Village Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the Village Board of Arlingtonites for the date of May 4th, 2026 at 7.30 p.m. So I'm calling this meeting to order, but we have some special guests for us tonight. The Scouting of America Troop 32, which is chartered by the First Presbyterian Church of Arlingtonites. If you gentlemen could come on up, we'll get you started.

Good evening. My name is Wyatt Wakefield, and I am joined by Thomas O'Donnell, Dylan Mustafik, Matthew Lattanzio, Matea Lattanzio, Harlan Santler, Henry Lopizynski, George Filpe, Joshua Martins, Phillip Molloy, Noah Martins, Jake Bauer, Weston Griffin, Irene Berrios, Julian Berrios, Matthew Joimek, and our scout leaders, Scoutmaster Patrick O'Donnell and Nick Lopizynski, John Scaletta and Gregory Joimek.

And can I interrupt you for a second? I misspoke when I said gentlemen. So your entire crew, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you.

Color Guard attention. Audience, please rise. Color Guard, forward march. Scout salute. Those not in uniform, please place your right hand over your heart. Color Guard, halt. Color Guard, cross the colors. Color Guard, post the flag of the United States of America. Color Guard, post the flag of the village of Arlington Heights. Color Guard, honor your colors. Please recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Color Guard, return to ranks. Color Guard, about face. Color Guard, forward march. Color Guard, halt. Color Guard, at ease.

Audience, please be seated.

Let's give this Troop 32 and their leaders a round of applause. Thank you, everybody. Maggie, could you please call the roll?

Trustee LaBette? Here. Trustee Schwingback? Here. Trustee Santa Maria? Here. Trustee Bertucci?

Here.

Trustee Gilbert?

Here.

Trustee Zick?

Here.

Trustee Dunnington? Here. Trustee Manganiello?

Here.

President Tenaglia?

Here. Thank you, Maggie. Few sets of minutes to approve tonight and the first one is From for 2026. Are there any questions comments or changes from anyone on the board? Any passes I'll pass mayor asked from trustee Gilbert is registered anyone else.

Yes.

I need to pass mayor Same for trustee Santa Maria Anyone in the audience questions or comments on any of the minutes seeing none I All those in favor say aye. Aye. I think we need a motion.

We need a motion, Mayor.

That's what I meant to say.

And I will move approval of the minutes. I want to know if someone's going to move approval of those minutes. Of April 20th, 2026. Second.

Question made by Trustee LeBed, second by Trustee Dunnington. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. The next set is the closed session minutes from 3-16-26. Again, any questions or comments or changes or passes from anyone on the board?

I need to pass, Mayor.

Pass for Trustee Santa Maria. Anyone else? Anyone in the audience? No, they weren't there. It's a closed session. Never mind that question. Is there a motion to approve?

I'll move approval of the closed session minutes of March 16th, 2026.

Second. Motion made by Trustee LeBed, seconded by Trustee Zik. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. And then the last one is, again, the closed session minutes from 4-6-26.

Mayor, I need to pass on those minutes.

Okay. Pass from Trustee Dunnington. Anyone else? Any other comments or questions on those minutes? If not, is there a motion?

So moved. Second.

Motion made by Trustee Manganiello, seconded by Trustee LeBeds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. All right. Now we'll go on to approval of accounts payable and we'll call on Trustee Bertucci.

Mayor, I'll move approval of the warrant register for the check date April 30th, 2026 in the amount of $2,634,277.68. Second.

Motion made by Trustee Bertucci, seconded by Trustee LeBetz. Any discussion from anyone on the board? Any questions from anyone in the audience? Seeing none, this will be a roll call vote.

Trustee Bertucci?

Yes.

Trustee LaBette? Yes. Trustee Gilbert?

Yes.

Trustee Manganiello? Aye. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee Zick?

Yes.

Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. President Tenaglia?

Yes. And that motion carries as well. Okay. Now we'll move on to recognitions and communications, and we have a special treat today. One of our dear friends, Mr. Greg Padovani, is going to tell us a little bit about this year's Memorial Day Parade. Greg, come on up.

Thank you, Mayor. Here we go. Gonna bring up a slideshow here for everyone. And while we're doing that, there we go. What I'd like to tell you all about is that this Memorial Day, May 25th, which is Monday, May 25th, is going to be our 107th annual Memorial Day parade and ceremony where we bring the whole community together to honor the service and sacrifice and especially the ultimate sacrifice of our nation's heroes, fallen heroes. And in Arlington Heights, we have 68 young men from our town who have died in the service of our nation from the Civil War all the way through Afghanistan. On the screen, which you'll see right now, are the basics of the day. We start a parade that... goes the normal route we've gone for the last 50 years, starting here at Village Hall and going up Dunton, and over to Memorial Park, that little triangular park one block west of the Arlington Heights Memorial Library. It was the first park in Arlington Heights, and at the center of it is the Eternal Flame. That eternal flame at the foot of it is a set of bricks, actually 750 bricks now, commemorating the service and sacrifice of veterans from anywhere. But there's a special section for the fallen heroes, and our 68 fallen heroes are commemorated in special bricks there, as well as another 100. people who died in the service of our nation from anywhere. The parade starts at 9.30 and the ceremony, which is the real heart of Memorial Day, will happen at Memorial Park at 11 o'clock. And our special guest of honor this year is Alan J. Lynch. He's a Medal of Honor recipient from the Vietnam War who's agreed to participate with our community and present a set of Memorial Day comments at the ceremony. But the real heart of this ceremony is what I would call the fallen heroes list here. These are Arlington's fallen heroes. You'll see them, they're listed all over the town in the library here at Village Hall, at the American Legion, at Wheeling Township. It lists all of them from the Civil War through Afghanistan. James Stack is our last fallen hero back in 2010. And all of these names will be called out as a way of telling those Gold Star families, wherever they are, that our town honors and remembers their young men who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. Along the parade route, you'll see this Arlington remembers sign being passed out by the thousands by the Boy Scouts, organized by Tom Schwingbeck and John Scaletta. We're asking everybody to take these signs and hold them up as the active duty and the veterans pass by because this means a lot to us. Me being an Army veteran, knowing that people remember and honor us is really important. but on the back side it'll help you remember those 68 because on the back side is the actual list. And if you do come to the ceremony, and we really do ask everybody to follow the end of the parade to the ceremony at Memorial Park, bring this up and hold up this sign when I call out to the gold star families. And we usually get about 10 to 15 families who are gold star families, meaning they lost one of their young men is on this list. And they don't always announce themselves to me, but they are there. And I can't tell you how important this is to them and how much they appreciate our town honoring and remembering them. There's also something else very special I want to point out, and that is at the library, the library just published a book by a young man who's Arlington Heights resident and a local author, Brian Maloney, and it's called The Fallen Heroes of Arlington Heights in the Civil War. And this young man went and did the research to find many of the stories, there are 12 fallen heroes from the Civil War from Arlington or the areas that became Arlington, but he researched and found the stories of nine of them. Very, very interesting reading. And this book is available in the genealogy section of the library that will be available there for anybody who is interested in learning about these young men. Amazing stories here, actually. Some of them had been forgotten, like one the John. John Siebert, who had been forgotten for 160 years until we found him. And so we're bringing these young men back to memory as a way of honoring their service and their ultimate sacrifice. So everybody's invited. It's going to be a great day. I hope for, pray for rain. But in the case of bad weather, and we have to cancel the parade for safety reasons, we will move the ceremony from Memorial Park over to the inside to the Grace Gym at Christian Liberty Academy. They've offered to set the gym up for us. So it'll still go on. The ceremony will still go on at 11. but in the Grace Gym at the Christian Liberty Academy in case of inclement weather. That's what we have. Any questions, comments?

Well, Greg, I can't imagine another human being doing the work that you do better than what you do. You have been the face of this organization since I've known you, and it's every year, every year, every year, fabulous and wonderful, and everyone appreciates it. So any questions from anyone on the board? I look forward to it every year, and thank you for being here tonight and sharing and letting us all know about the details.

Thank you, Mayor. I must state that the Village of Arlington Heights staff has been absolutely wonderful in supporting us, not only this year, but all the years, as well as the Park District staff, And they're wonderful in setting up Memorial Park and just everybody here in the community is just comes together in a ways that makes my job look easy.

It's not easy. You do a great job. But of course, I think you have a lot of horsepower behind you. Oh, yeah, because it's so meaningful. So thank you for all that you do.

And thank you to everyone.

You bet. Okay, before we get off of this item, I think there's a special announcement that our village manager would like me to call on him for. So, Manager Reklaus, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to acknowledge that our deputy village manager has recently given a very special recognition by IAMA, which is a professional association for municipal leaders in Illinois for the year 2026. This award is given to one deputy or assistant city manager in the state of Illinois each year that's made a significant contribution to their organization while serving outside of a village or city manager role. It is the highest honor bestowed to an assistant deputy manager for the entire state of Illinois. So Diana, who's served with the village for 23 years, she started here when she was six, I think. was nominated out of recognition of the special efforts that she's made over the past year to ensure that the village continued a high level of service despite the fact that we had four new department directors, four new trustees, and a new mayor, not to mention the presence of some very high profile development projects. All of these things demanded a lot of attention of the village manager, as you can imagine. But with Diana's experience, hard work, and dedication along with that of the rest of our team, it really helped ensure that the village could continue the high level of service that our residents have come to expect during this extreme period of change, and that's why she's being so honored. So I also want to mention that the Greg Ford Award is actually named after Diana's immediate predecessor, who served as the village's assistant village manager for many years before her. So on top of it being a nice honor for Diana, it's nice to bring the award home. And it's nice to see that Arlene Heights in general and Diana in particular are being acknowledged for professionalism and hard work and leadership. So please join me in a round of applause to congratulate Diana on this well deserved award.

Diana, I think you should come up and say a few words, don't you think? I have a microphone here for you. Tell us where you're from.

So working in local government is truly a rewarding experience. There's so many challenges that come upon us, and we really get the opportunity to try to fix and make everyone's lives and businesses just a little bit better. So my goal has always been to make somebody's day just a little bit better, to help a resident understand any kind of concerns that they may be having. just to make businesses feel like they're included and make sure that we have an inclusive community. And Arlington Heights has been a very rewarding place to work. I've loved, loved working for Arlington Heights. When I first started years ago, Arlington Heights was on my radar. I'm gonna come to Arlington Heights. This is really a top notch community. We have a lot of issues before us and to even have the ability to have a little bit of an impact in that is absolutely wonderful. So I've had many mentors along the way. Randy is one of them. It's a wonderful board that I get the opportunity to work with. So it's truly an honor and a privilege to work in local government and work for Arlington Heights. So thank you for the recognition. Appreciate it.

Well done. Okay, any other commentary on this particular item? All right. We'll close the public recognitions and communications and go on to citizens to be heard. And I have a number of blue cards here. Some of them are specific for items on the agenda. And we'll call on those when those items come up. And some of them are just for open items that are not on the agenda. So I'll try and do my best to keep it all organized here. I have five that I believe are just not on the agenda. So I'll call on Jeff Zondlow, and this is in regard to the Garden Club and Blue Star Memorial.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide information on our upcoming event. The Arlington Heights Garden Club, partnering with the Veterans of Foreign War, the American Legion, The Marine Corps League and the Department of Public Works has arranged for the installation of a Blue Star Memorial marker in the village. The dedication ceremony will take place on Sunday, May 17th at 2 p.m. at the Clock Tower Plaza on Northwest Highway. Just a quick history. The Blue Star Program began with the planting of 8,000 dogwood trees in New Jersey in 1944 as a living memorial to the veterans of World War II. A year later, the National Council of Garden Clubs adopted the program and began the Blue Star Memorial Highway Program. This system of highways transverses communities in all 50 states. In 1951, the mission of the program was expanded to include all members of the armed forces who currently serve or have defunded the United States of America. Once at the ceremony, once it's installed, the Garden Club will plant and maintain flowers and native plants at its base for ongoing. And we are really proud to have facilitated the acquisition and installation of this highway marker in the village. Thank you.

Questions? Thank you, Jeff. Does anybody have any questions for Jeff from the board? Thank you. I'm sure you'll be well attended on your ceremony. Okay. Hope to see you there. Appreciate your information. Where did they go? Devin Gray.

Thanks, everybody. Appreciate the time. I'm going to pull this down. I appreciate you being patient with me while my voice is a little shot. I've got a few of these I can pass out if anybody's interested. My name is Devin Gray. I live in town. I wanted to talk about short-term rentals, but I did first want to take a second and say thank you to Greg and to the team that's putting on this parade here on Memorial Day. I didn't think I'd bring that up, but my father was a Vietnam veteran. We're from Mount Prospect. My mom's an Army widow. My dad is buried at Arlington National. And we are a Gold Star family. You're right. A lot of people don't like to talk about that. But we are very appreciative for the effort that goes into remembering those who are not with us anymore. I'm also very appreciative for everybody on the board and the time that you guys put into helping run this great village. And I'm not sure I've expressed that perfectly in some of my opportunities to chat up here, but I wanted to make sure that I am clear about that, because I do appreciate the effort that you guys put into this, and I would love to be having this conversation with you guys from more of a collaborative perspective than what to this point has been maybe a bit more of a combative perspective. In the last board meeting I think I let my emotions probably overcome my logical side of things and I apologize for that and I'm grateful for you guys for giving me another opportunity to chat with you. I will pass these out if it's useful. And of course I didn't keep one for myself, but there's three things that I mentioned in there. You know, I'm here because in addition to living in town and growing up in this community, I do also own and operate a small business in Arlington Heights. And I'm worried that that business is going to be shut down here in the next few months based on a recent decision from the board. And I understand that decision from the board. I understand the thought and the background that went into that decision. But I also believe that there are probably three strong misconceptions that led to that decision. And I'm hopeful that we can work together as a community to be more collaborative and address those misconceptions. I'm not going to rip through them right now. I think the three main ones are just the idea that, one, there's probably a misconception around the idea that, hey, Airbnbs are like party places or vacation rentals or places that have a bachelor party. And that's probably true in a lot of places, but not here in Arlington Heights. We've got great demand here in Arlington Heights for short-term rentals, but it's mostly from folks who grew up in this area and are coming back home for weddings, funerals, and visiting their loved ones. The second misconception is that it's not a significant impact to the community in terms of the finances, and installing a 5% income or hotel tax on short-term rentals would probably net $100,000 for the community. But I think the bigger impact is the money that those folks spend while they're in town, which is probably more like $1.5 million. I want to be respectful of time. I did learn two other misconceptions recently. One around affordable housing and trying to really address that part of things. And here in Chicagoland, we've actually found that 19% of hosts on Airbnb are doing so to avoid foreclosure and eviction. So we're actually helping the affordable housing thing. And finally, I know neighbors are concerned about that area around Arlington Park turning into something like Lambeau Field. None of us want that. I did do some research and find that the area for Lambeau field, they have 45 acres. They also have an additional 45 acre parcel that they call title town for their sort of entertainment district. That total of 90 acres is obviously a lot less than the 320 that we're potentially going to see developed on the West side of town. Right? So I think we just got to think about those misconceptions as we approach this. Thank you very much for the time.

Thanks, Devin. Appreciate it. Next is Norbert Petrowski, Petrowski.

I thank the mayor and the village board for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Norbert Piotrowski. I live at 211 North Dwyer Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois. The following email was sent today to the editor of the Daily Herald for publication. The subject is the stadium proposal raises serious fiscal and community concerns. The proposed move of the Chicago Bears to Arlington Heights is being rushed forward without the level of due diligence taxpayers deserve. For a project of this magnitude, the lack of clear answers on fiscal impact, congestion, environmental consequences, and long-term risks should concern every resident. We are being told this is an economic opportunity, yet history suggests caution. Numerous independent analysis of large stadium and mega development projects have found that many communities come to regret them within 10 to 40 years, often due to overstated benefits and underestimated public costs. Where is the rigorous independent analysis for Arlington Heights? The current proposal leans heavily on a payment in lieu of taxes. It's a PILOT framework that has passed the Illinois House, but has not passed the Senate yet. Even if approved, it still leaves major questions unanswered. Most notably, who will pay for the estimated $850 million in infrastructure improvements required to support the development? Road utilities and transit upgrades are not optional. They are essential. Yet there is no clear binding commitment from the team ownership to fund these costs. Instead, taxpayers may be left holding the bag while a privately owned NFL franchise valued in the billions benefits. If this project is truly such a strong economic investment, why are the bearers not fully funding the infrastructure themselves? There are also long-term trade-offs being ignored. A mixed-use development on the Arlington Park site could generate stable, diversified tax revenues for decades with far less congestion, pollution, and risk. By contrast, a stadium-centered development concentrates economic activity into a limited number of event days while creating significant traffic and environmental strain year round. Over time, this could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue for local schools and services compared to alternative development paths. Equally troubling is the process. The village leadership appears driven more by emotion, bears fever, than by objective analysis. for the much cited study conducted two years ago lacks credibility and appears tailored to support a predetermined outcome rather than challenge assumptions. To date, there has been no comprehensive environmental impact study and no transparent data-driven modeling long-term fiscal outcomes. Residents deserve better than optimistic projections and incomplete information. They deserve transparency, accountability, and a full evaluation of alternatives before committing to a project that could define Arlington Heights for generations. If the bearers ultimately choose to relocate elsewhere, including out of state, it may well prove to be a blessing in disguise. Arlington Heights should not mortgage its future on a deal that shifts risks to taxpayers while privatizing the rewards. Signed, me, Arlington Heights. And that's the end of the email. Thanks for the opportunity to let me speak.

Thank you, Norbert. Maybe I could just say one quick comment before we get off the topic, and that is, uh... in the opening statement about being rushed uh... we've been working at different levels on this project for almost four years sometimes not doing much other times very aggressive uh... working at all sides of the equation i can promise you norbert and everyone else at home and everyone in this room that this entire board and everyone that works for the village is absolutely dedicated to making sure that nothing is rushed and that everything is very, very carefully vetted out. All of the programs that will have to be done for the consultants, whether it has to do with traffic or economics or Any of the major issues that can and would go on if they're not vetted properly, we're committed to making sure that doesn't happen. So there will be a time, maybe, when this becomes hot and heavy again moving forward, but for the moment, we're all waiting like everyone else is. Next, Amy Samari.

Hello. The reason I'm here is because I would encourage the board to broadcast your Committee of the Whole meetings. This is not an unfamiliar request. I've contacted each of you about it before in writing, but I haven't actually spoken to everyone, so I wanted to say it on camera. I think transparency is really key to local government, and we do such a great job here. You do such a great job. And I think that particularly in light of a big project like potentially the bears coming here, there have been some other sticky issues lately that The major part of the discussion has happened during a COW meeting. When they're not broadcast, people can't always get here, whether they have sick kids, they're working, there's weather. Normally, I would have a library board meeting tonight, but ours was canceled, so that allowed me to come, but normally I couldn't. There's a lot of people with schedule conflicts, and I just think It's easier. It's quicker than a FOIA request and less expensive than a FOIA request. I know I've heard it could be expensive. However, you did it during COVID, so I think you could figure it out. The library and some of the other groups use an OWL, which is... maybe not right for this room, but it might be, and it's not expensive. Other organizations do it, library boards, school boards, township boards. So I just really, as you're getting into budget season, I would urge you to look at that as a potential add-on to your budget. And then the other thing I wanted to say, in addition, I would encourage you to answer or send an email back to your constituents when they write you. Can be a boilerplate saying, hey, thank you for contacting the village board regarding this issue. We really appreciate it when our constituents contact us just to let people know that you've got something because sometimes it's hard to tell I will say Randy has been fabulous anytime I've ever sent something to staff I've received a response right away so So again, I know you're coming up on budgeting. Please consider it. I think it's the right thing to do for Arlington Heights. And I will note that I noticed in Greg's presentation regarding Memorial Day, the library is broadcasting the Memorial Day parade live, and you can also watch it later. So it's really a good policy. Thank you.

Thanks, Amy. And then the last card I have that I believe is just on the general citizens to be heard is Andy. And I'm going to butcher his last name. But Andy, help me out here when you get up here, please.

Sklarenko. I'm going to keep coming until you get it. OK. That's a good thing for you guys. We'll see how long that goes. So thank you for hearing me out again. I've been coming a few sessions, and I'd like to request that the board kind of make clear their position on the pending ordinance and whether there's any room for discussion. options in order to benefit the village, the constituents, our guests, et cetera. What I passed around is I wanted to be clear on the type of business that we operate here. And we are residents of Arlington Heights, have been for over 12 years, have lived in three different homes in the area, and currently operate a short-term rental. Your ordinance that's pending, basically stoppage of short-term rentals starting July 1st is causing us to consider our next decisions on what we need to adjust for the property, what costs we need to start to incur in order to figure out our next move based on the impacts of the decision that the board has made. So I want to make clear the type of business that we run and the types of families and guests that we host here for the Village of Arlington Heights. Weddings, funerals, family reunions, mostly grandparents, families with kids or all together. We don't allow automatic bookings, so they must send a request that we vet and we make sure that it's a suitable visitor for the neighborhood and their neighbors. They have to give us valid reason for wanting to visit and stay in Arlington Heights. We limit the night stay to two or three nights depending on the season. We have a six person maximum on our single family home. We don't allow parties. We have plenty of repeat guests. It's the majority at this point. Countless five star reviews and the property is always maintained and quiet. So a lot of the reasons that were given or were discussed in what I was able to see were as the previous resident mentioned, misconceptions on the reality of our experience with our business and the impact that it's had on the community. and the option that it's given guests to come and visit their residence. So there are many good points that Devon brought up in trying to consider a pilot program. But I can tell you, if the ordinance stays in place, and if you all could confirm that it's going to, then we need to make some very quick decisions that are going to have some long-term impacts on our situation. So it's not a small problem for us. We're asking for either clarity and confirmation or a reconsideration and somehow a way to work together so that we can have a better outcome for the residents and for the town that we all live in. Thank you for the time. Thanks, Andy. Appreciate your comments.

And that is all the blue cards that I have that would be considered citizens to be heard. The others are for specific items on the agenda. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to be heard now? Seeing none, okay. Then I think we're gonna move on to the consent agenda. And surprisingly, the consent agenda has only one item. And I think I'm gonna call on Trustee Bertucci.

Mayor, I've been contacted by a few residents on the North Chestnut Avenue block who would like me to make a motion to remove item A from the consent agenda for discussion. So I make that motion.

Okay, seeing there's only one item on this consent agenda, what is the... Yeah, do it. What do we need to do, Hart? That's it.

You can just take this matter up and either take it up now or you can move it to the end of the agenda.

We'll handle it now. That's fair. But do we need a motion and a second? No, we do not. We can just open up dialogue on it right now. Correct, yeah. Okay, because normally what we would do is we'd ask anyone who wanted to vote no or pass or anyone who wanted to remove an item from the agenda. Since it's just the one item... We'll just open it up just like another business item. And I do have a couple of blue cards that we'll get to on this. But let's start with staff. Maybe staff can give us a quick synopsis of where this item is and how it landed on this agenda.

Certainly, I'd be happy to do so. The item before you this evening is for 1920 North Chestnut Avenue. They are seeking approval of their final plat of subdivision. So this is the location of the property, as you'll recall. This last came before the board in December. The property is a little over one acre. The existing zoning is R2. and they are requesting the final plat to approve a four lot subdivision. This is that final plat of subdivision under consideration this evening. Lots one, two, and three will be developed with single family homes, and lot four is a detention out lot. The previous approvals that have already been granted related to this project include the December 1st approval, which the board passed a resolution granting the preliminary plat of subdivision, and also an ordinance which authorized the approval of variations from the zoning code. Those included variations to reduce the lot width and the lot area of that detention lot, out lot, and also to reduce the required setback for lot one from 40 feet to 25 feet. And then on March 25th, the plan commission did consider the request for a final plat of subdivision and they did recommend approval, which is why this is before the board this evening. I will make note that our municipal code, section 29208, that's our subdivision code, does state that if the board of trustees finds that the plans and specifications that are before you substantially conform to the preliminary plat, you shall grant approval of the final plat. And the plan commission has found that the final plat does substantially conform to the preliminary plat. It's exactly the same. So again, the requested relief was to create three residential lots. These were those variations that you previously considered. This is the overlay of that final plot on the lot, just to give you a sense of how it relates to the neighborhood. You probably recall that we did have a pretty extensive discussion back in October regarding the proposed setback for lot one, as well as the proposed public improvements. so this was presented to the board in october under a new business item and then it was brought forward in december where you approve that resolution and ordinance these are the proposed public improvements little challenging to read so i apologize but the developer is being required to dedicate additional right-of-way a long chestnut and to install curb gutter a parkway and a sidewalk While there's not existing sidewalk and parkway that runs the entire length of the street, the village practice has been to require this at times properties redevelop so that eventually we have those public improvements that are required by code. And then, of course, on Walnut, they will also be widening the street, adding curb and gutter, and installing a parkway and sidewalk. So the plan commission recommendation at the March 25th meeting, as I mentioned, was to recommend approval of the application subject to a few conditions. Two of the conditions have already been satisfied, so the only outstanding condition is that they pay all their cash contributions for the Park District Library and other fees, and that's done at the time of building permit. So the motion that's before the board this evening is the motion to approve a resolution approving a final plat of subdivision for 1920 North Chestnut Avenue.

All right. Very good. Emily, would you repeat the one comment you made about following through with what was approved preliminarily? What is our obligation here?

Yes, so the subdivision code does speak to approval of final plats of subdivision. And essentially what the code says is that if the village board finds that the final plat of subdivision conforms to the preliminary plat, which you have already considered and approved, then you shall grant final approval of the final plat. And essentially the reason for that is the petitioner proceeded with investing in final engineering and moving the project forward based on that approval of the preliminary plat. And so what they have brought forward this evening has been found by the Planning Commission and staff to conform with what was approved by the board previously.

Okay, very good. Thank you. All right. Are there comments from anyone on the board, or should we go right to the blue cards on this?

Anybody have any questions? The only thing that I would ask is, Emily, if you could put that aerial view up of the, with the overlay, thank you. And I'm trying to see if I could see which street is which. So, okay, the one with this, the one house would be, that would be the detention pond, thus that would be Chestnut?

Correct.

Okay, got it. Okay, I think that'll be pertinent to what maybe some of the residents will be commenting on. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Seeing none, okay, we'll go to the three blue cards that I do have. Jim Bannon, you're up first.

Mayor, would you mind if Don speaks first and I speak last?

Sure. Sure. Don, is it?

It's Sinclair.

Sinclair.

Yeah, I'm right-handed, so I'm a little kind of sloppy on my writing. Oh, my goodness. Sorry about that. Okay, no, we'll cut you some slack. So I spoke at the first meeting in December. I mean, several of the people on the street, we all have concerns of the fact that with that 25-foot setback that you guys approved, or was approved, is if you look at this overlay, and I don't know if you can shrink it down just a little bit so you can get my house. So I'm on, I'm 1916, so I'm on the side where that retention area's gonna be. So if you look at the house at 2000, which is on the north side, And my house, which is on the south side, our houses both have like a 100-foot setback. And you're running the lot line between the houses from Walnut and Chestnut. That's falling right in the middle of our houses. So basically, this house on Chestnut, when someone's sitting in his backyard, he's 25, 30 feet in front from his back door in front of the front of our houses. And so it's way forward. And the house to the south of me also has a 90 foot setback. The existing house on this property has a 100 foot setback. They're all legacy type properties that have an acre of land. And they have all been remodeled. So we all have larger homes on these properties. And so now this is going to totally break up Chestnut Avenue where you have these legacy lots by putting this house so far forward on Chestnut. um the other issue that i have is is a different issue is that if you look at that picture there's no sidewalks at all on this whole part of the block and if if you are going to require sidewalks i would i would ask the board if they would consider um making them put that into escrow into a village fund and and not put the sidewalks in because that's even going to make it more of a drastic eyesore from the standpoint of you got this one section of sidewalk and curb that is just in front of this property. There's nowhere else on Chestnut on that area there that has sidewalk and curb. And there is sidewalk and curb on the east side of the street if people want to use the sidewalk. So, that's the only thing I want to point out is that this is totally out of place for where it's being put if you happen to drive down this street because our houses all are going to be way behind the back of this house. So, what I brought up in the last meeting is so, you know, if I went and bought that house, I come out and I drink my coffee in the morning on the back patio and I'm like, wow, I'm looking at my neighbor's front yard, I'm gonna put a privacy fence in. So now, and it was brought up in that meeting that the village has to pretty much approve that because that would be his backyard. So now you have a property that's 25 feet off of the setback and then you can have a five foot privacy fence going all the way back to the middle of our houses. So basically what you're doing is you're building a wall uh right across chestnut avenue uh from our our front of our yards so i mean i appreciate your time um and that's kind of my comments on it thank you thank you for your comments appreciate it done miss rodman really quickly um do we know what some of the other setbacks are like right across the street

We do, let me flip through here to, so this was a slide that the board looked at when this was brought forward in October. We did do analysis of the setbacks along this block. You can see they vary significantly, but as the resident mentioned, There is a lot that has a hundred foot setback and that's about what the current home has So one of the things if you'll recall that we discussed back in October is that you know These lots are significantly larger than what is anticipated under the r2 zoning the comprehensive plan does envision that over time this block will redevelop and likely match those of the blocks to the east and west. And those blocks, hard to see, I admit, in this depiction, but those blocks do generally have 25 foot setbacks. So certainly staff acknowledges that the first lot to redevelop is going to stand out slightly, That is the nature of redevelopment. Often, you know, the first property to redevelop does look a little bit different, but long-term the plan is for the entire block that it likely will redevelop and those public improvements would be installed and those setbacks would be appropriate.

Okay, thank you. Mayor, can I? Yeah. Are you trying to say that that's the first house that's being improved on that block?

No, I'm not saying the first, just in this particular area, this vicinity.

The one next door is probably one of the biggest houses in Arlington Heights and was recently, that's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Right, but it wasn't subdivided. I apologize, I'm not being clear. I don't think it's going to get subdivided at any time. Right, but this is the first subdivision.

Okay, okay. But it's still, the one on both sides of it are much improved, and I don't see them being subdivided in the next, in my lifetime. So, I don't know if that was considered. I would happen to have been absent at the December meet. I was out of town, so. Okay.

Maybe it was the October meet.

All right. What we'll do is we'll go on to the next two speakers. The next one is Katrina. Katrina Malak. Did I say that right, Katrina?

Oh, good. Mulek.

Mulek.

Hi, I'm Kathy Mulek, and actually I want to start off with that comment. I'm the house north, so I'm 2000 North Chestnut, and I just spent basically my whole entire savings upgrading my home. So that is not changing. I'm not going anywhere. And I know Mr. Sinclair also, his home is beautiful, and as you said, it's a large home. That's not going to get developed and change either. So to put a subdivision in the middle of a block is absurd. But I'm going to go with what I had in my notes that just got me fired up a little bit, because I'm like, I just put all that money in. Nothing's changing. I'm going to stay there. I love my home. OK. So the proposed layout barely passed in December. It was 5-4. That was the first meeting. I've attended all the meetings. A lot of neighbors spoke up against the front yard setback. That's a huge issue. The board mostly agreed and some even said we feel for you, we feel bad for you after the vote. The variance rules are very clear and this plan goes 100% against the village's own code. The code states the proposed use will not alter the essential character of the locality and will be compatible with existing uses and zoning of nearby properties. I don't know how a 25-foot front yard setback in the middle of a block is compatible with the rest of the average, which is 80. My house is about 98. Don's house is about 98. But if you take the average, it's 80. That's a difference of 73 feet. That will stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of the block and look absolutely terrible. There is no hardship or reason for this plan to be approved or allowed. The owner has a clean slate. You're leveling a house that's already there. There's no unique circumstances. I understand if you took the existing house and you had to work with something existing similar to what I had to. You're limited, I understand. Okay, variances, fine. The proposed house on Chestnut will 100% detract from the visual character and functionality of our neighborhood and will have a detrimental impact to the neighborhood as well as be a nuisance directly to myself and Don's home. We love our large one acre lots, which is why we're there. It's unique. We enjoy the land. This house will be in front of our yards. So as Don was saying, you know, we're looking at the back of this house. No one on any block has to do that. So I'd like to end with this statement. I would like you all to ask yourself, if this was going to go next to your home, how would you feel about this proposed plan? Would you want to go outside and look at the back of a house every single day? I know we don't. So we're asking you to please reconsider and stop this, or at least drive by it so you can visualize the difference and the impact this make. And neither house is going to be developed either north or south of it. Thank you.

Thanks, Katrina. Jim, I think you are up.

Thank you. Jim Bannon, 1923 North Chestnut Avenue, across the street. So as I was thinking about this, I was thinking this is such a great village. I've lived here 40 years now and almost all that time in this house. It's a village of great neighbors. But I also find it a village which has very reasonable people in it. So I got to thinking, what's reasonable here? I thought, well, it's reasonable that somebody does some work on this house, maybe even expands it. It's reasonable that the street gets improved and curbs and gutters go in, gets modernized. I think that's all reasonable. It's probably even reasonable to subdivide the lot. according to code. And I found it somewhat ironic that we're talking about, well, we can't go from preliminary to final and make a change because that's code. Yet here, what we're talking about is something that's not according to code. So then I got thinking, okay, what's unreasonable? I think what's unreasonable is putting a house in these neighbors' front yards. I think it's unreasonable to ignore the setbacks and give them a lower setback. I think it's unreasonable to go down Chestnut Avenue and it's setback, setback, setback, sticks out like a sore thumb, setback again. It's going to be an embarrassment to the city and to the planning department, no doubt. And I think it's unreasonable that you guys are put in this position because I don't think anybody really explained to you what was going on here. that you have a million and a half dollar house to the south of it that's not going to be redeveloped into a subdivision, and that somebody just bought the house to the north of it and is putting a lot of money in it, you'll have to speak to how much. I'm sure you've got the building permits. And that's not going to be redeveloped. So I think you've been fed half the story here. And I think that's unreasonable and it's unfortunate for the board here that you were given only part of the story. So I think what's reasonable here is to follow the codes we have. These people put probably about a half million dollars into buying this lot, from what I could tell. The people surrounding this lot have millions of dollars in their houses. And at a half million dollars, they could subdivide it into two lots and put two very nice big homes up and make money. But their mistake is not our problem. The mistake of whatever planning department or staff or prior commissions is not our problem. The problem is we have something that's really unreasonable and not appropriate for a village of good neighbors because you wouldn't want to be in either Don or Kathy's home and have this built in front of you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience? I recognize that face. Mr. DeLatry. Come on up.

Good evening. I appreciate your allowing me to speak. I am Bruce Slivnick. I am the attorney for Mr. Clem, the developer. A couple of things. One is all of these arguments had been considered previously before the plan commission, before this honorable board, And you approved the preliminary platen, as I saw. We have worked very closely with staff to try to, my cohort in particular, Scott Nierman, who did the presentation before the plan commission and before your, you know, this honorable board back before. All of these things were considered, all of these things, and you approved them. We've agreed to work with Mr. Sinclair in terms of he's behind the detention. The detention of Basin is next to his, separates him. We've agreed to do exactly what staff has asked us to do. We have fulfilled what was in the preliminary approval up to the point of you know, of what is to be done prior to the issuance of building permits. We are trying to be very neighborly and follow everything that has been requested of us. And what they're doing right now in a sense is relitigating, although it's not litigation, the matters that had been brought before. And as I saw on the slide that staff presented, that if the preliminary plat is substantially complied with in the final plat, that it said you shall approve, shall being a mandatory thing. and this board can do, is going to do what it chooses to do, but in accordance with what your code said is, all of these matters have been considered. We have worked very diligently with staff and we would appreciate approval. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the audience? I see another hand. Come up and introduce yourself, please.

My name is Laura Bannon and I live at 1923, across the street from the retention pot. Will be, at least they want to put a retention pot. I appreciate all his time and effort. I've spent a lot of time and effort doing a heck of a lot of things in my 70 years, and I've had to start over at different times. I guess I didn't realize that this house, back in December when we were having a family situation was going to be such a sore thumb. I'm sure someone will buy this home. I guess I feel that in the, as the attorney has said, in the neighbor of good neighbors, he will not be the neighbor that lives there. And I'm not sure if he would buy that home if it was his choice. The people that are going to live there will be in everyone's front yard. And I guess I just feel that that has not been, nothing has been dug yet. Nothing has been taken care of. And I know if any of you looked at the property, you would say something needs to be done. Doesn't get mowed. They've not done very much in the year that they've owned this property. There are animals that live there and it has been not taken care of at all in the last several years that it has been bought by the attorney's client. So I can't say that I have a lot of feeling that it will also be taken care of and will be listened to. So I guess in closing, I guess I want you to consider, you don't see the other houses on here, but this house will be in front of everything. 25 feet when the standard is 40, it just seems like it will be odd. a sore thumb to our neighborhood. And to make a subdivision in the middle of a whole other subdivision of three homes hardly seems like a subdivision to me. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Was there someone else? If not, I think we'll go to the board and have commentary from the board. Go ahead, Trustee Bertucci.

Okay, so I think my first question is going to be to the village manager and the village attorney. Help me out with this shell. If it's a shell, are we even voting? I mean, is this, why would we vote if it's, like if I say no and they've hit the hearts of some of the other board members and we have a majority of no's, what would happen?

I can take that Trustee Bertucci. The code and specifically section 29214 of the code does place the responsibility in the village board to review the final plat and all accompanying documents and to make a determination whether the final plat is in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat. So it's your job to make that determination. You have the preliminary plat, you approve the preliminary plat I believe in December. If you find collectively that the final plat is in substantial conformance, the code contemplates that you will vote to approve the final plat. That is the only question before you this evening. I'll take this opportunity to note, I know there's been some discussion this evening about variations and other related aspects of this proposal. The variations were zoning variations. Those have already been granted. Those were granted by a separate ordinance also in December. So that question is not before you. The sole question, again, is whether or not the final plat of subdivision is in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat of subdivision.

If I could add one thing, just to clarify. There was a lengthy discussion about this on October 20th, and then there was a second conversation on December 1st, just so we're clear on the dates.

I think one of those, I was out of town, I believe. I believe you were absent on October 20th. Okay, thank you. So with that all being said, Was their discussion specific to the setbacks?

Yes. I'm looking at, if you pull up the minutes, the way the discussion went, there was discussion of the setbacks. Emily, can you pull up the... the uh aerial again and the discussion was you know are you the the idea was to have the the setbacks match those of the adjacent homes across the street those of the adjacent of the on the adjacent block up north and the idea was and there was a statement said that again because this is what's contemplated in the in the the comprehensive plan that you're essentially building for what you think the project is going to be in the future. That this is what the comprehensive plan contemplates. This is what was approved by the village board in the comprehensive plan. And this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So you can, you know, the board at that time could have said, well, This block is different, it's forever gonna be different, and it's gonna have different standards. That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is this is what, when the board decided on a comprehensive plan, how was future development going to be handled? At that time, it was a decision of village policy when the comprehensive plan was adopted that When this is future developed, this is what this is supposed to look like. As Ms. Rodman said, there always are going to be the first few properties in that area that look different, and that's kind of the nature of redevelopment work. And on this block, this is the one that would look different than the ones to the north and the south, but the idea was it would match the ones to the east and the west. And again, I'm not debating it. I'm just saying kind of what was discussed at that time. Okay.

What if we were to want to table this to make, have more time to see if in fact there is a proper match between the preliminary and the final?

I would say if the board is not prepared to reach the finding that there is or is not substantial conformance, then you can take appropriate action or motion as would fit whatever that is.

Like I said, from a staff perspective, we don't believe there's really anything in dispute in that regard. The board can make whatever finding that they wish, but like many times, the board is not asked to vote on whether they think something is good or bad or whatever, you're voting on what the question is before you in this particular case, given that the applicant has expended the expense, gone through the process, after receiving direction from the board back in October and December, this is the final matter left before the board.

Okay. Well, again, being having been out of town, I'm going to let other members of the board address what they saw back in October and what their discussion was about setbacks. And seeing what they see today is to see if they still if this is what they thought that they were looking at and voting on. So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on the board has questions or comments on this from either side? Trustee Zik.

Thank you, Mayor. So, Hart, I just have to make sure that I'm understanding what it is that you just said before. We're not voting on tonight whether the setbacks... The variance is given for the setbacks. We already voted on that in December. All we're voting on right now is whether or not what we're looking at tonight is substantially similar enough to what we voted on back then.

Correct. And I would further clarify, Trustee Zick, that we're looking, strictly speaking, at the subdivision. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PLAT OF SUBDIVISION. YOU CAN SEE A DEPICTION HERE ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS AN EXCERPT OF THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT. IT SHOWS THE PROPOSED LOT LINES AND ALL THE VERY TYPICAL THINGS WE FIND ON SUBDIVISION PLATS. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS SOLELY IS THIS SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT YOU APPROVED FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS AGO?

OKAY. SO COMING INTO THIS, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF IT. I would probably, and I know Director Rodman said that it's substantially the same thing as what it was before, correct? It probably makes some sense for us to table it as it is right now. Let us just kind of take a breath, let's think about where it is, make sure that we do understand. that it fully is exactly what it was before. But unfortunately, I think for a lot of the people that spoke tonight, there really isn't anything we can do since we have already voted on it. Because from what I'm hearing right now, there's no opportunity for us to go back and say, no, absolutely not. We've got to blow this thing up, and let's look at it from another direction.

I would say to that, Trustee Zik, and this is common in subdivision ordinances around the metropolitan area, Typically, it's at the preliminary plat stage when a village board or city council makes a determination that a proposed subdivision meets whatever the applicable standards are for that community. So in approving the preliminary plat, that's what the board did in December. Final plats require a lot more information. There's a lot more work done by way of easements, utilities, and the like. And so the process is meant to give the opportunity to really sharpen all of its pencils and get all that information for what will ultimately be recorded with the Cook County recorder. But then the only question is, as you've just identified, Does this look substantially similar to what we already approved because we've already decided that something that does look like that meets our standards? That is really the only question left from a legal perspective.

And the types of issues that are being reviewed are kind of very technical types of issues that are measured. It's not the broad stroke stuff that typically is, you know, that the board was debating for in terms of overall setbacks and that. Yeah, it was, it's more the nitty gritty of making sure that whatever is constructed is constructed to our standards.

And I'll add one thing to that. That is the staff development committee and the plan commission have both determined that this is in compliance, which is our, you know, it's obviously the board's purview to approve or deny it, but it's staff's responsibility to confirm that it complies and we've done so.

Trustee Gilbert. Can I see that ordinance again? The one that says shall.

Oh, the language?

Yeah.

That's just one section of the subdivision ordinance.

Is it possible, if we were to table this, can we amend that prior to making any determination on this?

Amend the municipal code?

Sure.

That requires consideration by the ordinance committee, the plan commission, and then the village board, so that will probably take two to three months at a minimum.

Okay.

That doesn't scare me.

So the answer, it's possible?

I mean, it's possible that would have implications for other things in the code, too, in other projects and so forth. Yes. I mean, I think that's the challenge. The idea is that folks are not going to want to develop, spend the money on all the engineering, everything, until they kind of are blessed at that point to take on that expense if it's still hanging out there. The idea is to give an applicant some certainty before they take on that expense. In some cases, The complexity of that can be significant, more so than what this applicant has gone through, but I'm not diminishing the expense that this applicant took on.

That was one of my questions, too, is because if the staff finds that it does substantially conform, how much is the applicant out from point A to point B in terms of getting it here? WHAT KIND OF WORK AND DOLLARS GO WHAT KIND OF WORK AND DOLLARS GO INTO GETTING THE PENCILS INTO GETTING THE PENCILS SHARPENED? SHARPENED?

I DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FOR I DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS PARTICULAR CASE. IT CAN VARY QUITE A BIT FROM IT CAN VARY QUITE A BIT FROM PROJECT TO PROJECT.

PROJECT TO PROJECT.

OKAY. OKAY.

YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING TO YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT HERE IS, YOU THINK ABOUT HERE IS, YOU KNOW, IF NOT THIS PROJECT, Is this something that we carve out in perpetuity, this one block to say that this will never change? Some of these things go into effect for the next developer that comes along. Like staff has said, the first one is usually going to be a bit different. You know, so is this something where we have to put a moratorium on this particular block forever? I don't have that answer, but it's just something that I think about when we look at this. You know, I know that the, I fully respect the position of the neighbors to say that they've invested in these homes and that they will never change. And under their ownership, they might. But in 50 years, maybe they will. Um, and at that point in time, will those be the properties that become the eyesore if it's not, and I'm not saying it is, but that will be different out of the gate, you know? So it's almost like, unless there is some sort of a, a permanent freeze on that, that, that parcel of land is one contiguous piece. I don't know, you know, that stopping this would solve the problem. I feel like the problem, the can would be getting kicked down the street per se.

If I could go further, I think there are a number of properties that currently aren't in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And the comprehensive plan is not something that's developed lightly. It's done periodically from time to time on, as it states, a comprehensive basis to look at what the village's view is of what the future of the community should be. Developers make purchasing decisions based on that comprehensive plan, and there's an assumption that the village is going to approve things based on that. If the village, you know, and I'm not talking on a case-by-case basis, but makes a habit of kind of changing its, you know, going against what's stated in its plan, it kind of represents, can create a pause on development as well. because you create a certain amount of uncertainty. Any area of the comprehensive plan can be amended, and it's done periodically. We did it a couple of years ago where we look at different sites. And that's part of the problem is that continuity. And again, I'm not speaking to what this block sure shouldn't be. Ultimately, that's up to the board. But it isn't practical to revisit the comprehensive plan every time we have an election. I mean, it's just not practical to do that. And so there's a certain amount, or redo the zoning code every time. So there is a certain amount of a hangover effect for previous boards on current boards. And that's just the nature of municipal zoning and development.

Sure, I understand that too. And I mean, this municipal code, it seems pretty cut and dry. I mean, it's almost, you know, to, my apologies to which one of my fellow trustees said it, but, you know, it's almost like, why are we even here to vote on this if it shall and must?

There's, you know, I think, you know, there's a lot of analogies that could come to play here. You know, there's, if you had a... a business that was approved and they came in for a sign permit or a building permit after the fact and the board changed their mind, would you deny them that permit to update something? Because there's things that if they meet certain criteria, we generally approve. if it says so in the code. And there's other things that are more subjective, and there's kind of a time and place for the subjective policy base, and then there's a time and a place for more of the, you know, are we following our own code aspect of this? And, you know, it's tricky, but that's just kind of the nature of the beast.

Okay. Thank you.

I have one comment about that.

Ma'am, ma'am, you have to hold that. I'll recognize you maybe in a minute, but not yet. Thank you, ma'am. Trustee Mangano.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. A COUPLE OF THINGS. A COUPLE OF THINGS. SHOULD WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF SHOULD WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF TRYING TO LOOK AT THE CODE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE CODE AGAIN, BEST ESTIMATE YOU CAN AGAIN, BEST ESTIMATE YOU CAN GIVE ME RIGHT NOW THE COST TO GIVE ME RIGHT NOW THE COST TO THE VILLAGE IN THERE BY THE THE VILLAGE IN THERE BY THE TAXPAYERS FOR GOING THROUGH THAT TAXPAYERS FOR GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS THAT DIRECTOR RODMAN PROCESS THAT DIRECTOR RODMAN DESCRIBED OF GOING THROUGH

It would be difficult. I mean, if we're looking at a limited thing, I mean, it would be difficult to look at that. And I guess the question is, you know, we are, in the next two years, going to be looking at broadly the zoning code. We're not looking just at, you know, this item. And I can't speak to the fact that this aspect of the zoning code would change. It's more of general process and all of that. You know, we're looking at these things on a rolling basis. But some of these changes, you make them in a vacuum process. You know we'd be looking at this again comprehensively as a major endeavor over the next couple of years And I guess the question is are we going to hold up? All projects while that's being done. You know that that's the question and is there something special about this one That's the question, and I think you articulated already that what does that do to?

All the development that we're looking at doing potentially. I guess my other question is for Mr.. For attorney Fassman What kind of risk does this put the village in if the Board were to fail to approve without finding substantial noncompliance?

Trustee McInerney, I'd say, I mean, you can. And I know some questions from Trustee Bertucci and added on by Trustee Gilbert. The obligation reflected in our code to approve this is dependent upon a finding by the Board that there is substantial conformance. So this is not a rubber stamp. Your job is to look at the preliminary plat, which is in your packet, and look at the proposed final plat, which is in your packet, and make a determination. And that is for you to make in your legislative discretion. If you, as a group, acting collectively, find that there is substantial conformance, then the code does say you are supposed to vote yes. It's effectively one and the same. And if not, then not. If the applicant is not happy with your decision, then the applicant will evaluate what its next options are. But that's not our concern necessarily today either, unless the answer is to you obvious and you still go to a different result. I mean, as we know, that's what can happen if someone is aggrieved by a decision of the village board. So, you know, it's not, and what I'll say is, you know, staff reviews this at first and it's very common. I should also point out, and I know the board knows this, but, you know, this is, I kind of alluded to this also earlier, you know, I represent, my firm represents several communities throughout the area. When you have a two-step process in either zoning or subdivision, anything in the land use arena, this kind of language is pretty common. It's pretty common. And there's reasons why, again, why you have some things on a preliminary and you add to it a final. It's usually reflective, as Manager Recklaw said, of the investment it takes to get to what's needed for final. So the preliminary is really a check-in. Am I on the right track? Am I in compliance with your codes? I think our code today reflects that kind of approach. Whether or not that should change is a broader policy discussion. You can tee that up. You can have that discussion. I do think it will have implications for land use and development in Arlington Heights. And that's fine. That's a decision you get to make also. But that's a loaded discussion. That's a very loaded discussion. There are some communities that do one-step processes for a variety of zoning and subdivision items. It's allowed. You have a lot of discretion here. But that's not what's before you. I think here again, as you look at the items in your packet, as you look at the code, if you're able to make a decision, then the code tells you which way each path leads you. Thank you.

And I do recall that we had essentially all of this discussion in December. I did drive by the property back in, well, it was before December because it was December 1 that we discussed this. I think we came to a well-informed decision previously and I do recognize that it is displeasing to a number of the neighbors right now. The comprehensive plan does contemplate this kind of development going forward and as Trustee Gilbert PROPERTY OWNER MAY COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. I AM EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT I AM EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT VIOLATING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS VIOLATING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE CURRENT OWNER OF THAT LOT, OF THE CURRENT OWNER OF THAT LOT, WHICH IS ALL BUT SUBDIVIDED. WHICH IS ALL BUT SUBDIVIDED. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER DEVELOPERS, OWNERS DOING THINGS IN GOOD FAITH IN GETTING TO THIS STAGE AND BEING TURNED AWAY WITHOUT US BEING ABLE TO FIND WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US IS THAT THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH WHAT WE REVIEWED AND APPROVED ON DECEMBER 12TH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. TRUSTEE LEVETZ.

Thank you. Back in October, prior to the October meeting, I did spend time driving around the subject property. And I recall we had a very, very robust discussion even at that time due to circumstances beyond my control. I was not at the December 1st meeting. But I'm very concerned to even start to think about, well, maybe because of this particular issue, we need to change the municipal code because of the implications that this can have on the entire village because the code applies to the entire village and not just to a particular property or a particular set of circumstances. I do also think that it is appropriate that at this point that a code at this point for the final plat does say directly, it shall be granted final approval. I think that I wasn't involved in writing that particular code, but I can tell you that certainly having language

Hello, okay.

I guess nobody wants to hear me. They're having that, Claire, very clear language is very helpful to the village board. So I would not certainly be in favor of tabling this at this point to make any changes to the code. That's a whole nother ball of wax, as has already been discussed, and any time we are talking about making changes to the code, we have to look at that in the entirety of the code and the village. Thank you.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE LABETTE. ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? I'LL MAKE A COMMENT OR TWO, AND THE THOUGHT THAT OCCURS TO ME IS THAT SOMETIMES THESE THINGS ARE ALL ABOUT TIMING. WHO ARRIVES FIRST? WHO DECIDES TO DO WHAT WITH THEIR PROPERTY? WHEN SOMEBODY DECIDES THEY'RE GOING TO RENOVATE SOMETHING AND MAKE IT A MASTERPIECE AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND IT'S ON A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY, even though another piece of property right around the corner or next door has a different thought about what they would do. So who did what first and how does it all happen? And what are the rules? What's the zoning on these pieces of property? Ms. Rodman, what is the underlying zoning for all three of these initial piece of properties? The corner at the top, the middle one that's under consideration, and the one just to the south?

R2.

What is it?

R2.

R2. And can you tell us what that means exactly compared to R3 or R1 or RE? So for everyone's benefit, what is RE?

I don't have the specific dimensions for the various districts, but essentially R2 is a denser zoning district, smaller minimum lot sizes, smaller lot width and lot depth requirements than the residential estate district, which is RE. Okay.

Well, I can tell you that RE is residential estate. So if you go over by the golf course community, by Rowland Green, and you see some lots that are 100 by 200 or 200 by 200, that's called RE, estate properties. And none of these are estate properties on here right now, right? No. R3 is typical blocks that you see in any neighborhood and town. R1, slightly larger, 75 foot to maybe 100 foot wide. So my whole reason for bringing this up is, again, it's about timing. I happen to have a house on a big piece of property in town, and I've spent a lot of money renovating it, but if I had thought about it when I bought it, maybe I should have subdivided it into two or three houses, but I didn't. My timing was more important to make it a house for me, the way I wanted it. And I'll give you one last thought. On Arlington Heights Road, right around the corner from me, there are two beautiful homes, absolutely stunning homes, that are set back probably 100 feet, while all the other houses are 25 or 30 feet from Arlington Heights Road. And if you drive between Hawthorne and Euclid on Arlington Heights Road, you'll see these two homes. And they're all landscaped beautifully, and to me, It doesn't have to always be the same, same, same. It has to do with behaving. You'll see big, beautiful, tall homes next to short, modest homes. Our community is diverse. And if Springfield has its way coming up here pretty soon, it'll be more diverse than you even want it to be because there'll be houses in people's backyards. That's a whole separate subject that we won't go into tonight. But for me, this is something that I can't imagine saying no to tonight. I feel horrible for these folks who feel that they've been shut down with their perspective on this. But I bet you if you had been looking at the initial purchase the way this person did, maybe you'd be thankful that you could divide your house into it. But you didn't. You decided to invest in your home and make it exactly the way it is because that's what you love and that's what you like. But the zoning is R2. It's small lots. You just happen to have a really big one. And you're blessed for having that. That's my opinion. Anybody else? Okay. Is there anyone else that... Manager Reklaus, at this point, are we at a point where we need to have a motion for a vote on here?

Yep.

Is someone prepared to make a motion to approve this resolution for a final plat of subdivision? Or is there a motion that wants to say something different? Trustee Lubetz.

I would move to approve a resolution approving a final plat of subdivision at this location. Second.

Second.

Okay, motion made by Trustee LeBeds, seconded by Trustee Manganiello. Further discussion from anyone? Roll call and vote, please.

Trustee LeBeds? Yes. Trustee Manganiello? Aye. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. Trustee Gilbert?

Yes.

Trustee Zik?

Yes.

Trustee Bertucci?

No.

President Tenaglia?

Yes. Okay, motion carries. The resolution is approved. And I think that's all we're going to talk about on this one tonight. Good luck to you. I hope that you are good neighbors, and I hope you do a great job with landscaping. Now, we're into new business, if I have this correct. And we have three... VOLUNTEERS THAT HAVE BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING THROUGH A VERY LONG MEETING HERE TO GET INSTALLED INTO NEW POSITIONS. SO I HAVE TO CALL ON, WHERE ARE MY NOTES? YOU HAVE THEM THERE? OKAY, GREAT.

I START.

I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. I'M GOING TO CALL ON TRUSTEE LEBEDS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR TANALIA. I MOVE NOW AS I DID EARLIER TO CONCUR IN THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF JEFF THEAL TO THE ARLINGTON ECONOMIC ALLIANCE WITH THE TERM ENDING APRIL 30, 2029. Second.

Motion made by Trustee LeBed, seconded by Trustee Santa Maria. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. And none opposed. Okay, motion carries. So now, if we can have Jeff come on up to the podium. I'm going to read you your oath. Jeff, if you could raise your right hand. Say aye, Jeff Thiel. Aye, Jeff Thiel. Having been appointed to the Arlington Economic Alliance. Having been appointed to the Arlington Economic Alliance. In the Village of Arlington Heights. In the Village of Arlington Heights. In the County of Cook. The County of Cook. Do solemnly swear and affirm. Do solemnly swear and affirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States. I will support the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of Illinois. And the Constitution of the State of Illinois. And that I will faithfully discharge the duties. And I'll faithfully discharge the duties. Of the office according to the best of my ability. The office according to the best of my ability. Congratulations. Way to go. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Jeff, one more thing. Come on up. So this is a pin, like everyone up here is wearing, that you can wear on your lapel. You'd be a representative of our board with us. Take this over to Maggie and sign it, and you're all set to go. Congratulations. Thank you. Congratulations. All right. One down. Next one, I'll call on Trustee Zik.

Mayor, I move as I did earlier to concur in the Mayor's appointment of Charles Wilk to the Environmental Commission term ending April 30th, 2027.

Second.

Okay, motion made by Trustee Zik, seconded by Trustee Dunnington. Any further discussion from the Board? All those in favor say aye. Aye. None opposed, motion carries. Chuck, you ready? Come on up. And Chuck is unfortunately not very qualified for this. If you read his resume, you'd know that I was joking. He is substantially educated in all of the work that he's going to do for us in the Environmental Commission. So raise your right hand and say, I, Charles Wilk. I, Charles Wilk. Having been appointed to the Environmental Commission.

Having been appointed to the Environmental Commission. In the Village of Arlington Heights. Village of Arlington Heights. In the County of Cook. In the County of Cook. Do solemnly swear and affirm. Do solemnly swear and confirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States. That I will support the Constitution of the United States. AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES. AND I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES. OF THE OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. OF THE OFFICE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES. CONGRATULATIONS. I KNOW YOU WILL.

We're proudly and take this over to see Maggie and sign the card. Thank you.

Congratulations And Last but certainly not least I'll call on trustee libets again Thank you I move now as I did earlier to concur in the mayor's appointment of Annabelle Finn to the Environmental Commission with the term ending April 30th 2027 BILL? SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY TRUSTEE LEBED, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE MINGANERO. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, MAYOR.

I DID NOT PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, AND I'M NOT GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I KNOW YOUR PARENTS, AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT UNTIL I WALKED INTO THIS ROOM AND SAW THEM. You guys have done a wonderful job. She is a terrific person. So knowing her parents, I can wholeheartedly recommend. Are you changing your vote? No. I am bolstering my vote and saying that I'm very proud of her and you guys did a great job.

Well, I think most of us in the room would concur that sometimes it takes a village, but it starts at home with the parents. So way to go, mom and dad. Annabelle, come on up. But we have to vote. Oh, yes, you're right. I'm sorry. The motion was made by Trustee LeBed, seconded by Trustee Manganiello. All those in favor say aye. Aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations. All right. You ready, Annabelle? Aye. Annabelle Finn.

Aye. Annabelle Finn.

Having been appointed to the Environmental Commission. having been appointed to the Environmental Commission in the Village of Arlington Heights, in the County of Cook, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office according to the best of my ability.

of the office according to the best of my ability.

Congratulations. I know you will.

Come on up.

And if you would take this over to see Maggie and she'll sign you up. Congratulations. Sometimes I get ahead of myself a little bit. Sorry. All right. The next item on new business is 1903 Euclid Avenue, First United Methodist Church. So I'll hand it over to Manager Reklaus to lead us in, or are we going to hand it off to Ms. Rodman? Right to Ms. Rodman. Right to Ms. Rodman.

Actually, the petitioner has a presentation that they would like to present this evening.

What's that? Oh, that's right. Thank you. I'm sorry. I wanted to call on Trustee Dunnington because she had something to say here.

Thank you. I'm going to recuse myself on this item from the discussion and vote because I'm an active member of First United Methodist Church.

Very well.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

And? Well, I was just going to say, we can remind the appointees that they're free to go. You know what? The three of you are welcome to leave unless you want to stay for the rest of the whole meeting because you just want to.

They're going to want to applause after this presentation.

They're going to want to applause? Okay. From the Environmental Commission, believe me. Feel free to escape anytime you want.

Thank you.

All right.

Clicker up there for you.

A school night. It is a school night.

You're right. Shall I begin? Great. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time. Appreciate it. My name is Dan Buntley. I'm a trustee at First United Methodist Church of Arlington Heights, otherwise known as FUMCA for short. So here's the agenda that I was going to go through. I know it's getting late, so I'll be very efficient with our time. I'll give a brief overview of FUMCA. Then we'll go right into the project that we are presenting. Then we'll get into the landscaping plans, our parking study that we shared, and the water reclamation district letter, and our neighborhood affidavit. First United Methodist Church has been in Arlington Heights for almost 200 years. We've been in our current location at 1903 for a little over 70 years, so we're a long-standing member of this community. We have one service on Sunday, we have a preschool program, and we have a host of many other activities. One of the things that I want to emphasize about this project is our dedication to sustainability and environmental stewardship. You can see the laundry list of programs that we've had over the last decade or so that we've implemented. We have a green team. We've converted to LED lighting, eliminated single-use plastics. We have a recycling program. We compost our landscaping materials, and we've recently started to compost our food waste materials. So we are very aligned with the mission and vision of sustainability with the village, and we're sharing this with many other community churches in the area. OK. So here is the project area. This is an aerial view. Our church is right there in the building is with the red dot. And you can see in the red rectangle, that is the parking lot that the project area is that we're discussing tonight. The other two parking lots, they've actually been renovated in the last 10 years when we went through renovation about a decade ago. This last parking lot is, has been, we've been patching it and we've been babying it along for quite some time. It's finally gotten to the place where we really need to get this replaced. And you can see we have six adjacent neighbors to the west. And yeah, let's get into the details of the project. So here's our site plan, and we have three variance requests that we like to ask for approval. You can see on the left-hand side of the screen, the checkered area, the gray area, that's the area that we are going to be renovating. The double-hatched area on the far left, that's the new proposed green space that we're adding. So we could have as easily just replaced a parking lot with a parking lot, but we really wanted to challenge ourselves and try to reduce the amount of nonimpervious services and try to increase the green space that we have in our area. And the variances that I'm gonna be talking about, it's really a balance between how much parking do we need to meet the needs of our congregation and the people who use our building, as well as how much green space can we add. So we're trying to maximize the amount of green space while still meeting other requirements. Okay, so the first variance request that we have is the west setback. So the west setback is the border between the six neighbors and our church on the parking lot. Today, believe it or not, our setback is six inches. Our asphalt is six inches away from our neighbor's backyards. And this plan extends that 30 feet. So now the setback we're proposing is gonna be 30 and a half feet versus the requirement of 43.2 feet. So again one of the balancing acts I'll speak in in two more slides is about parking If we try to go in any further than thirty point five feet We would lose that whole rule of parking and then we would not have enough parking for the constituents for our service So we're trying to maximize that amount of green space getting away from our neighbors backyard as well as providing enough parking for our church So that's the first variance request. So we think we're moving in the right direction here. THE SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST IS A CURB VARIANCE REQUEST. SO BY CODE, IT REQUIRES A CURB IN THE TWO AREAS THAT YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF OUR PARKING LOT AND THEN THAT LITTLE SLIVER OF PARKING ON THE NORTHERN EDGE. AND THE REQUEST THAT WE'RE ASKING IS TO USE PARKING BLOCKS, WHICH ARE VERY COMMON THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. WE'VE ADDED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PICTURES OF VARIOUS BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT USE PARKING BLOCKS. THEY'RE A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO PROVIDE A BARRIER BETWEEN people who are parking in a parking lot and either residents or a green space beyond them. So our request is to allow us to use these parking blocks. It is a less expensive option than it is to use curbs. And being a nonprofit organization, we're very tight with our budgets and we're trying to find as an economical solution to this project as we possibly can.

So we appreciate your consideration for using parking blocks.

And then the third variance request, as I alluded to, was the number of parking spaces. So in this proposal, we are requesting 235 parking spaces, where 320 parking spaces are required. We did two things. We had two different parking studies that we conducted. The first one was a short-term parking study, where we looked at all the different types of events that we run at the church, and all the different days of the week, as well as Saturday. So you can see when preschool is in session, when there's no special events, when we have a children's performance or a funeral, A play, a performance, or no special events. And you can see each of those we've highlighted, you know, the maximum number of cars that were used in those events. And you can see in the very middle column when we had a funeral we had 69 cars. So you can see that's not even a third of the proposed 235 parking spaces. So, however, you may ask, hey, we're a church. Sunday is usually our busiest day. So, what does Sunday look like? So, we did a year-long study and counted every single car every single Sunday for an entire year. And you can see the graph listed there. If you take an average, we're somewhere in the 140, 150 cars on average. And you can see there's three peaks in this graph. Those peaks are, as you can probably guess, Christmas, Easter, and Martin Luther King Day. And you can see Easter is our most popular time. And during this study in 2025, we were at 230 spaces that were full. And again, that's below what the proposal is in this plan of 235. So a vast majority of the time, we are well, well under the number of parking spaces that we need. And even during peak times, this plan will still meet the needs of the congregation for those particular days. So those are the three variances. Let's talk about the landscaping plan and the green plan that we're proposing. So you can see on the right hand side, we've listed a number of bullets of what we're planning to add to this space instead of having asphalt. So we have four inch diameter trees and all the islands in the green space. We have a row of six foot tall evergreens along that western property line, so between us and our neighbors. We have in this area low maintenance prairie grass and shrubs in that green space. And let me remind you, this is just a flat green space. This is not a detention pond. This is not going to have big swales. It actually is just matching the same grade that our parking lot has. And it all grades to the south where we have a detention area. So this prairie grass is simple simply because we're trying to save money on maintenance instead of putting lawns there. Use prairie grass, which is very common in many business areas. So you can see the the pitch of the green space will again guide the water to the south and then on the south where we're proposing those ten parallel parking spaces We have an existing row of trees, but we're also adding bushes there in between those trees to help provide a visual barrier just to help the the people who are parking there to make sure they can see that the delineation between the parking lot and the the grassy area below there So that's our landscaping plan, and as you can imagine, our neighbors are very excited about this, and I'll talk to that in one minute. So the water reclamation district, so we shared our plan with the water reclamation district, and because of the size of this project, which is quite small, and the fact that we're not touching our sewer system, we're not touching the detention pond, this is really just a replacement of our existing parking lot, And they actually like the fact that we're eliminating non-impervious surfaces and we're adding green space. It only helps the management of water. So there is no permit required from the Water Reclamation District. Okay, and lastly, the neighborhood affidavit and notification. So again, we worked closely with our six neighbors that are directly west of our property, and we received signatures from all six of them in favor of this project. And as you can imagine, today they look out their backyards and all they see is a sea of black asphalt. So they are very excited that we are actually adding green space, adding trees, And it's only going to provide a benefit from them from a visual standpoint. And I'm sure it's going to help their property values in the long term once these trees and bushes mature and provide a nice visual barrier between us and the neighbors. And we also identified 65 neighbors around the surrounding areas on all three sides of our property, north, east, and west. To the south of us, it's a big baseball field, a soccer field with baseball field. So we don't have any neighbors directly south of us. But on the other three sides, we did notify those neighbors and put up the appropriate public hearing notices. So we're really excited. It's been a long journey. We've been going through this for quite some time and we're anxious to get started. We're hoping we get your support and we're looking forward to hearing any questions that you have. So thank you.

Very well, thank you. And staff, do we have a report as well?

Yes, just one moment.

You can go ahead and take a seat. Okay, thank you.

The petitioner had a very thorough presentation, so I will keep this abbreviated. Before you this evening, as the petitioner indicated, is a request for 1903 East Euclid Avenue, the First United Methodist Church. The property is about six and a half acres. It is currently zoned R3-1 family. The comprehensive plan designates the property as an institutional district, but a house of worship, which is the use that the church would be classified as, is a permitted use within the R3 zoning district. As the petitioner mentioned, they're requesting three variations. One, to allow for a reduced side setback of 30.5 feet from the 43.2. So, because the 43.2 is required, it's 10% of the lot width, they need this variation even though they're actually increasing the existing setback, as he indicated. The second variation is to allow those parking wheel stops rather than curbing the parking lot. And then that third variation, of course, is to reduce the required parking to the 235 from the 320. You've already seen this image. This is the project scope, so this is just to an overlay of the plan in the neighborhood. And then the close-up, you also saw this image. You can see that green landscape buffer that's being added to the west there, and then the portion of the parking lot in purple that will not have curving. The portion to the east that you see there, that was not in the petitioner's plans. That's because that portion has already been reconstructed. That's not part of the proposed project. But this picture is just illustrating that that portion also does not currently have curbs. this is the summary of the parking table so you can see the 235 are required and there will be a deficit overall of 85 from the 320 and the plan Commission did consider this request for these three variations and they did recommend approval of the request subject to a few conditions the first is that the green space that new setback be graded slightly towards the south as the petitioner indicated in order to allow rainwater to drain to the south to the existing detention pond. Just a note for the petitioner's benefit that any future expansion plans would need to be reevaluated and potentially would require additional zoning approvals. And then that last condition is our standard condition in terms of applying with all applicable laws. We are requesting that the Village Board take action this evening on this item. The motion before you would be to approve the final documents granting the requested zoning relief as set forth in your agenda materials this evening.

So, Ms. Rodman, just for clarification, this is similar to what we just discussed earlier tonight. We're doing a preliminary approval. of information, zoning variations, and so on. And then they'll come back again for final approval. Am I correct or no?

No, this is different. So what you previously considered was subdivision and the village code does outline a two-step process for subdivision. So petitioners can choose to submit only for preliminary subdivision and then to come back for final, or they can submit for both at the same time. This is simply zoning variation. So this does not fall under the subdivision code. It falls under our zoning code.

So they don't have to come back for a second time.

They do not have to come back. Now, normally the board would see this item as new business, and then we would bring the ordinance to you in a subsequent meeting. However, with the initial notice, staff did make an error in that initial notice, which delayed their plan commission consideration, and we wanted to be cognizant of that delay and bring this to the board at the same meeting so they wouldn't be further delayed by the project.

So it's final tonight, too?

That's what we're requesting. Got you.

All right. Very good. Okay. Questions from the board? Anyone?

Trustee Zik. Just real quick. I want to thank you for all the work that you've done on this. I mean, obviously, you're trying to really help the neighborhood, and that's extremely commendable. I just want to make sure I have it clear in my head, though, the 235 spots, it's not just for this project area, but it's also including the spots that are just to the south of the building.

Correct, and the spots to the, I guess, northwest. It's the parking that would be available on their entire property.

Okay, good. I just want to make sure I understood it. And I saw where you went up to 230, and hopefully you continue growing. If something did happen, I'm guessing what would have to happen is that people would have to park on Prindle Avenue. Is that correct?

Yeah, the... The other option that we also have as a church is we can have multiple services. So if we were going to have, if we get to a point where we grow that we would exceed that limit, we would simply just offer multiple services that would allow us to accommodate that or park on the Prindle. That would be the other option. Got it, very good. Okay, thank you.

Trustee of the beds.

Thank you. I think it's a great project and I really appreciate the additional green space. I remember you were on the garden club walk one year and you have helped me out here if you would. I think something to the north and something to the south. Is that correct? And I was trying to find it on the documents we have, but I couldn't blow it up big enough on my little iPad.

Are you asking about the property that's south of us?

No. Is it a butterfly garden or memory garden or something like that?

Um, we, we do have some raised garden beds.

Okay. But whatever it was, it was pretty special and it was, and it was part of the garden club walk a few years ago, which I, and so I remember coming to this location and yes, the parking lot that kind of went in between is, Needed to be redone.

Yes.

And now you'll have this connection of green from the north part of the green to the south part of the green on the south side of this. So all of that will look a whole lot better. And I appreciate what you're doing and all that your church does in the area of sustainability, as well as many other things that I'm aware that you do. Well, thank you. So I think this is great. And I'd be prepared to make a motion. Why don't you go ahead?

Let me bring it up here.

Oh, thank you. I move to approve the final documents granting the zoning relief for consideration at this board meeting for PC25-025, variances from Chapter 28, Sections 5.1-3.3b, Section 10.2-12.4, and section 10.4-4, and subject to the recommended conditions, all as set forth in the agenda materials for tonight's board meeting.

Motion made by Trustee Libeds, seconded by Trustee Zik. All right, further questions, comments, anyone from the board? Trustee Bertucci.

Very nice project. One thing that I just have a question on and it more again goes to our code and how we present it and selectively make changes, that type of thing. So explain to me why we have the curb in place in the first place. And what is the reasoning for the curbs? And then here in this case, allowing the parking stops that are there.

So that's a determination that's made by the village's engineering division as to whether or not they feel curbs are necessary. You know, curbs can provide multiple benefits depending on where they're installed. They provide a visual for people to, you know, to keep them on the street or to know where to stop their vehicle when they're parking. They also direct stormwater flow in some cases. They provide a finished edge to a parking lot. So sometimes if it's just an asphalt parking lot, the edges of that parking lot will crumble over time. So they provide that solid barrier. But as to the engineering department's specific determination when they allow curbs and when they allow wheel stops, I would have to defer to them.

If I could add one more thing, Trustee Bertucci, there are situations where there may be differences in grading between adjacent, you know, the end of the parking lot and something else. But stormwater, I know, is a factor in that determination as well.

So it's a lot of depends.

I'll give you the architect's perspective on it. I appreciate it. Because I deal with it every day of my life. I appreciate it. It's mostly for stormwater management. What the idea is is to contain the water on your asphalt, go into the catch basins, and then release at a slow rate to the system. But if you have a situation, because you don't want to have it just dumping out into the street or into a neighbor's yard. If you have a situation like they do where it's gonna taper into their own detention basin, There's really no need to have the curbs on there because it just slowly tapers and stays on their land into their detention basin. If it were a street right adjacent to it and there would be no control and the water would just rush out into the street, I am very confident that the engineering department would have said no.

Got it. Okay. Okay. Yeah, so that's why it's important that the default be the curb. Yes. Unless situation, okay, got it. You did a good job there, Jeff. Thank you. I have no further questions. Anyone else?

Okay. I had one. Could you bring up the site plan with the dimensions on it, site plan that had actual dimensions?

I don't know if I have that one in here.

And it might have been on the petitioners. And I don't want to belabor this, but I have to ask. Can we get that up?

Yep. Is that the switch? This one?

Yeah, this one. This is it. Many cases, many times, your answer about having more services was perfect. That's the right answer. It's a great answer. I was expecting to see some land banked parking spaces somewhere that currently would be grass. But if we needed them, we could turn them into parking stalls later. What you're saying is you don't need it. You're going to just add services and you're never going to exceed 235 people. You'll handle it one way or another without having to go on it. But the one question that I can't get my arms around is that 40-foot, 8-inch dimension between the backs of the parking stalls. We gave them a 30-foot, 5-inch or 6-inch setback on the west, and our drive aisles are 24 feet. Why do we have a 40-foot drive aisle on the other side of that bank of parking when it could be 24 feet?

It should be 24. It should match the same as the one just to the west of it. So I'm not exactly sure why that's the case.

It's definitely not because if you have the parking stalls at the very north, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, it's almost 50 feet. It just surprised me. Because two-way traffic on a drive aisle is 24 feet. When I saw that 40 foot, I thought, well, I wonder why they're doing that.

Yeah, that's definitely an error because we tried to maximize as many parking spaces as we possibly could. And that's actually how we came up with the 30.5 feet is because we tried to... So you think there's a mathematical error here? I think there is, yes. Okay.

Yeah. All right. Then I will leave it be.

Okay.

That was all I had. Anybody else have anything else? If not...

Mayor, I would just ask, is there any concern for that which you just expressed and having that to be corrected? No. Okay.

Just the old eagle eyes, Jim. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. TRUSTEE LABETZ AND TRUSTEE ZICK, IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? SEEING NONE, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IS THIS A VOICE VOTE? YOU SHOULD DO BY A ROLL CALL, MAYOR. ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MAGGIE.

TRUSTEE LABETZ? YES. TRUSTEE ZICK? YES. TRUSTEE MANGINERO? AYE. Trustee Gilbert? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. Trustee Bertucci? Yes. President Tenaglia?

Yes.

All right.

Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations. Good luck to you. Hope it gets done nicely and easily for you. And then the last item on tonight's agenda is item E. That's the discussion of a pool attendant, which is a current requirement. Health and Human Services is going to present this, I take it.

A couple that just kick up. This is an item in our code that's been in effect for 40 years, and we find ourselves kind of out of the norm at this point on our requirements. And so Mila Segalis, our Director of Health and Human Services, is going to present this one. And one thing I'll point out is we are not looking for final approval of anything tonight. We're essentially looking for board direction on this for potential drafting of a future ordinance amendment.

So tonight we're going to talk about it briefly and then if necessary an ordinance will be redrafted. Yes. And we'll get a chance to see it again. Yep. Okay. Very good.

Thank you. To provide a little background on the pool attendant requirement, we have been, as Randy mentioned, this has been dating back to September 8th, 1986, so some 40 years. And it predates actually all of our health inspectors, some of which go back 30 years. So it's a longstanding requirement we've had, and recently we have had a request to amend and eliminate that ordinance language in Chapter 19, Section 402. The pool attendant requirement is specific to outdoor public or semi public swimming pools while they are in use So this does not apply to private residential or indoor pools During that time when it was first put into place that was very common in the northwest suburbs and since that time That requirement has been removed and now Arlington Heights is somewhat unique and having that requirement The Homeowners Association and a multi-unit housing development have both questioned the requirement. We're going to run through two options. The first one is to continue the status quo, what we've been doing. There are some advantages to that. It may increase pool safety, and it does provide an ease of access for inspections. However, there are disadvantages, and those are increased costs for the public and semi-public pools, The pool attendance staffing constraints may limit pool use. So pool attendants are often high school students, college students, and when they go back to school, they're often not available mid-August or so. And this limits the use of the pool and often can end the pool season for those pools that are impacted. The other disadvantage that's pointed out there is that the pool attendant role is not defined in the ordinance. So that's a little confusing for those that are filling that role. And then lastly, the disadvantage is that we treat our indoor pools and outdoor pools differently. The second option is to eliminate the pool attendant requirement. The advantages here is that it allows our public and semi-public pools to increase their hours and their length of season. It will decrease their costs. It aligns our indoor and outdoor policies. And then it also aligns with neighboring community policies as well. The disadvantages listed is that may decrease pool safety and it may decrease access for our pool inspections. And our recommendation tonight is to move forward with removing the pool attendant requirement and staff recommends that the village board directs us to prepare a draft ordinance with that change for consideration at the May 18th village board meeting.

Thank you, Mila. All right, I do have two blue cards from residents that want to speak on this. Does anyone on the board want to discuss it first, or should we call them? Trustee LeBeds.

Thank you. Mila, could you go back to your very first slide? I'm kind of getting confused here. I thought that the whole thing we were talking about would be private pools, but... This would apply, if we make this change, it would apply to the park district pools, and I don't know what a semi-public swimming pool is, but I guess there is such a thing. So that would apply to any pool.

But to make that point clear, it doesn't mean that they can't have lifeguards there.

You know what I mean?

Yeah, if they wanted to. Like the Park District, I'm sure they don't have lifeguards at their facilities. It has nothing to do with our ordinance. It's more, you know, they're making a choice based on their insurance and all of that. And so this would be, you know, I think, you know, when we talk about the distinction between public and private, private I think in my understanding purely means if it's just for like a home zone use. Backyard use, yes. Backyard use, yeah.

And there are state and county regulations that help govern situations where there's water slides and wave pools and children that are swimming under the age of 16 that are unaccompanied. that then you have a requirement for lifeguards and for other safeguards. Okay, okay, thanks.

Trustee Patricia.

Mine would just go to liability, and I don't know if this would be a question for our village attorney, Hart Passman. And by changing this, does this give us, is there any liability that might be placed on us for, you know, God forbid, you know, somebody is seriously hurt or, dare I say, dies at a swimming pool two weeks after we changed the ordinance.

I think that would be a pretty far-fetched claim. The village is not responsible for providing lifeguards or attendants, and our code is not something we're required to do.

Okay.

That's it. Okay. Anybody else?

Trustee Zik? Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Just kind of piggybacking on what Trustee LeBeds was asking, because I'm a little confused. So, okay, we've got the public pool, park districts is what I'm thinking. We've got the private pool, whatever we have in our backyards. We've got condo associations, apartments that have pools that are asking for this, too. Are, well, I might be answering my own message. Is it because most of those are indoor? Those are indoor as opposed to outdoor? Or how are they being classified?

So outdoor pools that are public or semi-public. So semi-public would be like a homeowner's association. It's public, but it's also private. So the outdoor pools are governed by this pool attendant requirement. The indoor pools are not. So for example, if you have a hotel that has an outdoor pool, they would be governed by this requirement. But if they have an indoor pool, they don't fall underneath this requirement. That's my understanding.

The code is specific to outdoor pools. Okay, so the indoor pool, there's nobody that needs to be there? Not under our village code.

Okay.

Okay, so, and I've gone to plenty of hotels where, you know, we've got a code or a sign up there that says no lifeguard attendant on duty, swim at your own risk. Is that the type of requirement then that's going to have to be had for these places if we get rid of this? Right. Would that become part of the code?

That's not the proposal. To the extent that's a requirement by law, that's already a state requirement. And I say I don't know that. Our code only has a requirement that, for a pool attendant at outdoor pools. That's all it says. Right now... So an indoor hotel, as Director Seguilis provided, an indoor pool at a hotel, our code doesn't speak to that. Today. It does not require an attendant today. Under what was listed as option two, if you were to remove this from the code... then the indoor pool still wouldn't have a requirement to have an attendant. It would be the outdoor pool right now. So right now, in addition to whatever the state law provides, the village code says you must have a pool attendant. And as noted in some of these slides, that term isn't defined. So it's really a question of does the board want to maintain a local obligation for an outdoor swimming pool to have a pool attendant.

If I can go a little bit further, we don't have great records of discussion of why this was put in effect back in 1986, but as we look at it, what we surmise is part of it is an indoor pool, presumably there's a telephone somewhere near. If someone got into trouble, people could get on the telephone. an outdoor pool it would be not it would not be common for there to be a phone outdoors if there was a problem now obviously these days things are different we have phones everywhere um you know and so we we think to the best we can figure would you agree mila that that's that's we think was part of the motivation why indoor pools didn't require them and they require them for outdoor okay so

I WILL TELL YOU PART OF ME AS I WAS READING THIS I STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT. I STOPPED THINKING ABOUT IT AS MUCH AS A TRUSTEE. I STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT MORE AS A DAD. AND I'M SITTING THERE THINKING ABOUT MY KIDS GOING THERE. AND I KNOW YOUNGER KIDS. YOU CAN SAY THE PARENTS SHOULD BE THERE AT ALL TIMES. BUT I'M THINKING ABOUT MAYBE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS, TEENAGERS THAT MIGHT BE GOING OUT THERE. WHAT DO THEY DO AND WHAT'S THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT THEY MIGHT RUN INTO. So let's say we want to make both of these even. I can, you know, indoor, outdoor, I can get behind that. I can get behind being consistent. But is there another way that we should also look at this, how the requirements, I don't know, are there requirements? You know, if you're under a certain age that you have to have a parent there. Or are there any other type of things that we can do to safeguard this, put some type of guardrails on this?

To go beyond what the state offers, do you mean? The state law requires children that are under the age of 16 to be accompanied by an adult.

Okay, so that's going to take place. So if we get rid of this, those are automatically there. They're going to be there. And if they're under 16, they have to have an adult.

Right. Accompanied by an adult does not have to be a parent.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Trustee Levitz.

Thank you. So kind of piggybacking because I'm trying to get my head around all this. One thing that would be helpful to me is to have more information on what the state law requires because I'm not understanding that and you just explained about the children under 18. The other thing that I'm thinking about is this is just talking about a pool attendant. A pool attendant isn't necessarily a lifeguard. I mean, my parents lived in another state in a large apartment complex, and the pool attendant just checked resident passes and sat under an umbrella all day. I mean, this is back many years ago before there were cell phones and stuff like that, but I don't even know if there was a phone nearby. So if we're talking about... The safety part of things, just having a pool attendant may or may not make a difference because that person isn't a trained lifeguard. Correct. So that's kind of one of the things I'm thinking about. Another question I would have is access. Access. to the pool or a pool itself? And is there someone that would be responsible say if thunderstorms start coming through or something like that to close it? I mean, I guess maybe all this is kind of maybe outlined in the state law.

and so that would be helpful i'm not clear on the weather requirement but on fencing and the mechanics of the pool the the safety signs the flotation devices all of that including the recommendation that no one swims alone and that swimmers over the age of 16 are fine to be there but if they're under 16 they need an adult accompanying them those requirements are provided by state law and i can look into the weather for you

Okay, thanks, and I know I have been been to pools that did not have lifeguards like at motels where they have this list of the requirements So that people who are going swimming just aren't it's not like just jumping into a swimming hole out in some stream somewhere so where there would be no signs that say You can swim or not swim here, so they usually do have some kind of explanation Yes, so Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? We'll go to the audience. I have two residents that want to speak, Jim Reagan and Thomas Akouras. So we'll start with Jim.

Just want to say thank you very much for your time. Also, two things. One is, go Bears. Second thing is, to Arlington Heights. So, I appreciate, Emila was very eloquent talking about what all the pluses and minuses were. We've had a meeting that kind of initiated this whole stuff probably more than a year ago. And all of those advantages and disadvantages we talked about. And really, I surveyed all of our neighbors, not all of my neighbors, Mount Prospect, Palatine, excuse me, Elk Grove, Des Plaines, and nobody had a pool attendant. And so the state doesn't have any definition of pool attendant. All they have is lifeguards and, excuse me, as Mila stated, lifeguards are only necessary in wave pools, pools with slides or that allow children under the age of 16 to be there without adult supervision. So she eloquently stated all that. We would like to be able to go to swim at your own risk. We had two years of it when we had COVID and all of our, you know, clean safety record and we think it would be very helpful to our residents to enjoy one of our greatest assets, you know, during that time. also help us budget. And especially now when you can, you know, you see the city of Chicago can hardly get lifeguards. And that's going to happen more and more. And so we're going to be more and more restricted. So we're hoping that you'll eliminate it and we can line up with the state and Cook County regarding what is lifeguards and then what is swim at your own risk, basically.

Very good. Thank you, Jim.

Thank you very much.

And Thomas?

Good evening. Thank you, Your Honor and trustees for the opportunity to address you this evening. Quick bit of background. My name is Tom Okouris. I've been a resident at the complex known as Regent Park, which is directly across the street from Prospect High School off of Kensington. Regent Park is a beautiful enclave of 26 acres of land, along with a 13-acre lake. We are surrounded by five condo buildings, and then there are 125 town homes. The makeup in the condo buildings has changed over the 25 years that I've been there. We have an inordinate amount of children compared to 25 years ago. I can vouch to that, both in the buildings and the town homes. More importantly, bordering our complex is our perimeter homes that are families. They are four bedroom, three bathroom homes that have children of all ages. For a bit of context, I was on the board for a period of 15 years. For a period of 10 years, I was the recreation chairman at Regent Park. Part of my responsibilities as the recreation chairman, among other things, was the maintenance and the running of the pool to the extent where a lifeguard company is hired, and it is incumbent upon that lifeguard company by contract to staff our pool with lifeguards. Now, just to let you know, Regent Park has a small pool house. The only entrance to the pool house is through bathrooms. And you go through a bathroom, which is a makeshift locker room. There's one for women, one for men. And that is the only entrance to the pool. Of late, we have had an electronic locking system. We have locked the doors at a particular time. However, the lifeguard has been on duty half an hour to an hour before when the pool opens and comes in and is there and closes the pool in the evenings. That is to assure that everybody has left the pool and then the doors are locked, they are electronically locked. It is very, very important that we continue, in my opinion and in the majority of the people that attend the pool, to have a lifeguard. We feel it is a safety factor because of the age of the residents, because of the young age of the residents that come, and if you have no lifeguard, how do you enforce who swims alone and how do you enforce who swims at what age? The last thing that I want to say, because I am respectful of my time, is that a portion of our residents use walkers and wheelchairs, and without having the lifeguard to let them in on two chain link side entrances upon request is no longer available to them. I would not want to be the one that has to tell somebody who's coming there in their walker that they have to go through a tiled bathroom, which is a slipping hazard, and to tell somebody who's in a motorized wheelchair that they can't come through the main gate, which is always kept locked. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas.

All right. Mayor, so just, Randy, just for clarification, if we change this, to the gentleman's point, Regent Park could still have a life card.

100%.

So it really becomes their decision whether or not they...

The village isn't paying for these attendants in any way, shape, or form. So no, every pool can make this determination on their own based on the needs, desires of their residents, 100%.

Okay, so we're not changing anything to them other than instead of forcing it upon them, they have a lifeguard and making that decision for them, we're just making them make that decision internally, right?

on their own correct got it thank you i imagine there are probably communities of senior citizens that are going to have a lifeguard and then some assistance available and probably up to the different communities to do as they see fit i would imagine so okay so the question uh somebody want to put up the or i guess you're not looking for motion tonight you just want what from us tonight

We are looking for some direction. I think we do have a motion up there just so we know what we're working on. You want a recommendation?

Mayor, we have more public comments. There's another hand. Oh, come on up. Introduce yourself.

Hi, my name is Devin Gray. You guys know me. I didn't expect to chat on this issue either, but as long as it's up here, as long as I'm here, I figured I'd take a chance to chime in, not as a small business owner here in town, but as a, like trustee Zick, as a dad. I guess the question I would ask is, since September of 1986, how many people have died in swimming pools here in Arlington Heights? Don't expect anyone to know that number. My hope is it's zero, right? And I think that's why this type of ordinance is in place. It combines with other ordinances to help keep people safe. And that's the goal here, right? So somebody who's got kids in town and is worried about the fact that pools kill people every single year. They kill children every single year. They're quick, quick accidents. Take seconds, not minutes. It doesn't matter if there's a fault in there. It takes seconds. Having an attendant there is what makes the difference. And forcing that, Trustee Bertucci, to your question about liability, I think is an interesting one because when we force an attendant, there is some implied liability that comes with that, right? That attendant, at least in some way, shape, or form, is responsible for that pool, and as a result, that community takes their responsibility more seriously, and there's a personal responsibility that goes with it. So I just wanted to take a minute to chime in from another father in the community and advocate for us to keep this ordinance in place.

Thanks, Devin. Thank you. All right. I guess... What's the pleasure of the board? Thomas, let me carry on here a little bit first, real quick. What's the will of the board here at this moment? Trustee Dunnington.

I have a question. Do any communities require lifeguards? I know we were talking about pool attendance specifically, but do any require lifeguards?

In our surrounding area, they don't have a pool attendant or a lifeguard requirement beyond what the state requires.

Okay.

Mayor. Trustee Gilbert. I would be in favor of reworking this ordinance or eliminating it. I think that it's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all, as has been made clear by the comments from the attendees. I think at some point it'll be up to the HOA to decide how they want to govern their pool. Clearly for some, they don't need it. For some, they might want it or need it. And I think that it would be up to their discretion as to whether or not they wanted to implement that. Personal experience, most of the pools that I've been to outside of the Park District don't have lifeguards or attendants. But I would caution those HOAs that say they don't want this to consider having an attendant. It clearly doesn't say it has to be a lifeguard. It doesn't even say it has to be somebody that's paid. It could be a volunteer who sits down there and just makes sure that everything's okay. So just food for thought in terms of that if this does get repealed. But I do believe that it's time to take a look at it.

Trustee Zik.

Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Gray, the comments that you made about the, you know, what would it have been like if they hadn't been here? I'd actually thought about the exact same thing. I was thinking about it earlier today. But the one thing I keep thinking, though, is that we haven't had this rule for indoor, but we have had it for outdoor. Just anecdotally, my memory, 31 years I've been here, I don't remember a lot of stories about kids dying within pools, and I hope I'm right about that, that we haven't seen a big spike in that or whatever, a big number of that. But I'm okay with trying to make these things consistent, these two consistent. I think that makes total sense. But is there some way that we can format this in a way You know, you were talking about overseeing us going in for inspections and things like that. Is there a way that we can have something in the ordinance that does say, hey, you know, these, if we don't have this, that's fine, but here's what you have to do. And the trustee of the beds, you know, talking about the state rules and us not really understanding exactly what the state rules is. having something in there that at least says, okay, you have to go by this, and what would the inspection look like for us to make sure that all these things are being followed? Does that make sense?

One of the things I would say is, I mean, we can do any of it. It's a question of how often you enforce it and how you enforce it. I mean, from our standpoint, how often, Mila, do we do checks for the pools?

We get out there monthly.

Monthly. And so, you know, obviously we wouldn't be able to tell if they're on a daily basis following, you know, depending on how far we go with the rules. If it's signage, that type of thing, absolutely we could do that. But, you know, we can do that type of thing. But obviously in terms of operations, it's not something we would be able to, a lot of that would have to be on a complaint basis. if it was between the months. Anyone else? Something, you know, more detail.

I do have a quick question. Go ahead. If we should go down the road of coming back and looking at this more because I think Mr. Gray's question is very relevant and the thing that I would be interested in understanding, as you pointed out, we are an outlier having this ordinance. Is there any difference in pool safety between us and those neighbors that no longer have such an ordinance? In terms of outcomes. In terms of outcomes, in terms of calls to pools, et cetera. Sure. Thank you.

Okay. So the way I think I see it right now is there's a couple board members that are concerned that maybe we need to do a little bit more research on this before we direct staff to revise or omit this from our regulations. I don't know if that's a majority or a minority, but... Maybe you need an answer.

I mean, if there's not interest in doing this, then obviously we won't do the research. If there is, then we will. The only thing I'll say is it may be difficult to come by. We can look. I can talk to the fire department to find out if there is data on drownings, but we'll do the best we can with the information.

There's going to be data on drownings in private pools for homeowners. I mean, there's toddlers that this happens to. It's a horrible thing, and you read about it all the time. I think what is in question here is for these public or semi-public pools. Because the Park District runs all the public pools, right? That's a whole separate animal. What we're referring to and really being asked to discuss here tonight is for places just like Regent Park or a homeowners association or something like that. And I guess my own opinion is I don't think it's necessary, but I'm just one. So should we do a straw poll here real quick to give staff some direction? Does that make sense?

Yeah, I mean, I think we're just looking for a direction from the board. Is this something that would the board like us to draft an ordinance, you know, with the research that was requested, you know, for further consideration? If we're doing the additional research, you know, it may be later than May 18th, but we'll do our best.

But I think it would have to be clear that it's not for park district pools, it's not for homeowners pools, private pools, it's for hotels with indoor or outdoor pools, it's for homeowners associations with indoor or outdoor pools. So you're referring to those as semi-public, right?

Yes, and again, also apartment pools, condos, that all falls into that area.

We have a really good attorney who's good at coming up with definitions.

Yeah, I've seen. I've seen. So this gentleman, Thomas, wants to make a comment quick. I'll give you 10 seconds quickly.

I'll give you. Chat GPT is a wonderful thing.

If you could use the mic so folks at home and we can record it. Thank you.

Take me longer than 10 seconds to get up here. Just a quick second. The recreation committees in the past that I have chaired learned that a compiled data set of reported incidents found in Illinois only at semi-private pools, 744 pool drowning deaths in Illinois from 2008 to 2020. Regent Park has been around since 1964. If you extrapolate that over the 12 year period, it comes to 62 pool deaths a year, comes to a total of 2,500 pool drowning deaths. We have had none but we have had an attendant. I also want to correct Mr. Reagan to tell you that during COVID the pools were closed. There was no pool during COVID. There was no swimming whatsoever. Okay thank you Thomas.

We're not gonna have a debate about that in my room here. Thank you. I was gonna ask for a straw poll. For those of us on the board who feel like it may be worth removing this from our ordinance, just give me a hand raise. I see only a handful of us, maybe one, two, three, four of us, maybe five, six. Okay. With comments. Let's do it a different way now. Let's ask it slightly different. How many of us would like to see staff do some further research, whether we're finding some of these statistics or answer a few questions on how the state governs their policies before we make this decision? Raise your hand if you'd prefer to do that. One, two, three, four, five. It's about a five to five. You're getting five votes on each of those. So I don't know that it gives you a really good answer.

Mayor, can I say something? Yes. It sounds like just from reframing and what I'm hearing everyone say, I think we want consistency in the indoor-outdoor rule, but we just want the data to ensure that there are the guardrails in place, which I do think that there are within the state of Illinois. We just want to be able to see that so we know if we have to make any suggested changes to the ordinance to include more of what we want to see. Does that sound fair?

I think that's accurate. And if I could add to that, I would want to make sure that it's well known that it's voluntary and or encouraged that these apartments, associations, so on and so forth, still consider a whether it be a lifeguard or a pool attendant so in other words there we're not in a situation well the village doesn't require it well guess what in our ordinance yeah we're not we're not going to play policeman on that and none of the other municipalities do but we're going to say be smart Think about your place. Do you have children? Do you have elderly people? Blah, blah, blah. And we're going to say do some soul-searching. Consider it. Well, you could say we encourage it, just don't require it.

Yeah.

Things like that could be written in an ordinance.

Just in terms of definitions, too, right now it's pool attendant. There's no requirement that it has to be a lifeguard, that it has to be anything of that nature, right? Right. You know, potentially, another route as opposed to scrapping it would be a definition of what an attendant is, and that could just be somebody who sits by the pool. It doesn't have to be a lifeguard. It would eliminate the need for hiring, you know, the high school, the college kids, that sort of stuff who leave and shortens the pool season, and they're harder to hire than perhaps it could be a volunteer pool attendant.

So, we're speaking hypothetical here in all of this, but what I think Trustee Santamaria's comment is relevant. I would suggest, can we do this quickly? Can you get that information?

I think there's a desire by some of the folks that run pools to do it quickly because they're in the midst of, we're getting into pool season.

We're May 4th, right? The season's upon us, and so we should get this resolved pretty quick.

I mean, we'll work on something and get it back as quickly as we can based on the input that we've received.

You could even email it to all of us. It doesn't have to be delivered to us in the board format.

Sure, sure.

And then we can discuss it at the next meeting that is available. Trustee Lovett's.

And so I would ask, I don't know, because you said other communities don't have this. That means they've got nothing that addresses pools at whatsoever. The fault of state law. State regulations. Okay. So then really what I'm especially interested in is knowing what the state law says, because I don't. So thanks.

Yep. Okay. Is that enough?

I do have one more, I'm going to say comment. If we, if you do all of this work, get all of this information, we will not be prepared to pass an ordinance that will be in effect by Memorial Day. unless we direct to have such an ordinance ready for the next meeting.

Well, we'll see what we can put together. We'll see what data is available, and we'll bring it back. And if the board wants additional information by then, then we can move it forward. We'll do our best.

I guess I'm wondering if there's a middle ground where we can direct an ordinance to be prepared, have the data in hand, and... That's what I'm hearing. Okay.

Yeah. We would have an ordinance...

It's clear that that was... No, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I was saying we would have an ordinance drafted, have something prepared, and then revisit it at the next meeting. It will get emailed to us.

And it almost feels like that should be by a motion and a vote. I don't know, Mr. Passman.

I mean, I think if the board wants to make a formal direction by way of a motion, we can certainly, you can do that. You have that option. You know, we're, you know, I think obtaining the, I would say it would be the informal consensus of the board. There is no formal action that is required by you tonight, but it's within the discretion of the mayor and the board.

This was not asked for us to make a motion to create right now. It was really a recommendation for next steps. I'm comfortable with asking staff to do the research, doing what they're going to do, get back to all of us with that, and then we can make a decision. I think we've had a healthy debate today. I think we all kind of know enough about what we don't know, and then once we do know what we don't know, we'll be able to make a decision is my guess. Make sense? Okay, you good with all that? All right. That's all I have on the agenda for tonight. Is there anything else? We've gone through everything and it is 10.08. Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved. I'm second.

A motion made by Trustee Zik. Yep. Second by Trustee LeBetz. All those in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone.