Will County Land Use & Development Committee met April 12.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
1. Motion to Appoint Tom Weigel as Acting Chairman
Steve Balich made a Motion Appoint Tom Weigel as Acting Chairman. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Absent | |
| Amanda Koch | Vice Chair | Absent | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present | |
| Saud Gazanfer | Member | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Rusha Brooks, Dawn Tomczak, Lisa Napoles, Marguerite Kenny, Adrian Diaz, Scott Killinger, and Brian Radner.
Dan McGrath was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Tom Weigel led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Feb 8, 2022 10:30 AM
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to Approve Minutes of February 8, 2022. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 5-0, with no additions or corrections.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to Approve Minutes of March 8, 2022. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 5-0, with no additions or corrections.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for zoning case ZC-21-092, Maria Del Rosario Franco, Owner of Record, and Nathaniel Washburn of Kavanagh Grumley and Gorbold, LLC , Attorney; requesting (M-21-022) Map Amendment from R-3 to C-4, for PIN # 30-07-28-213-002-0000, in Joliet Township, commonly known as Vacant Property on Chicago Street, Joliet, IL, County Board District # 8
(Lisa Napoles)
Case ZC-21-092 has been postponed until the next meeting.
Motion to Postpone Case ZC-21-92
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to Postpone case to next meeting. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Marguerite Kenny)
Acting Chairman Weigel announced the case.
Marguerite presented the case.
The applicant is requesting the the special use be applied to the whole parcel and be transferable future property owners. The agent is ZeeLee LLC, and the owner is Alekasandras Smirnovas is 100% owner and manager. The attorney representing Mr. Smirnovas is Nate Washburn of K.G.G. LLC. The applicant currently owners Express 52, operating on the adjacent western parcel and is looking at expanding the use this subject property to provide up to 70 additional semi truck and trailer parking spaces and a truck turn around. He is looking at using the northern part of the property to do this as the southern portion along Sugar Creek is floodplain and flood way. The applicant wishes to use the existing ingress and egress of the adjacent western parcel for this use. Manhattan Road falls under IDOT jurisdiction, so IDOT in their comments did request a traffic study to be submitted to see if any improvements needed to Manhattan Road because there are several truck companies in this area. IDOT will have the final say. The traffic study performed by KLOA stated using the existing ingress and egress from the adjacent parcel would not require any new developments to Manhattan Road. It is going to be IDOT final say whether they are going to grant a direct access to this subject property. If they do, they are going to have to provide some type of recorded access agreement for cross access to this subject site. So, they will have in perpetuity, direct access across somebody else's property. I do believe the adjacent property is in contract to be sold to one of the tenants operating on that site. With regard to the site, the Forest Preserve District of Will County have provided comments about ensuring the quality of the water in Sugar Creek and the Preserves stay intact, so there are certain conditions added to the special use request. Just to ensure that the oils and the greases that come from semi truck parking are mitigated and doesn't contaminate the creek.
This property is surrounding by railroad to the north and residential north of the railroad. The common utility lines, pipeline, and Sugar Creek Preserve to the south, providing a buffer. As I mentioned east, and west are already industrially zoned properties that have a special use approved for truck terminals. Highland Hauling is currently being developed, so they are going through the permitting process for that. Recently they did come thorough to extend their special use request for the truck terminal, due to IDOT granting access to their property. The Planning and Zoning Commission was held on this past Tuesday, April 5, 2022, voted unanimously to approve both the map amendment and the special use permit with Staff's 4 conditions and there were no objectors present.
I am happy to answer and questions.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any questions by Committee?
Jaqueline Traynere said yes, my question is related to the IDOT study. So, if we approve this here today. What happens if IDOT comes back and say they need to do these improvements? Are they automatically incorporated in, or do they have to come back to us or how does that work?
Marguerite Kenny said so what would happen is IDOT is going to have to take a look at the proposal for the site development permit for them to actually make any improvements or changes to the property. So right the parcel is vacant and unimproved. If IDOT determine that a separate entrance is needed, the applicant would have to get the permits through IDOT. If there are any other requirements as part of that permit, then they will comply to have IDOT signoff for the site development permit.
Jacqueline Traynere said we are approving it at our level and then IDOT approves at their level.
Marguerite Kenny said correct.
Jacqueline Traynere said if I understood what you said, they can start doing some stuff, but they cannot complete.
Marguerite Kenny so in terms of the work, they need a permit issued to actually start moving dirt. It would be a site development permit since they are not proposing any structures.
Jacqueline Traynere said so they do not get that from us.
Marguerite Kenny said they would through the Land Use Department. Jacqueline Traynere said ohh.
Acting Chairman said any other questions?
Julie Berkowicz said yes thanks Tom, I have two questions. The oil and grit separators. How are does maintained. Can you tell us a little bit about those because they are there for an important purpose but do, they eventually get full and how are they monitored?
Scott Killinger said I am sorry; I didn't hear the question. Can you repeat that. I apologize.
Julie Berkowicz said yes, my question was regarding the oil and grit separators. I just wanted to know a little bit more about them. I know they are there for a purpose, to make sure the water ways do not get polluted. So, are they maintained on a regular basis? Who monitors those?
Scott Killinger said those would be required under their soil and water protection plan and they would be monitored by whoever issues the permit. So, if the County issues the permit, then the County requires the contractors to monitor them an submit documentation. If IDOT issues the permit then IDOT will monitor them or possibly ask us to do that, I'm not certain.
Julie Berkowicz said is that annually?
Scott Killinger said no, it’s done every time there is a half an inch of rainfall.
Julie Berkowicz said okay, great thanks. And I'm just looking at the pictures here. For these trucks to access Manhattan Road, I believe a left turn would be west. There is no light here. So, what are the concerns? That is a busy road, and I don't know how many of their vehicles everyday would be making a left-hand turn. What can you tell us about that?
Marguerite Kenny said according to traffic study done by KLOA, no enhancements would be needed. A copy of said traffic study has been forwarded to IDOT.
Julie Berkowicz so it that something this Committee will receive in the future. They do not have that information today?
Marguerite Kenny said they would not necessarily receive it if this use got approved. It would depend on whether or not IDOT would actually sign-off approval for the site development to allow them to establish this use.
Julie Berkowicz said so are we still waiting on that?
Marguerite Kenny said right now based the submitted traffic study located at the end of the Staff Report, no improvements would be needed based on this use.
Julie Berkowicz said okay. How much of a percentage in volume do you anticipate with this development?
Marguerite Kenny said based on the traffic study, they projected it to be a level of service of a Class B, which is still fairly good. Class A is the best for a road being constructed. For B there might be a few hiccups here and there, but it is nowhere near what a Class F would be.
Julie Berkowicz said did you say Class E or Class B?
Marguerite Kenny said it is Class B as in boy.
Julie Berkowicz said B, okay thank you.
Acting Chairman Weigel said Scott you have any comments?
Scott Killinger said yes sir, thank you Chairman Weigel. County Board Member Berkowicz, I may have not answered your question. I was thinking about it, were you referring during construction because that is what answered.
Julie Berkowicz said no.
Scott Killinger said you are talking about afterwards. Okay, then I need to give you a different answer. Afterward, that would be complaint driven. If someone noticed oil in the Creek, they would call us, and the Land Use Department would send someone out there to look at it.
County Board Member Herbert Brooks said Tom, may I?
Acting Chairman Weigel said okay, go ahead.
Herbert Brooks said Interim Chairman Weigel apart of the question that Julie brought up, this does fall into my jurisdiction, District 8. And one of the concerns about turning left, you mentioned a traffic light, I can tell you this; Committee and Julie, even though that is a very popular road, that section of Manhattan Road is not a very busy highway at all. Marguerite gave some statics, but I can tell you that I travel there 7 days a week as my office is there and I know it is not a very heavy traffic area. I can put you to rest on that part. Thank you, Interim Chairman Weigel.
Jacqueline Traynere said and when you retire Herb, then it really won't be busy. Herbert Brooks said, not at all. Thank you, Jackie.
Acting Chairman Weigel said are there any comments from the public concerning this case?
No Answer.
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2 (M-21-023)
Steve Balich made a Motion approve. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Judy Ogalla made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
Steve Balich made a Motion approve. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Judy Ogalla made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Saud Gazanfer, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Lisa Napoles)
Acting Chairman Weigel announced the case.
Lisa Napoles presented the case.
Thank you, Acting Chair. Zoning Case ZC-21-103 is a special use permit for landscaping and lawn maintenance business. The owner of the property is Caprio's, Inc. The agent is Bill's Lawn Maintenance & Landscaping who are represented by Christian Spesia and Jacob Gancarczyk of Spesia and Taylor. The subject property is located at 10815 Stuenkel Road in Frankfort. The applicant is seeking the special use permit to operate a landscaping and lawn maintenance business on the property. The special use area for this case is limited to a 6.33- acre area at the north end of the property. The property was first approved for a Special Use Permit #5615-S for a landscaping and lawn maintenance business in 2007 with 16 conditions. One of those conditions was that the special use permit stipulated that it would become null and void when the applicant ceased the landscaping and lawn maintenance use. The current owners Caprio's Inc. acquired the property in 2016. In November 2021, the owner divided the current 27.74- acre parcel from the 74.15-acre parcel through Petition for Division #2021-72. This request is being made to re-establish the special use permit for a landscaping and lawn maintenance business that was nullified when the previous property owner ceased that use. This is the first request for this applicant. The applicant did request that this special use be transferable to subsequent property owners. On February 16, 2022, the Green Garden Township Board voted unanimously to approve the special use permit request with subject to the previous 16 conditions stipulated for the approved special use permit #5615-S, including that the special use permit become null and void when this applicant ceased operating the landscaping and lawn maintenance use.
A Land Evaluation and Site Assessment or LESA score of 218 for Essential Farmland was calculated for this property. The soils on this site have been determined to be prime for farmland. The detailed analysis of the criteria by which Staff, Commissions, and County Board Members evaluate Special Use Requests is included in your Staff Report Packets but to summarize, in regard to criterion 1, it is Staff's professional opinion that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public's health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. The applicant is seeking to establish a similar use to the use established in 2007.
In regard to criterion two, it is Staff's professional opinion that this special use would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood
Staff is recommending approval of the request with 16 conditions in the Staff Report. Of the agencies notified and who provided comments, none objected.
And this concludes Staff's presentation.
Acting Chairman Weigel said is there any questions?
Judy Ogalla said so, Green Garden Township is asking that special use permit only be applicable to the current owner.
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Judy Ogalla said, and the owner wants it to be transferable on to whoever buys it next.
Lisa Napoles said that is correct.
Judy Ogalla said I would be in favor making it not transferable like Green Garden is asking, that is what I would recommend.
Jacqueline Traynere said I am in favor of making it transferable. I mean this is agricultural area and this is an agricultural thing, I'm not sure why Green Garden wants to make it specific to a specific owner. And it doesn't seem like we police it because the last owner left in 2017 and we're just getting this now. Even if we did make it specific to a specific owner that doesn't mean that the next owner will stop operating. I'm assuming somebody has been operating this, even though it isn't in the narrative, since 2017.
Lisa Napoles said there is a new current business operating on the property under the same name as the previous landscaping company.
Jacqueline Traynere said when did that start?
Lisa Napoles said that we haven't been able to determine.
Jacqueline Traynere said that's what I mean. There is nobody policing it.
Steve Balich said I agree with Jackie. I see no reason the owner of an A-1 piece of property are told they can operate what they are now and can't do it in the future if they sell. To me that shouldn't happen.
Judy Ogalla said Steve, this is for transfer. The current owner who is using the property today is the person applying for this Special Use Permit for landscaping, right? Green Garden Township requests that this not be transferable to a new owner. So, if they sold the property, it is not to be transferred to the next owner? I don't know why they're asking that, but it is something to consider.
Steve Balich said these people have been around, doing this business why are telling them it's okay for you to do it but if you got to sell it, you can't sell it as a landscaping company that you built up because you don't have the right government permission. It's like denying someone's inheritance. So, like if their kids take over, it's going to be a different owner, right? There's a lot involved with it; you're talking about a landscaping company.
Judy Ogalla said we do have a lot of trouble with landscaping businesses that Land Use gets called for because they are doing things they are not supposed to on the property.
Steve Balich said we know that. I'm not saying it's always a good or bad thing. I'm just saying I think it should be transferable.
Acting Chair Weigel said okay, I agree with these two, are there any comments from the public on this case?
Julie Berkowicz said Tom, I have a comment. I believe the reason why Green Garden is asking for this not to transfer to a new owner is because as we know when business get sold, the new owner comes in with new goals, new plans, and etcetera. Like Judy said, we get a lot of complaints regarding agriculture land scaping businesses. Some of the problems have been rodent infestation and the chemicals they use. Land scaping is a very complex type of business. What Green Garden and the residents want is the ability that if it were to be sold, that we (Will County) would have the opportunity to make sure everything is being done on that property properly for the safety of the public. Not to get rid of the business or not to tell them they cannot have the business but to go in and make sure up to par. We know times change and materials change. These are materials that have a direct impact on our environment, and you look at the complaints we get on landscaping companies, it involves these types of issues. I don't think it is unreasonable and it will not prevent this individual from being able to sell his business in the future. If someone is going to run a valid business, they are not going to be deterred from getting a special use permit. So, I would just suggest, listen to the residents and the Green Garden Association because I do believe there is a legitimate request there and I don't believe it is directed against the business. So, thank you.
Steve Balich said I just look at it in a different way. Is it the residents there or 5 people on the Committee that say let’s make it, so they have more restrictions? I don't think people who live by a landscaping company are happy anyway. Just like people by warehouses, they're not happy. Do we say the warehouse has to get a new permit when some new owner takes over? We are talking about property rights and not enforcement or things that people do in their business that upset neighbors. There is a lot of that going around with all businesses. That's not our job, our job is to say if we are going to let someone transfer their business. To me, if you don't like the business, then don't allow it to be there to begin with. Go fight that fight, don't fight the fight that you can't transfer a business once you are in business that you can't sell what you have built and make a profit on it, that's wrong.
Julie Berkowicz said I understand what you're saying Steve.
Acting Chairman Weigel said we are going to vote on it.
Motion to Approve Special Use Permit for a landscaping and lawn maintenance business with 16 Conditions (S-21-026)
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Steve Balich made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Adrian Diaz)
Acting Chairman Weigel announced the case.
Adrian Diaz presented the case.
Thank you acting Chair Weigel. ZC-22-004 is a Map Amendment from C-1 and R-4 to I-1 and a Special Use Permit for light equipment sales and rentals at 3010 S State Street. The applicant previously operated their business from 2620 S State Street which is zoned C-4.
The property is improved with a warehouse with two bay doors. The warehouse received its final approval towards the end of 2021. The applicant intends to utilize the building next door as a storage building for his personal property. Personal storage is considered warehouse use which is not permitted in a Commercial District. Warehouse are considered an industrial use that are permitted in the I-1 Zoning District. The applicant would also like to offer his car sales business from the property. Car sales are permitted in the I-1 District with a special use permit.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last week, there were two objectors present. The owner of 3022 S State Street, located south of the subject property. And the owner of Norma's Cafe located north of the property at 3004 S State Street. Their concerns were related to the applicant not being a good neighbor. That the applicant maintains junk and disassembled vehicles parts all over the property. And that the applicant placed concrete blocks on the side lot lines causing visibility problems with the businesses on both sides of the property. Outdoor salvage and auto rebuilding is not permitted in the I-1 District. Auto rebuilding is permitted in the I-1 District as long as it is indoors.
Will county does not regulate fences material, but Zoning Codes does not allow fences to be taller than eight feet in the rear yard of an industrial zoned property. During the site visit, Staff did not find any concrete blocks used as a fence on either side of the lot line. They were placed at the rear of property at the time of the inspection. Staff finds the use of concrete blocks as screening is acceptable. The applicant requests that the special use be transferable to all future property owners. This was approved by the unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
At this time, I will take any questions.
Acting Chairman Weigel said are there any questions by the Committee.
Jacqueline Traynere said I do have a question. I was looking at the pictures here and I doubt if you know when the picture was taken. I didn't see anything like what they were describing. It looks like there two trucks and a van and a car there, I don't see any parts per say or a concrete fence. You just mentioned that when you went out there the fence was in the back of the property. I do see that is on what I would call a commercial street. There's a restaurant on one side and a barbershop or did you say a coffee shop on the other.
Adrian Diaz said sorry to interrupt, it is a coffee shop and an auto repair.
Jacqueline Traynere said it's clearly a commercial area. So, I don't have any objections. I just wanted to make sure I was right about the photo.
Adrian Diaz if you are referring to the aerial photo, it was taking in 2020 of the previous building.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay, so it's fairly recent. But previous owners, is that
what you said?
Adrian Diaz said I am not sure if it is the previous owner or not, but it was the previous building on the site. So that is not a current aerial photo of the site.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any other comments?
Steve Balich said yes Tom, this is my County Board District and I had nobody call me to complain about it. I would monitor outstanding problems like this so.
Acting Chairman Weigel said is there anybody from the public?
Herbert Brooks said Mr. Chairman, just for the records, Steve that is actually in District 9, that is in Rachel Ventura and Annette Parker. It may soon be in your District but right now it is in 9.
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from C-1/R-4 to I-1 (M-22-001) Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Saud Gazanfer made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Judy Ogalla made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Lisa Napoles)
Acting Chairman Weigel announced the case.
Lisa Napoles presented the case.
Yes, thank you Mr. Acting Chair. I am going to share just a couple of brief summaries. Zoning Case ZC-22-005 is an application for a Map Amendment from R-1 to I-2 and two Special Use Permits for a self service storage facility and outdoor storage yard. The owners are John and Janice Einoder and they are represented by their attorney, Richard Kavanagh of K.G.G. LLC. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to I-2 to continue the operation of a concrete recycling facility and to bring an existing illegal operating outdoor storage yard into compliance.
Both special uses applies to the full parcel. The parcel is located at 18424 S Wolf Road in Frankfort Township. It is deficient in lot frontage for the R-1 District but is deemed legal non-conforming due to it's date of creation in 1971. In June 2021, Code Enforcement Staff responded to a complaint from the Village of Orland Park regarding the concrete crushing and recycling operation and outdoor storage yard uses on the property. The property had previously received a complaint from the Village of Orland Park in 2014 about the concrete crushing operation. At that time, Land Use Department Staff found that the property was zoned R-1. In response to that complaint #14LU00950, the applicant produced documentation from the 1990's that the Land Use Department Staff determined that the concrete crushing operation was a legal, nonconforming use of the property and could continue, but must abide by article 155-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. Under article 155-15, the use was not permitted to be expanded without undergoing zoning action to bring the use into conformance. The applicant was place in violation #21LU00362 for operating an outdoor storage yard on an R-1 property.
In June 2021, the applicant attended a pre-application meeting with Staff to discuss the storage yard operation and how to resolve the violation and bring the property into conformance. At that time, Staff advised the applicant that the outdoor storage yard was a prohibited use in the R-1 Zoning District. To continue the outdoor storage use, a map amendment from R-1 to I-2 with a special use permit for outdoor storage is required. If approved, the map amendment would nullify the legal, nonconforming status of the concrete crushing use. Per section 155-15.30, a nonconforming use may be converted to a special use by the granting of a special use permit, in accordance with the special use permit procedures of section 155-16.40. The applicant submitted the application for this zoning case in January 2022. The subject property falls on the Orland Park side of the planning boundary agreement between the Villages of Mokena and Orland Park. Both villages were notified of this zoning case. Staff has a detailed analysis in your Staff Reports, but to summarize, Staff evaluated the existing uses and zoning classifications with in a half-mile radius of the subject property.
Within this radius the uses of the properties in the general area include agricultural, residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial in Will County, Village of Orland Park, and Village of Mokena. These include ARS Trailer Repair, which is adjacent to the subject property to the north, the BP Refinery facility on the east side of Wolf Road opposite the subject parcel, and the Wolf Road Enterprises Business Park south of I-80 on Wolf Road.
Within a one-half-mile radius, the districts include A-1, A-2, R-1, R-2, R-2A, R-3, I-1, and I-3 in unincorporated Will County. In the Village of Orland Park, the districts are E-1 (Estate Residential), R-3 (Residential), R-4 (Residential), and ORI (Mixed Use).
As the parcel’s current use is as a concrete recycling facility, it is suitable for continuing that use. Since the time property was created, the general trend in the area has been from agricultural uses toward residential development north of 183rd Street and south of I-80, and commercial and industrial development immediately surrounding the subject parcel.
The request is in conformance with the County’s Land Resource Management Plan. Per the LRMP, the subject site is identified as the Suburban Community Development Form. The LRMP includes Freestanding Industry and Office uses as appropriate for the Suburban Community Development Form. The applicant is seeking to continue the use previously deemed to be legal, nonconforming and permitted to operate on the parcel.
It is Staff’s professional opinion that the continued operation of the concrete recycling facility will not be detrimental to or endanger the public since the development has not proven so since it was established. The Land Use Department has not received any complaints about this use to this date. This special use is required due to the applicant’s request for a map amendment from R-1 to I-2, in order to obtain the special use permit for the outdoor storage facility.
Staff presented and recommended approval for the Map Amendment and Special Use Requests at PZC. Of all the agencies who provided comment, Matt Ziska, Community and Economic Development Director for of the Village of Mokena submitted a letter as formal objection of the map amendment and special use requests dated February 28, 2022. At PZC four objectors were present, including Ed Lelo with the Village of Orland Park and neighboring property owners concerning the dust from the recycling of concrete. Mr. Kavanagh at that time stated that the IEPA approvals are on file. Following the meeting, Staff confirmed with Resource, Recovery & Energy Division to confirm the IEPA permit status of the property. The IEPA has only received one complaint in 2014 for the property. Per the IEPA, the property was brought into compliance immediately. To address the public concerns our RR&E Staff recommended adding a condition to require a dust control plan to the concrete crushing facility's special use permit.
The Village of Orland Park Zoning Map was displayed.
Jacqueline Traynere raised her hand.
Lisa Napoles said yes?
Jacqueline Traynere said dust control plan, I'm just curious what that is. We've had multiple cases like this in the past. The one I remember most recently is the Boughton Construction Facility that is located at 111th and Naper/Plainfield Road. Those residents that were in the subdivision just west of that facility had their houses built long after the quarry was there. That owner did when his case. At time I do recall, there wasn't really any regulation of this. So when you talk about dust control or dust mitigation, I'm wondering if something changed. Are there some guidelines in place now?
Lisa Napoles said yes, IEPA is the agency that received the complaints in 2014 and it was regarding dust. At that time the IEPA went out the site and found that there are dust mitigation procedures in place. They were in disrepair at the time that resulted in that complaint, however that mitigation process was immediately repaired and restored, so the IEPA has not received a complaint since. So, our RR&E Staff said that in order to gage resident concerns to add an addition requiring the submission of a dust mitigation plan.
Jacqueline Traynere said what would that look like?
Lisa Napoles said I am not sure, not being a RR&E Staff member. It would be something above and beyond what is currently operating on the property
Jacqueline Traynere said there is a gentleman behind you that might have the answer.
Scott Killinger said I am not 100% sure but it's typically going to be a water truck that can spray and that is what you usually see. I am not familiar with this site.
Jacqueline Traynere said yeah, I didn't know if there was something in addition to that or if that is the thing that was not in repair when the got the complaint.
Scott Killinger said it may have been that the truck was in disrepair. Jacqueline Traynere said Judy do you remember that case?
Judy Ogalla said I do.
Jacqueline Traynere said there a big uproar dealing with the community that moved in next door wasn't there when the quarry was there. I think we ended up losing the lawsuit over that. We voted to knock them out and of course they sued and won. So I am going to vote to approve this. I am totally in support. I do not want to mess with there concrete crushing.
Steve Balich said I remember going to that place when I used to drive a dump truck about 40 years ago. We've had one complaint in almost 40 years and now we there's a dust problem? If there was a dust problem wouldn't there be a whole bunch of compliants.
Acting Chairman Weigel said are there anymore questions?
Judy Ogalla said I do have one more question. I am not as familiar with I-2. I know that I-1 allows for heavy industrial. What is I-2 again?
Lisa Napoles said I-2 is a more intensive industrial use but it is required to have special use permits for the concrete crushing facility and the outdoor storage. Neither use can operate as of rights in the I-2 District.
Judy Ogalla said great, thank you.
Acting Chairman Weigel said are there any comments from the public on this? A gentleman raise his hand.
Acting Chairman Weigel said you want to come up to the podium?
Ed Lelo introduced himself to the Committee as the Director of Development Services for the Village of Orland Park. Thank you for leaving the screen up, as you can see the property is surrounded by the Village of Orland Park. I am here today requesting that the Committee not approve the recommendation for the map amendment and the concrete crushing facility as well as the outdoor storage. The reason being, this property is within the Village's planning boundary with the Village of Mokena. We have renegotiated boundary agreement to include this property. In addition to that, the one question that I pose to the Committee and Staff perhaps, there was a complaint reported 2014 that the property was legal non-conforming at the time. Why wasn't the property made to come into compliance at that time? And if the status remains the same then as it would now, with the approvals that they are seeking, why are they granting those approvals now? What that does is takes the property from being legal non-conforming and makes it an I-2 property into the future. The Village of Orland Park has light industrial zoning in that area including office space, some small distribution opertions, some equipment sales and things like that. I -2 lots allow much more intense manufacturing uses as Staff just stated. And that will be on that property until the zoning changes. So the question is why weren't those steps taken previously. Why are they being taken now? And why is this use being allowed to continue into the future. Again, we are requesting that Committee recommend against the approvals that are sought by the petitioner. Thank you.
Acting Chairman Weigel said thank you. Any comments?
Steve Balich said this reminds me of the Cortis case which we had about a year ago. It's the same thing where the Village of Orland Park told the Cortis's that they couldn't transfer the building they owned. All 26 Commissioners voted for the Cortis Brothers.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any other comments?
No Answer.
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from R-1 to I-2 (M-022-003) Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Saud Gazanfer made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
Steve Balich made a Motion approve. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Saud Gazanfer made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
Steve Balich made a Motion approve. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Marguerite Kenny)
Acting Chairman Weigel introduced the case.
Marguerite Kenny presented the case.
Yes, Acting Chair Weigel. Zoning Case ZC-22-006 is requesting a Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Variance for fence height within the street setback from 4 feet to 6 feet. The applicant is looking to development the land for a landscape business that would have an office building related storage yard and install a fence that is compatible with the existing fence line for the adjacent property. This subject property is located on vacant Gougar Road, so it is north of, if you are familiar with this area, Heritage Crossing. There is an existing landscape business immediately to the south, which is Wingren Landscape. They would be continuing that fence line that is already established with Wingren. The property is currently 7.3 acres, so the map amendment would be applied to the entire property. It is currently undeveloped.
There are some outdoor storage activities occurring on the property and site development done without permits that the applicant is going to bring into conformance going through the site development process. The owner is Leon Krol, Janina Krol and Daniel Krol each with 3.33% interest. The agent is Joseph Pizzuto of Landworks Properties LLC. I do believe his son Gabriel Pizzuto is here on behalf of the agent and Attorney is really just the realtor in this transaction, so any comments and questions directed to the agent.
The property plans to have a principal structure that would host the landscape business. There's a landscape architect firm as well as a mechanic shops and storage buildings related to equipment related to the business. Outdoor storage on the property that includes a nursery and some outdoor equipment and vehicles being stored in the back of the property. This use is actually relocating from 751 N Bolingbrook Drive in Bolingbrook. He is basically re-housing his business.
Hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday 6:00am to 6:00pm. Where 10 employees will be working on the site, generating an estimated 20 daily trips. This site at this time will not be open to the public but the applicant is open to potentially offering other types of uses with additional build outs with the property. Due to some outdoor equipment being operated on site, there will be a minimal increase in noise. The applicant is also acquiring some above ground fuel tanks, which would require State Fire Marshall approval.
Outdoor storage is required to be screened from all property lines in accordance with the zoning ordinance. As the rear of the property was previously developed without permits, the applicant would be correcting violations. The site has a zoned X floodplain which is a 500-year floodplain or roughly .2% chance of flooding that runs through the center of the property. This location would also have a potential wetland based on the Will-South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District NRI Report. In terms of the actual development of the site, the applicant is staying away of this area looking towards the east and west of the property.
The applicant has been working with the City of Lockport with their site plans to make sure the city is approving the landscaping and uses. In terms of the Village of Homer Glen, which this property actually falls within the boundary lines of their jurisdiction. Homer Glen's comments regard the existing fence line being continued, which the variance would allow that to happen.
The NRI report also calculated a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) score, placing the area under the farmland category but this area has been industrially developed with Heritage Crossings in the immediate area as well as the parcels directly south Wingren Landscaping.
Planning and Zoning per this case March 15, voted unanimously to approve the map amendment and there were no objectors present.
I am happy to answer any questions.
Acting Chairman Weigel said are there any questions?
Jacqueline Traynere said I have a couple of questions. The name of the company Landworks Properties LLC, I don't know that business to be in Bolingbrook. Based on the address you gave, there’s Home Landscape Materials and company that might be called Mulch in Bolingbrook in that general area. Are they moving a business from Bolingbrook? Did I hear you say that?
Marguerite Kenny said yes, I believe they occupy one the units. It looks like there is a lot of landscape in that section of Bolingbrook.
Jacqueline Traynere said right across the street there is Johansens.
Marguerite Kenny said so they are definitely relocating for more space and opportunity to have storage space that is appropriate for their type of landscaping.
Jacqueline Traynere said right down the road from there we are doing some mitigation. I just didn't recognize the company name. And you said this was going to be wholesale basically and not open to the public.
Marguerite Kenny said correct, so their specialty is doing the larger parts such as rehabilitation, and landscaping for public parks.
Jacqueline Traynere said this is going from A-1 to I-2 and I noticed that all around there is seemed to me there are huge warehouses which are already designated as I-1 or I-2.
Marguerite Kenny said correct, so the landscape business to the south has a long zoning case history before this Commission and County Board Committee. They do have I-2 zoning and the landscaping business will be permitted by right as long as they have the business associated with it and an actual structure for that. The surrounding area within the City of Lockport which is Heritage Crossing is manufacturing designation. So, it is a similar, and compatible District.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any other comments?
Steve Balich said the Homer Township Committee voted in favor also. Marguerite Kenny said that is correct.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any other comments?
No Answer.
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2 (M-22-004)
Judy Ogalla made a Motion approve. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Saud Gazanfer made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Marguerite Kenny)
Acting Chairman Weigel announced the case.
Marguerite Kenny presented the case.
Yes, Acting Chair. Zoning Case ZC-22-007 is a Map Amendment from C-4 to R-2 as you mentioned and Special Use Permit for a halfway house. The applicant is looking to renovate the existing commercial building to an In-patient Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facility that provides rehabilitation services. The subject property lies at 2019 Chicago Street in Joliet. It is roughly 42,975 square feet or just under 1 acre in size. The special use would apply to the entire parcel. The owner is CT Land Trust No. 8002382413 under the authorizing date of 12/10/19 where Bipin Sharma is the sole beneficiary, and the agent is Dr. Bipin Sharma.
In terms of what the applicant is looking to a 24-hour operation, Monday through Friday. I employees will be working on site, generating roughly 8 daily trips. These employees will be working in shifts, so I do not believe all 8 will be on site at one time. No anticipated increase in noise level is expected. The applicant currently operates a similar in-patient treatment facility along Manhattan Road about 2 and half miles directly east of this property. He is looking to create a second location for this type of use. This property was formerly the Eagle Club and there was a tavern liquor license associated with this. So, it would be re-purposing an old use.
The accepted patients would undergo a 30-day treatment plan where they would reside at that facility during that process. The existing building is about 3,865 square feet. There will be no exterior expansions proposed based on the architectural plans at this time. Interior remodeling with consist of creating three dormitories which would permit up to 13 residents to receive treatment. There would be 3 to 4 patients in each dwelling or residential area. The property and existing structure would meet the R-2 Zoning District requirements and per the Zoning Ordinance there are certain requirements in terms of in-patient treatment facilities. Due to the residential component of the facility a residential zoning is required, which is why the applicant is requesting R-2.
In terms of the space within the dormitory dwelling areas, the architectural plans show that it would meet the requirement which is a minimum of 50 square feet per each occupant. The closes half-way house or recovery home treatment facility is over 1,000 feet northeast. It is actually 1,800 feet. Which will conform with the requirements.
With regard to other agencies commented. The City of Joliet did state that it would not be seen as being compatible rezoning the property to residential designation based on the Southside Comprehensive Plan. Due to Laraway is a highly industrial area and usually Chicago Street is developed commercially.
In terms of what transpired at the Planning and Zoning Commission held March 15th. There were no objectors present and the Map Amendment and Special Use Permit with Staff's 3conditions were approved unanimously.
And I am happy to answer any questions.
Acting Chairman Weigel said thank you, are there any questions or comments?
Jacqueline Traynere said I am very excited, and I think we need more recovery halfway homes.
Acting Chairman Weigel said anyone from the public want to comment on this?
No Answer
Motion to Approve Map Amendment from C-4 to R-2 (M-22-005) Steve Balich made a Motion approve. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Steve Balich made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Steve Balich made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
1. Pre authorization to Foreclosure- Frankfort Township Highland Ridge South PUD (Scott Killinger)
Acting Chairman Weigel announced other business.
Acting Chairman Weigel said Scott is that your item?
Scott Killinger said yes sir, thank you Chairman Weigel, the County holds a Letter of Credit in the amount of $64,597.00. That letter of credit represents warranty bond for the public improvements in the Highland Ridge South PUD. The current letter expires April 22, 2022, ten days from now. The warranty period per the Ordinance actually expires November 1, 2022. So, the bank needs to renew the Letter of Credit for another six months. I've talked to the bank and the developer and their intentions is to renew it. If you recall, we go through this every year about this time. I don't get that Letter of Credit until usually the day of or the day after. So I am asking you to authorize me in my capacity of Chief Subdivision Engineer to foreclose on the Letter of Credit if I need to in order to protect the County's interest. Again, I do not expect a problem.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any questions by Committee?
No Answer.
Motion to Approve Preauthorization to Foreclose on Letter of Credit-Highland Ridge South PUD
Steve Balich made a Motion approve. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Tyler Marcum)
Acting Chairman Weigel called the next item.
Brian Radner said thank you interim Chairman Weigel and Members of the Committee. In June of 2021 the Land Use Development Committee asked the department to work with New Lenox Fire Protection District on an intergovernmental agreement to provide permit data such as permit number, contractor's identification information, property address, property pins, and property types of construction. We were hoping that the smartgov system would develop a permit reports for the district that would get sent to them if this agreement is approved by this Committee, County Board, and is signed by the County Executive. The purpose of this agreement is to provide the Fire District with parcel and contact information for new residential development constructed within their boundaries. The New Lenox Fire Protection District have fire codes that are more stringent than the regulations identified in the County of Will Building Ordinance. This information would be provided one day after submittal to the department or as soon as administratively feasible. This agreement does not include any information that would be identified as private information under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.
In the draft I do want to recall one thing that has been changed that I have shared with the District. After talking with out Counsel, there is a provision in this agreement about the length of the agreement. It is under (e) Term of the Agreement. Right now it states 20 (twenty) years. The Land Use Department has worked with the State's Attorney's Office to review this agreement and they were okay with everything . They did suggest that we come up with a shorter time frame than twenty years. They thought that was a little bit long for this type of agreement. There is a provision in there that it can be cancelled by either party with thirty days notice. They were looking for direction from the Board and the Committee as what would be an appropriate time frame is. I wanted to bring that to your attention to see what might be a good one.
Acting Chairman Weigel said comments by Committee?
Jacqueline Traynere said motion to approve the change to years. I do think twenty is far too long. I want to make sure that future County Boards at least ten years from now, know they have an opportunity to make a change.
Steve Balich said I agree with Jackie. I just want to make it sure that this agreement doesn't mean that the County is in agreement with the Village of New Lenox when it comes to the sprinkler systems requirements. The County issues occupancy permits without the approval of sprinklers. I think Manhattan does to, if I'm not mistaken. I want to make sure we aren't changing our rules.
Acting Chairman Weigel said any other comments? Julie?
Julie Berkowicz said I have a question to Staff. Do any other Municipalities require this or are they asking for this type of data? I am wondering if New Lenox is the first and the only. Steve mentioned FOIA, if this information typically what the County would have to provide to these Municipalities?
Acting Chairman Weigel said Brian, you want to answer that?
Brian Radner said first Board Member Balich asked about the required sprinklers. No the County Building Ordinance does not require sprinklers as adopted by the County Board last year. It's the Fire District that is within this County that does require sprinklers within their boundaries, which does include Municipal and Unincorporated areas in this case. A representative of the Fire District is here today. They have been periodically requesting FOIA's to catch any of the new homes that are coming in. Maybe once month, maybe a couple of time a month. Any data that we give them is the same data that would be publicly available to anybody that asked. This is no other Fire District that has an agreement with the County as this is kind of the first of its kind. Essentially what is doing is allowing them access to the data without having to request a FOIA. It's s simply skipping that process and generating a report to send to them.
Julie Berkowicz said thank you for sharing that. We all recall the case that came before us regarding the homeowner that could not afford to put in the sprinkler system. We are here to represent our residents and one of the things that when somebody comes forward and buys a parcel or buys a home, it's a complicated process. Do the people in New Lenox realize or will New Lenox be required to make them aware of this requirement because this can cause a lot of issues for a family and a homeowner. I believe the one gentleman previously said I can't even afford to keep my home now to comply with this. That's my concern with this.
Being a homeowner, these are the things we need to make sure or otherwise we will get more case like that. That really needs to be thought out and some time spent considering that because this is very restrictive and I understand the purpose is to save lives but I also wonder how many times there is a fire where something that is such a huge monetary cost, what is the necessity? I know our insurance companies encourage us to have fire detectors, smoke alarms, and carbon monoxide detectors. So, there are programs in place that do encourage people and teach them about fire safety. So, that's my biggest concern about this. Thanks.
Acting Chairman Weigel said thank you. It's not in the Village itself or the Unincorporated areas that we are talking about.
Julie Berkowicz said well can you clarify? I thought I heard this would apply not only the Unincorporated but also the Municipality.
Brian Radner said the New Lenox Fires Protection District's jurisdiction is over the Municipal areas and Unincorporated areas. This agreement only applies to the Unincorporated areas of New Lenox and activity in the county of Will. So anybody that comes into our office for a residential permit, would show up in this data. Currently anyone that applies for a building permit for a new home in the New Lenox Fire Protection District, has to sign a Affidavit regarding the sprinkler ordinance and if they are choosing to not comply with that ordinance, then that's their decision and we have advised by the Will County State's Attorney's Office that we can not hold up a permit because a homeowner does not want to install a sprinkler system. It is going to have to be the Fire District that is going to have to go out an enforce that on that owner.
Acting Chairman Weigel said comments?
Mica Freeman said I just want to get some clarification, so this is just another safe guard for someone who is building a new home to be compliant of the rules in that particular area, correct?
Brian Radner said I guess I would agree with that. The New Lenox Fire Protection District has their rules for what they require as a sprinkler in their jurisdiction and this is just a way that they'll get the information the information on the permit that just came into the office and they can work with the homeowner on the sprinklers requirements for that structure.
Mica Freeman said so, I would say this is positive thing. This is something that helping them, possibly saving their lives. If this is something that doesn't have to be dealt with after the building has already been finished, then that's a plus. Thank you.
Acting Chairman Weigel said thank you, anybody for comments? Judy?
Judy Ogalla said so for me it seems like such a big conflict, where the County of Will and the Village of New Lenox is not requiring sprinklers but the Fire District is requiring sprinklers. So what happens when the person is building their house? I know it's is a significant cost on top of building their home. What happens to this person and the Fire District is requiring the sprinkler system, where does that leave that property owner.
Brian Radner said based on my experience, in the New Lenox Fire Protection District, I believe sometime in earlier 2021, if I am remembering correctly, it may have been one year prior to that, the District representative is here. So basically the homeowner can choose to ignore their requirement then the District is going to have to enforce their rules upon them that could be during or after construction, it all depends on what they decide to do. They could seek a waiver from the Fire District Board, which they have given a few of them or they can just choose to comply.
Motion to Approve the Authorizaton of the County Executive and Intergovermental Agreement with New Lenox Fire Protection District Regarding the Notification Process of Building Permits with the 10-year Time frame Change Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Saud Gazanfer made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
(Brian Radner)
Acting Chairman Weigel called the next item.
Acting Chairman Weigel said Brian, is that yours?
Brian Radner said alright, thank you. Unfortunately, I hate that this is called is called a refund because it isn't really a true refund. Mr. Bormet submitted two permits to our office for some work He actually had a fire on his property, so he had to have a demolition and new rebuild. Most of the demolition work was complete but then the contractor disappeared and took off with almost $80,000.00 of money that was for the cost of the rebuild. When a contractor registers with the County, they are required to post a bond and that amount is $10,000.00 that's by Ordinance. After several months of going back and forth with the Bond Company, they finally agreed they needed to pay this claim. Randy's department is the entity that's identified as who can collect the money and the State's Attorney's Office advised us that it would be the best case to have it go through this Committee for the record keeping purposes. So, what I am asking the Committee and the Board to do is approve this $10,000.00 refund but what will really happen is I'll cash the bond check through the proper procedures and the person that is requesting this refund has already filled out the necessary paperwork to get the money. So, we will cash it and then we'll refund it back to him.
Motion to Approve Request for Refund of Fees by Mr. William Bormet
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion approve. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Steve Balich made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Saud Gazanfer seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
1. Chair, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Acting Chairman Weigel said any other questions or comments?
Steve Balich said I have a question. I just want to bring up because I don't know where it goes. Will County Animal Control. We had a problem in Mokena where there was a possum running around and it was in the City part. The guy called animal control and they wouldn't come out. I don't know if it comes here, I've asked everywhere. The guy is complaining because he pays taxes to Animal Control, yet they won't go into the City without having an agreement. And they have to call the police and make a police report before they can go out to get the animal. By the time you go the police and file a report then go to the animal place, the animal is already gone. Something has got to get addressed but I don't know where to go. So, I'm starting here.
Jacqueline Traynere said Public Health.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee Acting Chairman Weigel said okay thank you. Judy, you have comments?
Judy Ogalla said yes, I have a couple of comments. Mostly it is related to the solar farms. We started working on the Ordinance a while back and we have not done anything on it. I wanted to also have on the agenda discussion, commercial solar verses community solar. So, I don't know where we are at with any of that information. If you guys can give some input on that?
Brian Radner said we hope to be back next month with an update on some purposed language for the Committee to look at on solar farms. It has been a few weeks since I've looked at it and I understand your question about commercial solar farms. We can work on that language too.
Judy Ogalla said the solar farms that have been proposed were partially done out in Crete. Are they all complete? They have questions for me on that. Do you know where they are on that?
Lisa Napoles said so I'm assuming it's the Goodnow Site are ones that I previously inspected. It is the very beginning of Spring and the growing season. We do have outstanding site development permits out that way that were put on hold due to winter and not being able to do landscape inspections during winter. We will be able to begin inspections out that way soon.
Judy Ogalla said I know in the back of the property, the landscaper dumped all of the tubs that the trees had come in against the black fence we put up. There are holes dug with plants thrown in but never completely planted.
Lisa Napoles said okay, so I haven't been out there since the Fall. So, I haven't seen those conditions. If you or your constituents believe there is dumping of landscape debris, then that's definitely a code enforcement matter that should be addressed.
Judy Ogalla said okay, thank you.
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
Acting Chairman Weigel said Brian you had something?
Brian Radner said I did need to add something to the public record. After the Committee took a vote on one of the cases earlier today, we received a comment from Board Member Rachel Ventura stating her concerns and disapproval of the Map Amendment pertaining to Zoning Case ZC-22-004. A copy of the email was given to Dawn Tomczak to add to the records.
Acting Chairman Weigel said okay, thank you.
4. Other
None.
5. Public Comment
None.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn Meeting
Steve Balich made a Motion Adjourn the meeting at 12:08 PM. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Saud Gazanfer made a Motion to accept previous Roll Call Vote. Judy Ogalla seconded the Motion.
Previous Roll Call Vote was accepted. Motion passed unanimously 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Balich, Ogalla, Traynere, Weigel, Gazanfer ABSENT: Marcum, Koch |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4282&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up