Lisa Napoles said yes, I did state that because there are other properties that have existing conditions similar to the proposed condition by the applicant.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, do we have the owner or agent here for this property?
A gentleman in the gallery stood up.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody here that would like to speak about this Case other than the owner?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said you saw what we did earlier if you want to come down and speak your case since Staff is recommending denial on 1 of the 3.
George Rohde introduced himself to the Commission. I’d like to start off by saying thank you for letting me be here tonight. The reason I’m requesting the Variance for max accessory building is like what is stated in the notes. It says the existing garage cannot fit a standard-sized utility vehicle. I have a standard Jeep Wrangler and it’s too short to fit inside this garage. There’s 22 oak trees on this property and it takes a lot of lawn maintenance and equipment to maintain all of these acorns and brush that they drop. I love these trees and I don’t want anything to happen because I don’t want to get rid of them. I’d like to keep all the trees that are there and in doing so I need to be able to clean up after all of them. All the lawn equipment that I have doesn’t even fit inside the shed that’s on the property already. Even if it is on the property it’s still outside. I can’t see spending money on this stuff and it being outside getting weathered and turning into garbage because it can’t be housed indoors. I’m an avid outdoors man. I’m a hunter and a fisherman. I have hunting equipment that I try to stuff somewhere in the house and it’s not very easy. I need an accessory building to put my stuff in. I’m in the process of purchasing a new F-250, which I have not done yet just for the fact of leaving it in the driveway with the acorns, sap, and all kinds of stuff. I can’t see spending the money on something like that if it’s just going to be sitting outside. My wife drives a Tesla which we purchased 2 years ago. It has been outside, but we cover it when it’s not in use. It looks almost like there’s hail damage on it from the acorns that fall. There really is no way to protect it other than having it stored in the garage. As far as everything that is outside, the lawn furniture and stuff like that, it’s seasonal and I don’t have anywhere to store that. That is another reason I am seeking the max accessory building area. Everything that I brought for the Will Cook Soil Department, they had nothing negative to say about it being too big of a footprint or anything. I just want what everybody else has. My neighbors have garages that they put their stuff in. I’ve waited my turn and I would very much like to be granted permission to build one and keep it nice. I’m not the type of person to leave my stuff outside. When you drive around the neighborhood and see stuff outside, that’s not me. I try to keep a nice appearance. As you see in the pictures, I keep everything nice and neat and nothing is in front and our driveway is clear. I try to keep everything in the back and maintain a good appearance for the neighborhood. If I was granted permission to build this garage, that’s the reasons of why I want it.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said thank you. Does anybody have any questions?
Roger Bettenhausen asked, limiting the building to 1,800 square feet rather than 2,300 square feet, that wouldn’t allow you to do what you want to do?
George Rohde said no. The reason I chose the footage I did was I went and measured where everything would be as far as vehicles, equipment, and everything else. That is the square footage that I can fit and there’s nothing less that would actually hold everything in there.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, did you have conversation with your neighbors regarding this building?
George Rohde said yes, I did, I get along very well with my neighbors and they’re excited to see if I get it.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, are there other properties in your area that have a similar situation as you?
George Rohde said yes, my neighbor to the south actually has an existing garage and a pole barn behind it. He has plenty of storage and it’s a very nice setup and I would like something similar to that. The accessory garage is very small. I have a 1930 Model A that fits in there and that’s all that fits in there. The top of the Model A is less than 6 foot tall and my Jeep is a stock Jeep and I can’t even back it in there if I wanted to clean out the inside. Any time that I want to clean my Jeep out I have to do it in the driveway, papers are blowing around and I’m chasing stuff down the driveway trying to keep it organized.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, any other questions?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, there’s nobody here to speak on this Case? No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said thank you.
10. Motion to Approve a Variance for Minimum Lot Frontage from 150 Feet to 100 Feet (V-21-126)
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner SECONDER: Matthew Gugala, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case # ZC-21-088, which takes place in Wheatland Township.
On page 2 of the Staff Report, the Staff’s Recommendation says approval for a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage yard and it should read approval for a Special Use Permit for light equipment sales/rentals. I apologize for the typo and I just wanted to correct it for the record.
The owner is Industrial Drive LLC where Yim Choi is 100% interest.
The agent is Denis Tostogan of Alliance Trade Inc.
The agent is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow a new tenant to operate a vehicle dealership from Unit 1 which is approximately 7,353 square feet.
The operation will have 2 employees.
The operation will be open to the public.
There will be no planned outdoor display of vehicles on the property. The proposed display area will be located in the warehouse, which is roughly 5,000 square feet.
The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm and Saturdays from 9am to 3pm.
The estimated number of average daily vehicle trips generated would be five.
There will be minor adjustments made to the site. For example, new signage will be posted for the new business which would require obtaining the necessary Building Permits.
The applicant anticipates no increase in noise level from what’s existing. The new use will produce similar noise to the existing conditions.
This is also the applicants first time request.
I have the subject property outlined in red on the screen for you.
The subject property is Lot I-11 in the Wolf Creek Industrial Phase III Sterling Estates Subdivision, which was platted back in 1990.
The parcel is 0.93 acres with 150 feet along Industrial Drive South.
It is improved with a two-unit industrial building with off-street parking along the western side of the building. The parking lot is paved and accesses Industrial Drive to the north.
Per the submitted Site Plan, there are currently 18 off-street parking spaces on the site, 3 of which are ADA compliant.
Vehicle sales is classified as light equipment sales and rentals and requires a minimum off-street parking requirement of one space per employee and two spaces per service stall or bay. Unit 1 has three bay doors and two employees are stated to be working from this unit, eight parking spaces will be required.
The applicant has indicated on the Site Plan that outdoor storage will exist on the property at the southern end of the parking lot. The company owns two motorcycles which will be stored in this area. Any type of outdoor storage is required to be screened from all sides of the property in accordance with our Zoning Ordinance.
The subject property is zoned I-1 as well as the other parcels in Wolf Creek Industrial Phase III Sterling Estates Subdivision. So, that’s north, east, and west of the property.
To the south you can see that there is a narrow strip that is A-1 and is only 17 feet wide. Further south, that is the Village of Plainfield. Within that area is R-4 which is a Planned Unit Development for multi-family residential.
Looking at the Site Plan you can see the main use would be Unit 1. With that there would be no outdoor display, everything would be inside that building.
Staff has recommended conditions that should the business plan change and outdoor display occur that any outdoor display cannot occur from existing parking spaces, drive aisles, fire lanes, landscape areas, loading areas, and things of that nature. Also, that all uses have off-site parking. There is a parking concern within this industrial development that off-street parking occurs because all the units outgrow the parking available to each unit. Staff has recommended a condition to ensure that all the uses can fit the parking on the site itself.
Looking at the subject property, this is looking south from Industrial Drive. Looking at Unit 1 where that Special Use is proposed. Looking at the existing parking for Unit 1. This is looking northeast at Unit 1 and the existing parking. Again, additional parking spaces at the rear of the property. This is looking south towards that outdoor storage area where the motorcycles will be kept. This is looking east along Industrial Drive. Looking north, so this is across Industrial Drive. This is looking west.
The Criteria by which Special Uses are evaluated upon is on the screen. An in depth analysis can be found in your packets, but I will briefly summarize for you.
Generally speaking, light equipment sales requires a Special Use Permit in I-1 to ensure that parking is accommodated for on-site parking. Outdoor display of vehicles typically could take up parking spaces, which then conflicts with the required parking and it just becomes an issue with the public right-of-way. The proposed use will not have any outdoor display given their initial business plan. Should there be, Staff is recommending a condition that they don’t take up any of the existing on-site parking or impact drive aisles.
The Special Use will be located in a well-established industrial park. It is compatible to similar uses in the area which include motor vehicle repair, warehousing, and light manufacturing.
The parcels within the Wolf Creek Industrial Phase III Sterling Estates are developed or are currently being developed. The parcel immediately to the west does have a Site Development Permit and they are undergoing being approved for some type of industrial use.
The parcel to the south that is A-1 and is only 17 feet wide, which is severely limiting its development potential will likely either be annexed into Plainfield and be developed as part of that multi-family development or it will remain 17 feet wide. Agricultural uses such as farming are not likely to be done there because it’s too narrow.
The property is already improved with an industrial building, so it has the necessary utilities and parking spaces to accommodate the proposed use.
While on-street parking is common within this industrial park, Staff has added conditions to require that on-site parking be required to accommodate all uses within the building.
The proposed use will have to meet other I-1 requirements, such as screening any outdoor storage from all sides of the property.
After the Staff Report was published, Staff did receive comments from the Plainfield Fire Protection District. I will read that email into public record.
Of the other agencies that were notified, which included Wheatland Township Highway Commissioner, Village of Plainfield, Village of Bolingbrook, City of Naperville, Will County Health Department, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and the Will-South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District, none objected.
The EcoCAT did not identify any endangered or threatened species or protected habitats in the area.
Per the Soil and Water District, negative impacts were not likely.
With regards to the email from the Fire Protection District, it was an email dated December 30, 2021. It states, “Hi, please have them submit plans for review by the Fire District when they are ready to move forward with this business. Take care, Mary Kay Ludemann, Fire Marshall Plainfield Fire Protection District.”
Staff is recommending potentially adding a 4th condition if the Commissioners choose to add an additional condition.
Staff is recommending approval with 3 conditions. The first being our standard site inspection. The second being off-street parking be provided for all uses on the site. The third being all vehicles used for outdoor display cannot be parked or stored in required parking spaces, drive aisles, fire lanes or loading areas.
Again, with the proposed 4th, it would be “the applicant shall submit plans to the Plainfield Fire Protection District for review and approval prior to beginning business.” If you wish to add that 4th condition, you would have to make a Motion to amend the conditions and add that 4th before making a Vote to approve the Special Use.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said this 4th condition, they’re asking for the plans. Is it something that they ask for from everyone?
Marguerite Kenny said it’s my understanding that if there was a Building Permit for a Change of Use for a Commercial Remodel Permit, approval from the Fire Protection District is typically required as part of that process. Considering the use is vehicle related currently, if they wish to have a tenant that adheres to the same Building Code that may not require obtaining a Commercial Remodel Permit. So, it might just be that they can start operation. Adding that condition would allow the Fire Protection District to just review the business plans or where they would be storing flammable materials, oils, and things like that. This would give them a better picture if they should have to respond to a fire on the property.
Roger Bettenhausen said this question isn’t even applicable to the Case, but how did we end up with a 17-foot strip of Ag land? I don’t understand how that even happened.
Marguerite Kenny said probably what happened is, it was a remnant that the subdivision didn’t want or need, or they were figuring that was going to be an additional road or something so they kept it small and narrow. We’ve seen some pretty interesting sized agricultural parcels just from subdivisions and they didn’t want that piece for some reason. But yes, it happens.
Roger Bettenhausen said okay, I was just curious.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, any more questions for Staff?
No response.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, did we want to make a Motion to add the 4th condition?
Marguerite Kenny said if you want to add it, you would need a Motion.
Roger Bettenhausen made a Motion to add the proposed 4th condition based on the Plainfield Fire Protection District comments. Kim Mitchell seconded the Motion. Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is the agent here?
A gentleman in the gallery raised his hand.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else here to speak on this Case? No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said it’s up to you, you can come down and speak if you want to. Staff is recommending approval. Are you okay with the 4th condition that we just added?
The gentleman responded from the gallery but his response could not be heard.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said we’re not hearing any of this so you’re going to have to come down. Okay, he waves off. No other questions?
Roger Bettenhausen made a Motion to approve the Special Use with 4 proposed conditions. Kimberly Mitchell seconded the Motion. Voice Vote was taken. Motion was approved unanimously, 4-0.
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. Off-street parking must be provided for the proposed use and all uses on the lot in accordance with Section 155-11.30.
3. Vehicles that are for sale may not be parked or stored in required parking spaces, drive aisles, fire lanes or loading areas.
4. The applicant shall submit plans to the Plainfield Fire Protection District for review and approval prior to beginning business.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said you have been approved and this will be going to Land Use Development Committee.
Dawn Tomczak said that Land Use meeting will be next Tuesday at 10:30. Their invitation will follow.
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Land Use & Development Committee MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Marguerite Kenny presented TUP-21-011.
This is a Temporary Use Permit for an emergency cold shelter.
This property is located in New Lenox Township.
The property is owned by Trinity Services, Inc. Thane Dykstra, Ph.D. is President and CEO, Tina Fogarty is Chief Operating Officer, and Bob Taylor is Chief Financial Officer.
The building on the property is typically used for community meeting space and office space. It is also used for community outreach events.
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, emergency shelters have had to reduce their capacity. Yet, there is still a need for emergency cold shelter space in the immediate area. The last couple days it has been reaching below 20 degrees at night. The emergency cold shelters are in place for homeless to come and be able to sleep the night in a warm setting.
The subject site would be used as an overflow option for the Daybreak Facility, which is a shelter for the homeless.
The organization has made arrangements with off-duty law enforcement personnel to provide security services when the shelter is in use.
Sleeping arrangement for up to 24 people would be provided on the subject property.
This shelter would be open from 8:30pm to 6:30am. No meals will be served at this location. Dinner and breakfast would be provided at Daybreak.
Transportation would also be provided between the 2 locations.
Zoomed in, you can see there is existing parking. The people would be transported to the site and then transported back to Daybreak.
Looking at the Site Plan, you can see that there are some residential properties in the area. Primarily, this is just going to be for the night when the temperature falls below 20 degrees.
Looking at zoning, the property is currently zoned R-3 and is surrounded by R-3 properties along Knollwood Place and then also within the City of Joliet.
This is looking at the subject property. This is looking east along Washington Street. This is looking west from the parking lot. This is looking east along East Washington Street. This is looking northwest at the subject property.
Staff is recommending approval of the Temporary Use Permit for an emergency cold shelter with one condition. That is that this Temporary Use Permit is valid January 2022 to March 2022 on nights where the temperature falls below 20 degrees.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, was this facility used last year for the same purpose?
Marguerite Kenny said I do believe this is a first-time request for this property. I do believe this is what’s happening to a lot of the emergency shelters on the cold nights. Due to COVID, they cannot be at full capacity, they have to be at a reduced rate. In this instance, they found this extra location where they could bus the overflow to and still provide services and they just need the 24 additional spaces.
Roger Bettenhausen said so this is the first request for this facility so there’s no history as far as issues or concerns.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Matthew Gugala asked, they will be busing people to the facility?
Marguerite Kenny said I do believe they will be busing. Martha is here from our Community Development Division and she could maybe answer that question.
Martha Sojka from Will County Land Use Community Development Division introduced herself to the Commission. As the Community Development Division, we receive funding from the Federal Government. We fund a lot of the agencies that work with the homeless population. So, we’re working with Daybreak Center and MorningStar all throughout the COVID pandemic. With regards to transportation, it will be provided to and from the facility. It depends on what the circumstances are. Each agency does have their own transportation so it could be vans or buses, If it’s that many people. If it’s just one person, it could be private transportation. We’ve also used our local law enforcement or first responders. They’re often the ones that bring individuals to shelter in these cold environments and they are also an option in terms of transporting. So, it will be varied depending on the circumstance, but will be provided.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said in your report you mentioned that 3 sides of this are the Village of New Lenox. So, those residences would receive the same notification?
Marguerite Kenny said yes. All adjoining property owners abutting the same property lines were notified via Certified Mail and we do have confirmation of the Green Cards being received.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, was the Village of New Lenox or New Lenox Township notified?
Marguerite Kenny said with Temporary Use Permits, the Village itself is not typically notified and we did notify the Township of the request. I do not believe that they provided comment.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, anything else for Staff?
Roger Bettenhausen said I’m just curious. If you’re limiting the number of people to 24, considering the way situations are today, if one night you had more than 24 would you make additional accommodations for overflow?
Martha Sojka said we estimated about 24 is what would fit downstairs in the basement using social distancing guidance of three space head to toe. If we exceed that amount, we do not have an alternate. This is our alternate to Daybreak Center. Daybreak is the first point of contact. Once they reach capacity, this would function as an overflow facility.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said so legally you’re saying that you can’t go over 24.
Martha Sojka said unless we used the upstairs of that building, but at this point we’re minimizing the space to the basement to 24.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I guess if you were going to overcrowd it would be easier to do it at Daybreak. Anything else for Staff?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is the owner or agent here?
Martha Sojka said I’m acting as the agent. It takes a lot of coordination in this type of response so we have a number of agencies that we’ve been working with in order to make this a possibility. Trinity is the owner of the facility and we’re acting on their behalf because we’re asking them to utilize their facility.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anyone here that wants to speak on this matter?
Several people in the gallery raised their hands.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, before they speak is there anything else that you would like to add considering Staff’s recommendation of approval?
Martha Sojka said just consideration for the conditions that we’re in. COVID definitely disrupted a lot of our response and our ability to serve the homeless or anybody that is in need. There are times that first responders find people sleeping in their cars in very cold weather so they would take them to shelter. Sometimes first responders are called to a home that doesn’t have heat. In days that are below 20, they need somewhere to go and if our shelters reduce capacity due to COVID, this is our back-up plan in order to find options for families in Will County.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said one at a time you can come down.
Cindy Barnes introduced herself to the Commission. I am here to address this issue about Trinity. I was going to start out talking about different things, but already I’ve realized that they negated the rules of the paperwork we have received as a homeowner living in this area. First, I want to address the paper that I got through the mail that is for abutting property owners. We all got Certified letters, which actually we did not all receive Certified letters. Then I also have paperwork from the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission’s Staff Report. These 2 pieces of paper actually have some conflicts which bother me. I’m going to start with the first one though that was the Certified letter that we did not all receive in my neighborhood. It said all abutting property owners, how many property owners were there that received these letters? How many pieces of property are we talking about? On my street, it’s only 7. I think I can count 10 and I know of one that did not receive this letter. One of the people that I do believe received this letter, Trinity owns that piece of property. So, I kind of feel that’s a wash on that one. I have 10 and I think I heard 14, but I cannot account for 14. I don’t think 14 homeowners is a fair representation of what you folks would like to do in our area that I have been a lifelong resident. I’ve lived in my home since I was 15 years old and now I’m 62. I have owned that home a very long time. There’s been a lot of things that have been done on that piece of property, but that’s not why we’re here today. I do not feel that just by sending 10-14 people letters about this situation that’s going to affect our entire community is right. What does temporary mean? Does that really only mean January through March? COVID’s not ending, we all get that. COVID’s going to be a season, just like the flu and the cold. So, this Temporary Permit that’s going to expire in March, will we have to address this every single year? What are your other overflow facilities that you’re coming all the way out to New Lenox? This is New Lenox, this isn’t Joliet. There’s many buildings around the City of Joliet, even in the downtown area, that are being heated and I’m going to go so far as saying cooled in the summer. I personally feel that might be the next step for this. There’s a lot of buildings around here. We’re heating this building right now. Why are we bringing these folks all the way out there? I don’t understand that. Who’s going to monitor the overflow at Daybreak? Who decides what that cut-off is? You’ve already gone back on your word when you say 24. You’re already talking about possibly more than 24 people. Who monitors the people that are going to go into Trinity? When there’s 36 that show up you just told us you’re not going to turn them away. You’re going to keep adding and adding and adding. This is a neighborhood. There’s a community, churches, and schools there. What’s your law enforcement? One letter says law enforcement and the letter we got says 2 Will County Sheriff’s Deputies. Who’s actually going to monitor these people? Why do these people need to be monitored? What’s the law enforcement there for? What’s their role? Are they just there to protect Trinity’s property? Are they there to keep peace among these people? We don’t know where they’re coming from or who they are. It’s noble, I get it. It seems fair on its face. This is our neighborhood. Who are these folks? Where are they coming from? How are they going to keep them there? Do they have to stay inside? Do they get to go in and out? What if somebody wants to smoke? Who watches them? You’re talking about 2 people to watch 24 or more. What’s the situation that we’re talking about here? This is wide-open land out there. How are 2 officers going to control all of these people? What is their actual function? You can’t hold adults in a facility. What if they want to leave? What if they want to go to the parking lot and then come in and out? You already told us. Your letter said that you were going to provide transportation, but you’ve gone back on that already. You just said sometimes it will be personal transportation. You’re leading us to believe that they’re going to be brought in by your transportation and then taken out again by your transportation. What if they don’t want to get on the bus at 6:30 in the morning? What if they want to hang around? What if they want to come in and out? We’ve all got cell phones. What if I call my boyfriend and he wants to meet me in the parking lot? Is the officer or Will County Sheriff going to say I can’t go out there? Then when I go out are you going to tell me I can’t come back in? What if I just did a drug deal and I go out in the parking lot? Are you not going to let me back in when I’m banging on the doors? I don’t really think this has all been thought through. It’s not as innocent as just an overflow of people from COVID because COVID’s not ending.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said Cindy, we’re at 5 minutes. I could have only given you 3 minutes.
Cindy Barnes said I’m sorry.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said we have your questions and we will address them.
Cindy Barnes said there’s an awful lot of unanswered questions here as a citizen that’s lived here. Again, I don’t feel this is just an abutting property issue. I think this is a community issue, I really do. I think the entire Cherry Hill Subdivision should be aware of the situation that you guys are proposing. Thank you for your time.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else that wants to speak? And please, don’t repeat something that has already been said.
Adam Karneboge introduced himself to the Commission. I’m the house that was featured in many of your slides. I just have some questions here. The staffing, is it just these officers? Just 2 people that are going to supervise 24 people, and maybe more. As far as the transportation, Trinity has more than enough buses in that parking lot. I live right there, I can look out my bedroom window and see them. They have about 18 vans in that parking lot. Some of them are the big ones that can hold 14 or 16 people. They need to be providing transportation. As far as the staffing, 2 officers, where are they going to be stationed at? In a car? Are they at a certain door? Who is going to stop people from coming in and out? They’re not in jail, right? This is a 10-hour shift if my math is correct, 8:30 to 6:30. Are the officers going to be taking breaks? Where are they taking breaks at? Who’s going to supervise all of these people when they’re taking their breaks? Maybe they get 2 breaks. Are they changing officers too, because that’s a 10-hour shift? That’s beyond 8 hours. Are they stationed at doors? Entrances? What’s the supervision here? What’s to stop these people from walking into my backyard and breaking into my house? I bought a home defense weapon last year and I have not learned to use it and I do not have ammo yet. This is causing me to go buy ammo, store it in a different safe, go to the range and take a class because my house is right there. I’m at 4 Knollwood Place, right here. 2 Knollwood Place did not get the letter. He didn’t get it. He owns the house. He’s abutting that property and he didn’t get it. Trinity is trying to hide something and throw this in under the rug. I’m not happy about it. I can put an alarm fence up. The other last thing because I know that my time is limited here. Beyond putting up an alarmed fence, do I get to request Sheriff’s at the back of my yard. If you want to go back up to that slide, my backyard is that parking lot. Like really, can I request Sheriff’s in my backyard to guard my property? This doesn’t make any sense. This is a community issue. It’s New Lenox Township. It may be a Joliet mailing address because all of the old people in the neighborhood don’t want to zone into New Lenox the last time that was brought up. This is New Lenox Township. There are subdivisions across the street, my entire street, all the streets behind it, there’s a school, and quite a few more people that live in Cherry Hill. I don’t know how you turn a conference center into a cold shelter. I get it, there’s homeless people and it’s a sad situation. The unanswered questions here and just 2 officers, is that it? Why are they armed? Why are they officers, where’s the Trinity staff? They’re getting money for this obviously. There’s money involved in everything. I’m 41 years old, not as old as Cindy here, but I get this. I know how business works, I own one myself. There’s money involved, so where’s the Trinity staff? Who's supervising while the officers do want to take their break because they’re entitled to it, they’re in a union?
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, do you have anything new?
Adam Karneboge said that’s it.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said you’re hammering on the same things. Adam Karneboge said hammering on the same things because we’re concerned.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I get that, but we do have to limit the time here. Does anybody on the Commission have any questions?
No response.
Jeff Barnes introduced himself to the Commission. I won’t reiterate what has already been talked about. I just have a couple of comments and a couple questions that I’d like to ask. Who determines when it’s going to be 20 degrees? Is it going to be WJOL? Is it going to be WMAQ? Is it going to be the Weather Channel? Is it going to be Scott Slocum? Who’s going to decide if it’s going to be 20 degrees at 8:00 at night or 8:30 at night? Is that going to be a sliding scale? Who’s going to do that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday? I really sort of wonder about that. The property that Trinity owns directly west of the church, the big million-dollar house with the pool and 4 or 5 outbuildings, is any of this property going to be used to house these homeless people? I would like to know that. Right now, what I’m told it was 24 in the church in the basement and now it possibly could be more. That’s contradictory to what we received in the mail and what I’ve been able to get online. Who’s paying for these police officers? Is this a grant? Is this a COVID grant? Is Will County having to foot the bill for this? From a hygiene standpoint, how many bathrooms are in this church for 24 people and possibly more? We’re not going to feed these people, they’re going to have dinner at Daybreak, come there, get up in the morning and get back on the bus and go back to Daybreak for breakfast. From what my wife had said about can you go in and out, I’m going to reiterate now. Can you go in and out anytime you want? That’s sort of a scary thing. Is anybody going to not get on the bus and go back and hang out in this area all day long? I wonder about that. I think the other 2 people carried the topics that I wanted to talk about. Also, are these people COVID compliant? Are these people vaccinated? Are they going to be 6 feet apart? Are they going to wear a mask? Are we going to test these folks all the time? How does that work? I think that’s about all I have to say. Thank you for your time.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, does anyone have any questions for the public? No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there anybody else that would like to speak? No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said Martha, we’ll have you come up to the microphone. You’ve heard the testimony. Before you start, let me ask Ms. Tomczak a question. Let me find the addresses here.
Dawn Tomczak said 2 Knollwood Place was sent, however they were neither home to accept it or we didn’t receive the letter back. As far as we know, it’s out there somewhere. He is correct, we did not get a receipt back.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said it is common with these Cases to not get a number of receipts back.
Dawn Tomczak said out of 15 that were sent, 14 came back. They were all between 12/27 and 12/29 received. So, 2 Knollwood did not come back. We do have our indication that it was mailed.
Martha Sojka said there were a lot of questions. In terms of some of the first questions, temporary use is a temporary use. We’ve identified cold shelter months usually as December to March. It’s usually when temperatures could dip below 20. So, that is what we’re requesting in terms of the temporary use. Last year during COVID, MorningStar Mission was able to provide overflow and they’re unable to this year which is why we had to search for another location. I understand there’s lots of locations that this could happen, but it takes a willing partner in order to make these responses work. So, we started with the partners that we normally work with when it comes to addressing homelessness. Trinity was one of them and they’re in close proximity so that alleviates some of the transportation challenges or barriers. They were open to the idea of using the facility so we started there.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said as far as the temporary, people will not be staying there during the day?
Martha Sojka said correct.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said they would be in violation technically of this Temporary Use Permit if 5 or 10 people were staying in that building and using it as a boarding shelter throughout the day.
Martha Sojka said cold shelter is just for evenings. By its definition, it’s just an evening place to sleep.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said the hours are 8:30 to 6:30. Those are the parameters.
Martha Sojka said correct. With my comment about using personal cars, our agencies sometimes arrange Uber drivers. It’s not that the homeless or whoever’s at the shelter would have their own personal vehicle and be told to just drive themselves. If a personal vehicle is being used, it’s because the agency got an Uber for that individual to take them to the location. That happens currently as a transportation option just due to a number of reasons. Right now, primarily that would be staff shortages. With regard to the use of off-duty Sheriff, we went back and forth on a number of options. Ideally, it would be great if we had agency staff go to Trinity and staff the facility. They’re the most equipped and the most experienced. Our agencies are severely short on staff. Prior to COVID, they operated on volunteers. Post COVID, there are no more volunteers and everyone is paid staff. Even now, staff shortages in regard to paid staff is an issue. So, when that became a consideration we looked at what other options are there. We thought about just hiring a security company, but maybe that wasn’t enough. They wouldn’t have enough background to deal with individuals that might have issues or circumstances that might come up. Then, someone suggested the Sheriff’s Office or off-duty Sheriff’s officers. We reached out to our Sheriff’s Department, asked to see what options there are and they were willing to work with us. So, they will be off duty, but they will be in full uniform with access to Sheriff’s help should they need it. It wasn’t that we expect issues that warrant a Sheriff there, it was literally due to staffing and not being able to find someone to do the work. It’s an evening shift at a location that’s not yours so we really need to have qualified individuals there. The Sheriff’s Department indicated that 2 is sufficient for a maximum of 24. If they see a need for additional Sheriff’s staff, we are prepared to provide additional. We’re going to use their expertise to tell us what they need when it comes to that. It was based on their recommendation to have 2 officers there.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, will there be other staff there other than just security?
Martha Sojka said no, just the 2 officers. That’s the Sheriff’s Department telling us that’s sufficient. If anything changes, we would provide for additional Sheriff’s staff. In terms of where they’ll be located inside, we’re looking at utilizing the basement. There are 2 bathrooms in that conference center. I would expect the Sheriff’s to stay indoors. It is overnight and you would expect that they go there to sleep. In terms of how much disruption, I can’t imagine there would be much disruption going in and out of the building. We would likely leave that up to the Sheriff in terms of how they are going to monitor them or if they’re going to allow that at all in terms of going outside for any reason. Just to reiterate, it’s a back-up option. This past weekend we did go below 20 degrees. Cold shelter is a defined time, a defined period, and a defined temperature. There’s a site that as a shelter they visit to determine when cold shelter needs to open. We’ll utilize their expertise in that field to determine when it’s a cold shelter night. Also, its only when they’re at overflow. This past weekend we did dip below 20 degrees and they were able to accommodate everyone that came to the shelter. I think it was just 3 these past 2 nights. It’s not even that it’s definite. It’s not going to be 24 every night. It’s just as a backup, we don’t want to be left in a situation where we don’t have an option especially since its our law enforcement that are bringing individuals to these shelters looking for an option during these extreme weather conditions. I think that’s all the notes that I took in response to all the questions. If there’s any additional questions or something I didn’t answer I can answer them.
Matthew Gugala said this would just be considered overflow where let’s say the other facility gets full, they don’t load up the bus with 24 people and get them over there so now this facility is empty. How many other facilities does Joliet currently have?
Martha Sojka said we just have the Daybreak Center for a homeless shelter in Will County. There is law enforcement that bring individuals to Daybreak from municipalities beyond Joliet. Tinley Park even attempts to every so often, and also Bolingbrook. If law enforcement encounters someone in extreme weather they know that Daybreak is the place to go. If they’re not able to because of their capacity limits, it really puts a strain on everyone.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, anybody else?
Roger Bettenhausen said these questions that you just answered, were these questions addressed in the Certified letter that was sent out?
Martha Sojka said the Temporary Use Permit has sections in it that asks you to fill out what it is for.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said we may need to direct this to Staff. When they send the notifications to the neighbors, what is sent to the neighbor about the Case?
Marguerite Kenny said typically we have a prepared cover letter that just summarizes the time, date, and place of the public hearing, what is being requested, and who the property owner or the agent is. There’s usually a copy of the application for the Temporary Use also.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, is there also something in there that indicates your recommendation?
Marguerite Kenny said there is an application that has been submitted. Basically, it has the property owner information, property information, the request, some details eluding to what the business operation would be, and then there’s usually a copy of the Plat of Survey or the Site Plan. This will have how the property will be utilized. So, they received a copy of the Plat of Survey showing the existing building, and that’s where everything will be taking place.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, are all of these people COVID tested? Martha Sojka said Daybreak Shelter currently is doing COVID testing.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, so everyone is COVID tested?
Martha Sojka said yes. If they test positive, their care is transferred to our Health Department. The Health Department will be responsible for providing alternate housing for anyone that tests positive.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, is the Sheriff’s Office picking up the cost of the officers?
Martha Sojka said our grant funds are picking up the cost.
Dawn Tomczak said as far as the notification to the abutting property owners, its basic procedures that a 3-page application that explains the property at hand be sent. It will have the location, township, and PIN #, the purpose of the request, which may not be in complete detail, and the request at hand. It also included a Plat of Survey. That’s basically what the property owners get with the information of the Public Hearing. That is the purpose that you get it, to come to the Public Hearing. As far as detailed Staff Report, no they did not get that.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said thank you for that clarification. The one piece of property was owned by Trinity. Do they then go to the property that abuts that or does it stop at that piece of property that’s also owned by the applicant?
Dawn Tomczak said it would go beyond that, correct.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said according to your records, do you believe that is what happened?
Dawn Tomczak said yes. One moment, let me check really quick.
Marguerite Kenny said yes, I checked. Trinity Services owns the property 2505 East Washington Street and also 2507 East Washington. We went around the immediate property, so we stopped at 014 Knollwood and then we hit the property directly behind. That is the Forest Preserve District, which is a trail. Then we went around to 2509 and then across to the south of East Washington Street.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, so you did not cross the Forest Preserves Plank Road Trail?
Marguerite Kenny said correct. Any abutting property along this subject property….
Cindy Barnes was trying to talk at the same time and finally said I’m sorry.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said technically I can’t let you speak again.
Cindy Barnes asked, did you really think that anybody from Plank Trail was going to show up here?
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I’m covering this. If you don’t want me to cover it I can stop asking questions.
Cindy Barnes said I’m sorry, forgive me.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I’m trying to keep it as legal as I can, it’s only my second meeting. So, Plank Road was identified.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said but it was a street, they would have to cross the street to get all the neighbors.
Marguerite Kenny said correct. If the Forest Preserve District was not with the Plank Trail and it was just the abutting subdivision, we would go to those properties that abutted.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, how many is Daybreak able to accommodate before the overflow?
Martha Sojka said their pre-COVID capacity was about 120. The post-COVID capacity is 60. When they open up cold shelter it’s a special designation and they have room for 10.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, do you have any information from last year? Do you know how many times they had overflow and what the numbers were like?
Martha Sojka said last year we didn’t necessarily do overflow. MorningStar Mission and Daybreak worked together to accommodate the needs.
Kimberly Mitchell asked, do you know what the numbers were?
Martha Sojka said I don’t offhand. There was another question that I just remembered in terms of Trinity’s other property and will that be utilized. It will not, we’re just looking to use the conference center.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, you’re well aware that they can only use the basement? They won’t be cramming people upstairs and they won’t be keeping people throughout the day.
Martha Sojka said definitely not.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said obviously if something like that were to occur the neighbors can know that it would be a violation. Is that correct, Staff? They can file a complaint and there would be an investigation. If someone calls you and says I believe X,Y,Z is happening and this is a violation of the TUP, you would act on it, correct?
Marguerite Kenny said we would definitely investigate. If the Commission feels it is warranted, you could add additional conditions to the Temporary Use, whether it be restricted solely to the basement of this particular property and however many people could fit safely in there, you could add that as a condition. You could add a condition for more security or staffing and things of that nature. You just have to make the Motions to do that.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, can we condition a TUP? So, legal counsel, we could throw a condition on this?
Chris Wise from the State’s Attorney’s Office said I’ve been looking at the Code and it just doesn’t mention that at all. I can’t find anything, like a Variance you can’t and for certain others you can.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, so we can’t add a condition that there must be 2 security people at all times?
Chris Wise said our County Code doesn’t address that at all.
Kimberly Mitchell said they already said there was going to be 2 anyway.
Martha Sojka said our Sheriff’s Department would not operate without us having 2. They would not even agree to it without having the 2 officers there. That’s even if there are only 3 people that are sent to overflow.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said we do know through history that there have been multiple Cases that come forward and people do things other ways. I’m trying to appease the gallery here so they know that voiced complaints too. Is there anything else?
Roger Bettenhausen said what you just said even if there’s 5 people there would still be 2 police officers on-site?
Martha Sojka said correct.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, did the Sheriff’s Department say that even if there were 24 in the basement that the 2 would be sufficient?
Martha Sojka said our max is 24 and they said they want 2 and if we have less than 24 it would still be 2. It is a 10-hour shift like the gentleman mentioned. This would give them that ability to take care of something and you know you still have someone to be there.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, does the Sheriff’s Department plan on having extra squads in the area surveying that particular residential area?
Martha Sojka said not that I’m aware of. Individuals that will be on staff will have their Sheriff vehicles and their radios.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said just so we don’t assume anything here, these are off duty Sheriff personnel that are hired privately. They are full-time law enforcement for their full-time job. We see these at the raceway's and working security events at bars or big venues and they will then be armed with service revolvers and all of that.
Martha Sojka said correct.
Roger Bettenhausen said so they have all the authority that they would normally have if they were on-duty.
Martha Sojka said yes, we will have a contract with the Sheriff’s Department to provide the services.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, if you have people there that decide they don’t want to leave in the morning, how would that situation be handled?
Martha Sojka said with the transportation, they have to leave. We’re transporting the individuals back to Daybreak. That’s just what the use is for, for shelter overnight and they will be transported to Daybreak.
Roger Bettenhausen asked, so the police officers will have the people board the bus at 6:30 in the morning?
Martha Sojka said yes, they’re part of the oversight at the facility. That includes getting them there and leaving by 6:30.
Matthew Gugala said currently the facility says it does community outreach there now. What goes on there during the day as far as outreach?
Martha Sojka said nothing right now, they will occasionally do training's. So, it’s underutilized in terms of its conference space, maybe COVID had something to do with that. They do have offices there that during the day are for office personnel. The facility is used for Trinity’s training's, Staff training's, and things like that. The Continuum of Care, prior to COVID, used to have their annual meetings there.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said, it says their current zoning is R-3. Did this used to be a church?
Marguerite Kenny said I do believe that at least it was a daycare center and had a Special Use for daycare and administrative office space. I would think potentially, by the looks of the photos, that it looks like it could have been a church at some point.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said this Special Use Permit is something that occurred years ago, I assume.
Marguerite Kenny said yes, in 1991.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said they had a Special Use Permit in an R-3 Zoning District. Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said it was not legal, nonconforming or anything like that.
Marguerite Kenny said in terms of a Special Use since they got it back in 1991, it’s considered grandfathered in and that use is permitted with a Special Use.
Roger Bettenhausen said this Temporary Use Permit would only be January through March of this year.
Marguerite Kenny said correct. It would cease at the conclusion of March 31st technically at midnight.
Roger Bettenhausen said if there are no issues and they want to do this again next year they would have to come back and do another Temporary Use Permit.
Marguerite Kenny said correct, they would have to re-apply next year for these times.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said so we are just recommending to Land Use, this does not stop here, correct?
Marguerite Kenny said this stops here.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said oh, this does stop here.
Marguerite Kenny said yes.
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, any other questions for Staff?
No response.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said this does stop here.
Martha Sojka said thank you.
Vice-Chairman Kiefner said I would like to have some discussion once we have a Motion and a second.
Roger Bettenhausen made a Motion to approve the Temporary Use Permit. Kimberly Mitchell seconded the Motion.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I sure think they could find a place downtown for this, not in the middle of a residential subdivision. I think a lot of the concerns that the local people had should be weighed, it doesn’t mean there will never be an incident. Anytime somebody wanted to have a smoke they would technically be stepping outside of the shelter. Smokers go outside even when its 0 and 20 below, which I suppose is why they’re calling for 2 police officers.
Kimberly Mitchell said these people are not all criminals.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I’m not saying that.
Kimberly Mitchell said some of them are just down on their luck. They’re not all out there looking to create mischief, they’re just trying to find a warm bed to sleep in for the night.
Roger Bettenhausen said I have one other question for Staff. What’s the distance between Daybreak and this facility in miles, approximately?
Vice Chairman Kiefner said it’s straight down Cass, probably a mile and three quarters.
Martha Sojka said it’s probably about 2 miles or a mile and three quarters.
Kimberly Mitchell said I read the paper every day. I don’t see where there’s a lot of criminal activity at Daybreak with regards to the homeless shelter. I’ve gone down there to serve meals with the church and stuff and I don’t notice these people to be totally rambunctious.
Matthew Gugala said I’ve worked at facilities like that and they do it a lot in churches, some in Will County and some in DuPage County. They bring them right down to the basement and everybody sleeps on a cot. When the morning comes, they get up and everybody goes. Out of all the years that I’ve done it, there’s maybe one incident where a guy got out of hand and the police came. Everybody knew how to handle it and the guy went. So, I understand what you’re saying.
Kimberly Mitchell said I don’t feel that the County and the people organizing this to provide for these shelters are trying to put these communities at risk. I think they’re going to try to be careful.
Roger Bettenhausen said if we look at the worst-case scenario, there would be 24, but that may not necessarily be the case. During this 3-month period, there could only be a few people at a time possibly. I think this is the first time we tried this and I think we need to give them the opportunity to at least use this facility to try to do what’s best for the homeless. It is only a 3-month temporary permit and if things don’t work out…
Vice Chairman Kiefner asked, this is only for 3 months, correct?
Marguerite Kenny said per the conditions, it is valid only January 2022 to March 2022. Once April 1, 2022 comes, this would be expired.
Roger Bettenhausen said we have already talked about adding another condition as far as if someone has a particular complaint they could raise that with the Sheriff’s Department or would they raise that with Land Use as far as investigating?
Marguerite Kenny said with Temporary Use Permits, if any of the conditions are not met, we can pull the Temporary Use Permit or we can put them in violation. We have to have to notify them, usually by the Sheriff serving a warrant by a Sheriff’s Deputy. We do notify them that we are pulling the Temporary Use Permit then it just becomes harder for them to get a new Temporary Use Permit if they want to come back in the next year.
Roger Bettenhausen said the local residents can monitor this situation and if they object to anything they can contact someone.
Marguerite Kenny said we would definitely take a look at the Temporary Use Permit and what conditions were placed on that Temporary Use Permit and go forward with that. If we can verify those complaints we would definitely try to get them to come into compliance with the conditions, but if its severe enough then we could pull the Permit.
Kimberly Mitchell said you could stop them right in their tracks if there’s an issue. Marguerite Kenny said exactly.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said not saying that I want to throw the homeless people under the bus but given what’s been said about the Temporary Use Permit, I will vote in favor of this since it is just for 3 months. My concern is whether this is really the right place for it. I’m not saying it’s not needed, but I will be a Yes vote for this. Based on what I heard from the public, I was thinking I was going to be a No.
Kimberly Mitchell said I just feel like this isn’t something new with helping the homeless during the winter months at Daybreak and MorningStar Mission. They have a lot of good people that are involved in it and they know what they’re doing. They’re not going to put families and neighborhoods at risk with something like this. I just don’t think there’s a history of that. I understand your concerns, it’s something different and I’m sure it’s a worrisome situation. I think there’s history behind it that it works and it’s a good program.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said Trinity Services itself is a global industry.
Dawn Tomczak said I just wanted to reiterate what Marguerite just said. This does go to the public. Should this get voted and for whatever reason you witness things that aren’t right, we have a number to call and you could file a complaint about the incidents that go on, if there should be any. You need to know that as information for you. We are here to address any concerns thereafter. I’ll get you a card so you have a number.
Cindy Barnes asked, can I make one more comment?
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I think at this point it would not be allowed. Chris Wise said it’s the pleasure of the Board.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said we’ve talked about this and I’ve let the Commission state their feelings.
Roger Bettenhausen I just wanted to make one more comment. One of the things that struck me is that this is between Daybreak and the facility and it is minimal. When we were talking about this, I was envisioning a facility downtown here and then bussing all the way to New Lenox. That seemed like an extraordinary distance, but we’re not talking about that big of a distance. When you look at it, taking these people off of the street and into a facility, it probably is safer for the community instead of having these people roam the streets looking for a warm place to stay or get food to eat. I’m think it probably is safer for the community to do something like this as to not do something like this. That’s all I have to say about that. Also, I would let the lady speak.
Cindy Barnes said I just don’t personally feel that the 14 letters that went out are a fair representation of our Cherry Hill community, the community surrounding it, or our neighborhood. I don’t think that 14 people being aware of this is a fair amount of people. I sincerely think that the folks across the street who have invested their lives, and us included, there should be more notified than just the abutting property owners.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said let me address this, because I don’t want to be here all night. Was this Case required to have a sign out at the road?
Marguerite Kenny said not for a Temporary Use. For Temporary Use Permits, it is notice of abutting property owners and notice of public government officials. So, the Sheriff’s Department, Health Department, and the Fire Protection District were notified. The abutting properties that share the property lines for Trinity Services.
Several people were talking at the same time and it could not be understood.
Kimberly Mitchell said that’s the Ordinance and the Ordinance maybe needs to be changed.
Vice Chairman Kiefner said I would guess that you talked to 2 neighbors and they talked to 2 neighbors so I’m sure the neighborhood knew about it.
Cindy Barnes said only because of the…
Vice Chairman Kiefner said if 10 or 20 other people felt like you and came out here, that can make a difference on this Commission. I’ve seen it happen. We are giving them the 3 months technically, so you could call it a trial run. God forbid, let’s hope nothing terrible happens, because I’d hate for you to come here and say I told you so. So obviously the word got around and we’ll let it go at that. Call your County Board Member if you think enough people aren’t being notified for this Case because that would be a starting block to change the Code or the regulations for this kind of Case. I am convinced that Trinity was on board and they notified everybody. So, let’s move forward with this Case. Any more discussion from the Commission? I have a Motion from Bettenhausen and a second from Mitchell. Let’s do a Roll Call Vote please.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0, with 1 Condition.
1.The temporary use permit is valid January 2022 - March 2022 on nights that it is 20 degrees or below.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Marguerite Kenny said I just wanted to take a chance to introduce our newest Planner, Adrian Diaz, who started on the 27th. He is filling our open Planning position so we would like to welcome him to Land Use.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn
Roger Bettenhausen made a Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 PM. Voice vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roger Bettenhausen, Commissioner SECONDER: Kimberly Mitchell, Commissioner AYES: Mitchell, Kiefner, Bettenhausen, Gugala ABSENT: Carruthers, Stipan, Peterson |
Alerts Sign-up