Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the W County Board Planning and Zoning Commission Committee meeting for April 7th, regular meeting. I'm going to call this meeting to order and ask everybody to rise for the pledge of allegiance. Roger, would you lead us in the pledge? I will. 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. I have a roll call, please. Hugh Stippen here. John Keefner here.

Kimberly Mitchell. Roger Bettinhousen. Yes. Karen Warick here. Lewis Navaret here. Matt Garland.

Okay, we have a quorum of six. We're missing one. Um I'm going to swear everybody in and mass all who intend to speak tonight. Hopefully you've all signed in. Please raise your right hand. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God. I do. Next. Uh would everybody who has a cell phone turn it down or put it in airplane mode so we don't disturb the meeting? Thank you. Our first zoning case tonight is ZC-25-125. Um and a slashv-25-169 to variance to bring a street yard set back from 100 ft to 85 ft and Jesus presenter will present this case. Good evening sir. Good evening. Yes, I'll be going over sorry going over zoning case 25125. The owner of this property is Elizabeth Fautello. The applicant is requesting a variance to bring the constructed front porch into compliance. Here we have a zoning map of the property. The image shows the subject property outlined in red. The subject property is zoned A1 with about approximately 11 acres in size and 416 ft of lot frontage along Kennedy Road and the parcel is deemed a conforming A1 parcel. Here we have an area view subject property again outlined in red. This property was placed in violation for building a 16x32 covered front porch without approval of a building permit. The property owner then submitted an after the fact building permit for the front porch on March 15, 2025. As staff

reviewed the platter survey that was submitted as part of the building permit, it was discovered the front porch the front porch encroached into the street yard setback. The applicant is requesting the variance to avoid having to remove the front porch and move forward with the pending building permits. Here we have a plat of cellular property showing the front porch sketched on onto the front of the house there. Here we have a few pictures of the property. First of looking south at the existing front porch that was constructed with all the building permits. The view looking at the southeastern portion of the property. Oops. This is looking again at the select property. This is the view looking north at the adjacent property across Kennedy Road. This is the view looking east down Kennedy Road and the view looking west down Kennedy Road. Now quickly go over the ving standards and review criteria. Staff finds that owner is not due to unique circumstances. The property owner built a covered front porch attached to the home without a building permit. The desire to build and keep a structure that encroaches into into the required setback is a personal desire and cannot be considered a unique circumstance. Staff also finds that the variance may alter the essential character of the locality. Looking at the surrounding area, there are no parcels that have received approval of a variance for street setback and staff also did not find any examples of parcels that had structures encroaching into that street setback either. Now quickly looking at section two, staff finds that the particular physical surroundings does not result in a particular hardship. The hardship does not come from the physical conditions of the land. Staff also find that the conditions on which this variance application is based would be generally applicable to other properties. Desire to build a structure encroaching into

setbacks can be seen as a common request among A1's owned properties. And lastly, staff finds that the that the granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the neighborhood. The front porch will not create any visual clearance problems as a property is not located near an intersection. With that said, staff is recommended denial of the variance. Um Pel Township did send an objection letter that was sent out as a memo. The letter didn't really explain the reasons why they were requesting a denial of the variance. Um, but yeah, that was sent out as a memo to the commissioners up here. Um, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions.

Anyone have any questions? Actually, I do have I guess he's going to have to tell they didn't you didn't talk to them. You didn't have any followup with the PTON towns report on this letter. That's correct. I kind of had a quick followup. They were I guess they're more they were concerns with with the amount of structure this property had without building permits. So, I guess they were just concerned they were going to keep building um structures without building permits. You wouldn't be able to tell us if they actually had a meeting invited the applicant or the public or if this is just their polling of members and sending a letter that we don't like it. That is correct. I can't answer that. No problem. Yeah.

Did we approve that case or is that something that's going to be in the future? the pole bar that was on the property uh there. Oh yeah, that was uh Yeah, sorry. That was a mistake from previous um zoning cases. It's a mistake on that one. Yeah, you heard what a couple. No problem. No more questions. Thank you. Hi. Have we hear from the applicant or uh the applicant's representative? You. Yeah. Would you please come up here to the podium?

Just give your name for the records, please. Elizabeth Bautello. Okay. Thank you. Uh did you uh realize that you needed to pull a permit for this front porch? No. So like now um we're going to we want to build an addition to the garage. So now we're going to wait until we're done with this so we can pull a permit for a garage. Okay. You're getting an education the hard way. Yeah. Well, for whatever did you did you meet with the uh township board?

No. And actually for for the road I have emailed them and I have uh called the road authority for because I'm it's missing my road authority approval is missing and they haven't called me back or emailed me back or anything. Well I for some of you saw this letter. Yes, I saw it this morning. Okay. But they never said we're having a meeting. Can you come meet us or anything? No. So you never even got a chance to make a presentation?

No. Okay. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case tonight? There are not. Okay. Uh we have any more questions for any applicant? I guess I 16 by 32. This is huge. Yeah. So, is it basically just an extra sitting area or is it

Yeah, because my house is actually a mobile home, like a manufactured home, so it had nothing in like No, like it's just and this is actually the second one on this property, but when I bought it, it already had this pre-existing mobile home. So, we kind of wanted something that we can come in the house and not get rained on and and kind of make it look pretty. nice weather and that it gives you parties. Well, it it's nice to like do like a little barbecuing and stuff. So, which we use a lot. Do you know the exact distance from this vent to the road is 85 ft they said? So, not like it's within 30.

Okay. Normally you're in trouble of neighboring or you get a letter opposing but I don't think this letter gave you very good due process to be heard or even so I I can't put a lot of stock in it. I wish they'd uh done more due diligence for me to somewhat consider their request which I guess is good for you. I did they brought forth concerns but it doesn't itemize their concerns so we know what they are. when they and they really kind of cut her out of the whole process. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you for hearing me.

Well, see as there's no concerned citizens in this case on ZC-25-125V-25169, I ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, motion for approval for case number ZZ-25-125 V-225-169. Barance be for streetyard setback from 100 ft to 85 ft. I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call, please? Kimberly Mitchell, yes. John Kefner, yes. Roger Bettton, yes. Lewis Navarat, Karen Warick, yes.

And Chairman Houston, yes.

Passes. Next case tonight is case ZC-25-098 M-25-014 and V-25-166 and V-25167 and V-25168 and this is Manhattan Township and uh Jesus presenter will present this case also. Okay. Yes, I'll be presenting again case ZC25098. This case is within Green Garden Township. The applicant and property owner is George and Ruby Ror. The applicant is requesting a map amendments and variances to create a new 11 acre parcel and bring it into compliance. Here we have again a zoning map of the property. Newly created 11 acre property is shown in the blue outline. Again, the property owner wishes to create a new parcel to consolidate the existing home, adjacent farm buildings, and some agricultural land into one parcel. If the parcel were to be created, the parcel would be considered split zone between E2 and A1. The Will County zone ordinance does not allow the creation of new split zone parcels. Therefore, to to achieve zoning conformity, the applicant is requesting to reszone the 2.5 acre parcel that is zoned E2 to the A1 zoning district. The parcel to be reszoned is shown on the screen in the dash red outline. If the map amendment is approved, the newly created parcel will meet the minimum requirements for the A1 zoning district. Here we have an aerial

view of the subject property. So in addition to the map amendment as mentioned before, the applicant is also requesting variances to bring the existing structures into compliance with the A1 zoning district setbacks. The A1 zoning district requires a minimum setback of 100 ft from the center line of the road and 50 ft from the side property lines. the home, the existing home and the existing barn do not meet the required setbacks and therefore must be brought into compliance with the requested variances. Here we have a platiff survey of the property showing the homes and some of the barns that do not meet the A1 zone district setbacks. Here we have a few pictures of the property. First, the view looking north at the subject property from Pauling Road. The view looking at the southwestern portion of the property from Pauling Road. The view looking at the southeastern portion of the property. The view looking east down Pauling Road. The view looking west down Pauling Road. This is a view looking at the barn that encroaches into the required um sideyard setback. This is a view looking east at the subject property from sheer road. This is a view looking at the northwestern portion of the property. This is a view looking north down sheer road. And finally, the view looking south down sheer road. Now to quickly go over the map amendment review criteria. The red circle on the screen indicates it will run mile radius from the subject property within a mile radius. Zoning classifications include A1, E1, and E2. Staff finds that the predominant use within the general area is agricultural. It is also staff's

professional opinion that the proposed zoning change would be compatible with the existing zoning districts in the general area. And as mentioned before, if the new 11 acre property was created without the map amendments, the parcel would be a split zone property, which is not allowed per the county zoning ordinance. And staff also finds that the trend of development in the area is towards a state residential. Several properties nearby were reszoned from A1 to E2 in 1993. Now to quickly go over the variance standards and review criteria. Again, more in-depth analysis can be found in the staff report. But to quickly summarize, staff finds that the PL of the owner is due to unique circumstance. The existing structures for which the variants are being requested have existed on the property since approximately 1976. The variances are being requested to bring the parcel into compliance. Staff also finds that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. As mentioned previously for the zoning case, the variances are being requested to bring the parcel into compliance. The location of the structures will not change if the variances are approved. If any additions are proposed to the structures, a building permit and possible additional variances may be required or agency comments. Staff did not receive any comments from the agencies notified or concerns from them either. Um staff does know this property is not within a one or a half mile radius of any municipality. And with that said, staff is recommending approval of the map amendment and the three variances related to the map amendment as well. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have no questions. Anyone have any questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case? There are not. Okay. I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, list the applicant wishes to speak. Yeah. Well, I'll sol your motion. Mr. Chairman, given a recommendation from staff, a motion for approval on ZC25-098 M25-014. Motion for approval for a map amendment from E2 to A1.

Second. I have a motion to second. I have a roll call. Kimberly Mitchell. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bentonhausen. Yes. Lewis Navaret. Yes. Karen Warick and Chairman Houston. Yes. Mr. Chairman saying K098 Variance 25-166. Approval of variance for street guard setback Pauling road from 100 ft to 20 ft. Second. Have a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Kimberly Mitchell. Yes. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bentonhausen. Lewis Navarat. Yes. Karen Warick and Chairman Houston. Yes.

Same case 098 25-16. Approval of variance for sideyard setback east side from 50 feet to 35 feet7. Oh, 167. Thank you for the correction. I stand correct or said correct. Second. Okay. Kimberly Mitchell. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bettton. Yes. Lewis Navaret. Yes. Karen Warick and Chairman Houston. Yes. and saying case 098 variance 25-168 approval of variance for streetyard setback sheer road from 100 ft to 63 ft. Second.

Roll call, please. Kimberly Mitchell, John Kefner, yes. Uh Roger Bentonhausen, yes. Lewis Navarat, yes. Karen Warick and Chairman Hugh Stippen. Yes. All approved. Hope I didn't step on the applicant's uh wish to speak, but I didn't see anybody running down to the microphone.

Okay. Our next case tonight is ZC-26-00009V-26-015 and this takes place in Manhattan Township. Also, uh Margaret Kenny is our presenter. Good evening, ma'am. Good evening.

Let me just get set up here. Okay, so we have zoning case CC26009. Like you said, it takes place in Manhattan Township. The property is 23706 South Schoolhouse Road. The property owners are Bob and Kimberly Wit, and the attorney is Gary Davidson of Castle Law, and his colleague Heather Glair of Castle Law is also here tonight. Um, the applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the accessory building area permitted um in on the property to build an addition onto the existing pole building. So I have the aerial on the screen. Um the property is located on the west side of schoolhouse road. It's approximately um00 ft from West Baker Road. So it is north of Baker. It is 2 and a half acre parcel with 180 ft of frontage and was designated as parcel 11 in a recorded survey back in 1989 and the county allowed for this division at that time. The property includes a single family residence, an attached garage, an ingground swimming pool, and a detached poleb barn. Um, per the township assessor records, the house was built in 1992, and the a garage that's attached is 587 square ft and the pole barn is 1440 square ft. Um the paved driveway goes east towards schoolhouse road and then the health department records show that the septic field is located in the front yard. The property is zoned E2 and you can see by the zoning map on the screen that the area is mixed with A2 which is agricultural residential, E2 rural or estate residential, A1 agricultural, and R1 which is a single family uh

residential district um in the area. The R1's actually to the southeast of it. The A1 does not limit accessory building area, while the A2 and E2 do. Um the limit is 3,000 square ft, but it does not include animal confinement structures in the limit. The R1 district does uh include animal confinement in their accessory building area calculation, and their limit is 1,800 square ft². So, the applicant is requesting um the variance to exceed the 3,000 foot limit, and the proposed addition would comply with the E2 uh district setback standard. So 20 ft from the southern property line. So I have the site plan on the screen and you can see the area outlined in red behind the existing pole barn is the proposed 48x 36q ft addition. Um it would increase the total accessory building area on site to 3755t which is the request before you. Um a building permit is required to be obtained before this addition can be built and the structure would be required to comply with um other lot and building standards of the zoning ordinance. So building height limited to no taller than um or 25 ft and then the proposed addition like I mentioned is m uh meeting the proposed setback of 20 ft. So, looking at just some photos of the subject property. This is looking east at the subject property. This is looking at that attached garage. Looking at the existing pole barn. This is looking north at the existing pole barn at the lean 2. and then at the proposed location for that addition. And then this is looking from basically the proposed location towards the

neighbor to the south. This is looking um south from the backyard of the property. This is looking north from the backyard of the property towards the other neighbor to the north. and then looking north and south along Schoolhouse Road and then looking across Schoolhouse Road at the two properties. Um the image on the right that property actually was mentioned in the staff report that does exceed um the accessory building area permitted for the area but I believe it is zoned A1 which would be permitted. So the criteria by which uh variance standards are evaluated are shown on the screen. Um, and an in-depth analysis is provided in staff's report that's available online. But to briefly summarize, staff did not find a hardship. The property does not have physical constraints that require the applicant to exceed the permitted 3,000 square ft. It is merely a personal preference to exceed the limit. And staff finds that the variance, if it is approved, would likely not alter the rural residential character of the area. Like I mentioned, we had various zoning districts um A1 A2 that um have differences in what constitutes accessory building area. The A1 does not have limits and the E2 A1 would not uh restrict the size of an animal confinement building. So you could have large stables on the property which would exceed um 3,000 square ft if they included you know other pole buildings and garages on the property. Um with that being said um staff did fail to create a um memo for you guys. So I quickly just threw these on the screen for you. The applicant did provide three emails of support um moments after staff completed their staff report and it was

not included. But um the addresses um with these three um variance requests are um not having an issue with the request. And um one property is not exactly adjacent, but they are Kitty Corner. Um and the two others are one is directly east of the subject property and one is directly north of the subject property. With that being said, um the NRI um did not identify any potential impact to the affected land and staff is recommending denial of the variance request and I'm happy to answer any questions.

You said you had support letters. Did you have any uh letters against? I did not receive any letters of objection. Okay. Any additional building to the They're attaching it to the back of the existing pull barn. Any other questions for anybody? Thank you, Margaret.

Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case here? There are not. May I hear from the principles? Uh I presume Mr. Davidson and I don't know if one of the come and go. Good evening. Good evening.

My name is Heather Glacker. I'm an attorney over at Castle Law. Uh our address is 2 North 129th Infantry Avenue in Joliet. Um this case is pretty straightforward. Um, we do have a lot of neighborhood support. Uh, no denials on or no, um, denials on record. Um, they weren't included in your agenda. As Margaret mentioned, um, the commission did approve something very similar. Um, more recently as in March 2026, uh, we do have the district 2 will county board member Julia uh, Judy Ogala's support. Um, she does live close to the property. um she I believe had an opportunity to visit the property. Um she is in support of granting this variance as well. She understands the the layout of the area over there. Um as I mentioned, this commission did recently um support a um a staff uh deny or I'm sorry, they approved a um a staff recommendation that was going to be denied uh in March 2026. It was a similar variance in New Lennox which allowed a property owner to exceed the maximum accessory unit um area despite staff recommendation of denial. Um this commission recognized that the size and characteristics of the property justified that additional accessory space. That same principle applies here tonight. Um the subject property is about 2 and 1/2 acres and presents the same type of practical considerations that warrant that flexibility. Um, tonight we're asking for your support and approval of this variance request. My client and I are both here to answer any questions you may have.

The immediate question is, what's the extra storage for? What's the extra storage for? Yes. Let me just verify real quick. Sure. It's for an RV that is otherwise being stored outside which according to the staff report picture looks like it's almost the exact same length of the building which would make it very hard to get in the building in its current shape. That is correct.

And we have just so you understand before you get involved. Uh we've got height restrictions on garages and we've got door opening restrictions on garages. You'd have to get special uses for both of them to get a a tall RV in. Just to let you know. Thank you. Okay. Did I hear you say Judo Galla is close to this location? Well, she's in the in the district. She's the district rep, so closer. She's not in the neighborhood. Yes.

Yeah. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, in case ZC-26-00009/V-26-015, I would request a motion.

Mr. Chairman, motion for approval for case number ZZ-26-009 B-2615. Variance for maximum accessory building area from 3,00 ft to 3,755 ft. I have a motion second. I have a roll. Kimberly Mitchell. Yes. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bettton. Yes. Lewis Navaret. Yes. Karen Warick. And Chairman Houston.

Yes. passes. Our next case tonight is ZC-25-137M-25-024 and V-25-378 and V-26-00008 and V-26-00009 and V-2610. Uh, and this is in Lockport Township. Um ah replacing Miss Krosinski for tonight. Uh yes I am. So like you state this is in Lockport Township. The owner is Victor Luell Huerta. Uh the applicant is requesting a map amendment uh from R4 to C3 uh and variances to allow expansion of their existing storage and rental business. Uh so here is the lot outlined in red. Uh the property is improved with a 484 square f foot garage built in 1909. The garage encroaches on the streetyard set back along Grand View Place. A variance is being requested to bring uh the structure into compliance. Now looking at the PL survey of the property, the subject property is currently zoned R4 and is 990. Yeah. 9,939 square feet uh in area with 108 feet of lot frontage along State Street and uh so sorry I lost my place. Um yeah and 112.5 ft uh frontage along Grand View Place. Uh if a map amendment is uh is

approved, the applicant intends to consolidate uh the subject parcel uh with the parcel located to the south. Combine the lot area. Uh total will be 20,858 square ft, which will comply with C3 district's minimum lot area and frontage requirements. Now looking uh at the site plan uh the applicant is proposing uh to screen the use by installing a privacy fence around the property. Uh fences are permitted up to 4 feet in height within the streets uh setback. The applicant is requesting variances to allow the fence to be up to 7 feet in height along Grand View Place and up to six feet in height along State Street. Um and now looking at the physical characteristics of the property. This is view looking at the subject property from State Street. Uh this is a view looking west across from the sub uh across from the subject property from State Street. View looking at the west at the subject property from Grand View Place. Uh this is view facing south along Grand View Place. Uh view looking east across from the subject property along Grand View Place. Uh this is view looking south uh looking north along Grand View Place. uh view looking at existing uh garage encroaching on the streetyard setback and this view looking at the shed encroaching on the streetyard setback located on the northern adjacent parcel. Um now looking at the map amendment criteria. So the yellow circle uh indicates a half mile radius within a half mile radius of the subject property. uses include residential, commercial, industrial, vacant, and recreational within the city of Lockport, city of Crest Hills, city of Juliet, and unincorporated uh Will County. A staff found the predominant use in this area is residential. When looking at uh unincorporated Will County, the zoning

districts found a half mile radius are A1, R4, R5, C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, and I2. Within the city of Lockport, the zoning districts found is single family residential. Within the city of Crest Hill, the zoning district found as general manufacturing district. Within the city is Joliet. The zoning districts are general industrial district, general business district, single family residential, uh low density multifamily residential, one and two family residential district district, uh light industrial districts, uh and interotal terminal, uh transportation equipment. is staff's professional opinion that the proposed zoning change would be compatible with existing zoning districts in the general area of the subject property. Um and then the subject properties currently zoned R4. The applicant intends to operate a business from the property. Commercial commercial uses are not permitted in R4 zoning district. If the map amendment is denied, only uses permitted in R4 zoning district would be permitted. established professional opinion uh that the trend of development in there is towards commercial development. Looking at historical zoning maps, the development on the west side of state street has been towards industrial and commercial developments. Uh throughout the years, the development on the east side of state street has been moving towards commercial developments. Uh the request is not in conformance to the official adopted Will County Land Resource Management Plan. The Fairmont plan adopted in 2012 recommends the land use uh for the subject property as residential. However, the subject uh site is identified within the urban communities development form where neighborhood commercial is included as a permitted use within the urban communities development form. Now looking at the variance standards uh so regarding the variances for street step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set stepback staff finds

the play of the owner is due to unique circumstances. If a map amendment is approved, the subject lot would be a small C3 zone lot. Due the setbacks of the C3 zoning districts and the size of lot, it would be impossible to construct a building on the site without approval of variances. Regarding uh the variance of fence height, staff finds the play owner is also due to unique circumstances. The property has frontage along two public roads. Fences are permitted up up to eight height or eight feet in height in the side and rear yards and commercial industrial zoning districts. However, even though the property is not receiving access from state straight state street, uh the the fence height requirements within the street setback uh still applies. Fences are permitted up to 4 feet in height within streetyard setbacks. Uh anything not available uh for rent uh for the business is required to be screened from all public rideways and adjoining lots. Uh staff finds the variances if granted would likely not alter the essential character of the area. looking at existing development along State Street. The pro uh the proposed development is consistent with the character of the locality. Also, three nearby properties have received approval for variances for step uh fence height. Staff finds a particular physical uh surroundings result in the hardship. As mentioned before, the current dimensions of the parcel would make it impossible to construct a building while meeting required C3 uh zoning setbacks. The for the fence height, the subject property uh is on a hill uh with the lowest point being along State Street and the highest point being along Grand View Place. Due to the elevation, this requires the fence to be higher along State Street for the property be thoroughly screened from the rideway um and adjacent properties. Uh staff finds uh that granting of variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or unduly injurous uh to other properties uh in the neighborhood. uh staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with existing

business and uses along State Street. Additionally, um the development will have to receive approval of a site development permit and building permit to allow for construction on the property during the building permit. Approval from the Will County Health Department, fire department, road district, engineering building and zoning is required to verify that development will not be detrimental. Um, we did not receive any comments from any of the agencies that were notified. Uh, and so staff is recommending approval of the map amendment and the variances and I can answer any questions. I have no questions. Anyone have any questions? The commercial properties on the properties. Do you know?

Uh, that I don't remember off the top of my head. I know in the staff report or something like I believe there's some like auto repair. Uh and then well there is this the current like rental business which is uh for like now I'm draw for like uh bouncy houses. Um the other ones I don't remember. They're in listed in the staff report I believe. I don't remember all of them on the top of my head.

That's all. No more questions. Thank you sir. Are there any concerns citizens or objectors to this case here tonight? There are not. Okay. And may I have a motion on case 25-137 at all? Mr. Chairman regards case number ZC-25-137 map amendment number M-25-024 move for the approval of map amendment from R4 to C3.

I have a motion to second. May I have roll call? Kimberly Mitchell. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bentonhausen. Yes. Lewis Navarat. Yes. Karen Warick. and chairman Hugh Stippen. Yes. Same case number ZC-25-137, variance number 25-378. Move for the variance for streetyard setback Grand View Place from 100 ft to 1.05 ft. See a second. Roll call, please. Kimberly Mitchell, John Kefner, yes. Roger Bettton, yes. Lewis Navarat, yes. Karen Warick and Chairman Hugh Stepping.

Yes. And again, same case number ZC-25-137, variance number V-26-008. Move the approval of a variance from Streetyard Setback State Street from 100 ft to 68 ft. Kimberly Mitchell. John Kefner, yes. Roger Bettton, yes. Lewis Navaret, yes. Karen Warick and Chairman Hugh Stippen. Yes. Same case number ZC-25-137. Variance number V-26-00009. Move for the the approval of variance for fence height within street setback Grand View Place from 4T to 7 ft. Kimberly Mitchell. Yes. John Kefner.

Yes. Roger Bettton. Yes. Lewis Navaret. Yes. Karen Warick. And Chairman Hugh Stipp. Yes. Finally, same case number ZC-25-137. Variance number V-26-010. Move for the approval of a variance or fence height within street setback State Street from 4T to 6 feet. Kimberly Mitchell. Yes. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bettton. Yes. Lewis Navaret. Karen Warick. Yes. And chairman Hugh Stippen.

Yes. Our next conate case tonight is appeal of administrative decision a a-26-00001 that will be presented by Brian Radner.

Good evening sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening and good evening to the commission members. Um, as you stated there, we have an appeal of administrative decision. Uh, AA-26-01 is for Acasta Enterprises Ltd, Rosalo Acasta 100% interest represented by Stephanie Padilla. This is located at 26228 West Baltz Road, Juliet, Illinois is the official address. 60431. Um, in August 17th, 2023, the Will County Board approved a special use permit for rural events and a special use permit for ancillary liquor in conjunction with agra tourism uh for this property. It was about maybe about a year and a half later, the applicant applied for a site development permit and then shortly after that a building permit in order to construct the wedding barn for this property. Now, both permits are nearly complete. Um, but during this process, the applicant realized they would need an extension and on June 30th, 2025, the applicant applied for an SUP extension. uh that was granted by the Will County Board, but it did expire on February 13th, 2026. Now, the zoning code allows up to four extensions of the special use permit. Each one is valid for 180 days. Uh the applicant acknowledged that they had missed the deadline uh to submit the second special use permit extension and that did come into our office on February 25th, 2026. And per the zoning ordinance, the zoning administrator rejected that application because it was after the February 13th date. Um, let me jump over to the

I'm going to share the appeal with you. See, do I have the right one open? So, um, on your screen here is the appeal presentation that I put together. This is, uh, it's going to come up slowly, but the property there that's outlined in yellow is the, uh, property where the wedding venue was approved for, uh, agurism purposes, including ancillary liquor. You can see right now it is on the county line road there. uh and the green area is agricultural zoning. Now again here um because the zoning ordinance explicitly states that the extension request has to be submitted during the uh while the extension is valid and not after. That is why the zoning administrator rejected the application. Now the applicant here has the right to appeal that decision to the planning and zoning commission. uh in to basically state that the staff was in error and the staff should accept the application. So that's why this is before you tonight. We rejected it. They'd like the sta uh the planning and zoning commission to decide if we made the correct decision uh and if you want to overrule staff's decision. Now the implication of not uh siding with the applicant would mean that they'd have to go through the special use permit process again. And of course there's a cost associated with that with the special use permits and time. So uh that would be the implication of that if it would be denied. Um so tonight um before you is this decision and depending on how you vote, it's written that uh the administrative decision being appealed is an error and the zoning administrator is hereby required to accept this

special use permit. So, if you agreed that it was an error, you would vote yes and say yes, it was an error. Uh, if you vote no, uh, then that would mean the applicant would have to apply for the special use permit again, both of them. So, do you have any questions about the appeal? So, there haven't been any other issues with this particular special use.

There's been no issues. You know, unfortunately, some of these projects just take a while to work through with uh building code compliance and site development. I mean, I've been working with the applicant. I know other people in our office have been working with the applicant to get this app uh get these uh get this project going. And unfortunately, I think it was the architect maybe that missed the deadline and forgot to submit the request. And that's why we are here. It's really a difference of about 12 days.

Yeah. And you know, this is one of those situations where staff was certainly did the right made the right decision, but it's kind of a technicality kind of thing where do we want to override that to personally myself, I I would vote to override. It's just it's painful to say that staff made a mistake when they really didn't make a mistake and that's the way we got it worded. It's understandable. So that's why, you know, they have the opportunity to make that appeal in their case to you. So that's why we're here. And then if this uh ruling was made that the administrator errored, we go back to the 21326 date.

So So what would happen if you did say that staff was in the error? We would accept the SUP extension. Uh that extension still has to go to the county board for approval. So the land use and develop committee would see it. Uh they would have an opportunity to vote on it whether or not they want to extend it. And if uh they did decide to extend it, it would go back to the when it initially it expired and they would get the six months from that date. I really believe that we're pretty close on getting this one issued. So I, you know, hopefully, you know, if it did work out for the applicant, they, you know, this second extension would probably take care of whatever needs to be done to implement those special uses. One has to wonder maybe we could just tweak the special use extensions to go to fit a you said four of them. They're eligible for four up to 180 days. Just

that's correct. Give them two at a full year or something. I I don't know. This isn't the only case where people are coming to us and saying they just didn't have enough time. Correct. It happens frequently. I've got another appeal right after this one. So other questions about the case the chairman has left me a charge. So would be any discussion amongst ourselves? I guess we all pretty much know what's going to happen. But I would need a motion.

I'll make a motion. Administrative decision being appealed is an error. zoning administrator is hereby required to accept the special use permit extension application for the property commonly known as 262280 West Falls Road Juliet 60431 and identified by permanent number 05- 06- 07 A300-004-0000 provided all other application requirements ments are satisfied. Second

motion by Mitchell, second by War Kimberly Mitchell. So know that error. Okay, thank you. John Kefner, yes. Roger Bettton, yes. Lewis Navarat, yes. Karen Warick, passes four to one. It's quite different with missing vote forward onto the county then. Correct.

Uh so now what'll happen is with them winning the decision tonight, we will process the SUP extension and that will go before the will county board. So we'll get working on that tomorrow and most likely we could probably get that on the agenda for May I think. So,

might be able to ask for comments from the public. Yeah. And uh I guess that was a learning moment, too. I might want to waited till we had our one vote back from the restroom because would we have needed four yes votes or was it a simple majority on a vote like that? I think it's simple majority. Simple. Okay. So, three to two still would have been a victory. Is that right, Tom? I could have left the applicant out drive there, though. It's somebody in the restroom. Okay. You have another one to do. Correct. Are you ready for me to proceed? I am not going to get any more ready than

All right. All right. So, um this is um so this is an administrative appeal of decision again. um a a-26 um-00002. Uh this one's uh there's some similarities here. The owner is the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. They are represented by agent Dave Nelson of Ducer LLC. Um maybe you recall uh Dave being before this commission a few years ago and then maybe 10 years ago asking for something similar. So he has been here before um uh for his zoning use. Um the property is zoned I1. It has a special use permit for manufacturing industrial services general. Um it's roughly 40 acres in size. And on July 19th, 2023, the Will County Board approved the special use permit for manufacturing industrial services. Um on May 10th, the applicant applied for the site development permit. So that's been in progress. The development of this property has been held up due to required permitting from outside agencies, so offices that are out of our control in the land use department. Um on May 18th, 2025, the applicant applied for an special use permit extension and that extension was granted by the county board which took the effective period until January 15th, 2026. Um Dave, Mr. Nelson then did submit a second request on February 25th, 2026, which is about a month and a half after. Uh when speaking with Mr. Nelson, he indicated that the reason why he thought he was still within the effective period is that by the time his request had gotten to the will county board for

approval of the special use permit extension the first time it was he was going six months from when that meeting date was in his mind and that's what he wrote in his calendar. So that's why when he had submitted it to his office it was actually after it had expired. So, you know, it's the same type of situation that we talked about um in the application before. They're just a little bit late with their filing of the extension request. Um and let me jump over to the presentation for this one. I think I'm Oh, no. I am showing the right one. Good. Uh just to refresh your memory, this is going to go slow. There we go. The property is generally highlighted in blue. It's mainly on the west bank of the sanitarian ship canal promot port portion and the the route seven high brbridge goes o or the whatever it's called I think is it route seven I'm forget I think that's right the high bridge to lockport goes over the property and kind of splits it there's an old green elevator on the south side um there's I believe some structures on the north side of the property too this is the zoning map of the property um you do have lockport for to the east and then you have Romeoville to the west and Joliet would be to the south. So again, same situation. Uh it would was after the period, so that's why staff denied it. Um Mr. Nelson would had submitted this request and wanted the planning and zoning cons uh commission's consideration into directing staff to accept this application extension and allow him to have the opportunity to submit that and have it go to the county board for approval. I know Mr. Nelson is here, so if you did want to hear from him, he is uh in the audience tonight.

Did you have any questions for me about this request? Do not. All right. Um, again, if you want to overrule staff's decision, you would it the way it's phrased is that we were in heir. So, a yes vote would mean that we would accept the special use permit extension. A no vote would mean we would not, and that uh he would have to appeal that decision if he lost his vote here tonight. All right.

Thank you. Um, I would like to have a motion for an administrative decision being appealed and error. Mr. Chairman, do we want to answer? Well, what's that? I I'll make the motion unless Mr. Nelson was it the name

wants to speak. Dave shaking his head. He's shaking his head. No, Dave Nelson. Yes. My memory is not great, so I got to use a cheat sheet. Okay, Mr. Chairman on AAD26-00002 motion that the administrative decision being appealed is an air and the zoning administrator is hereby required to accept the special use permit extension application for the property commonly known as 18,500 West 9th Street in Romeoville, Illinois 60446 and identified by permanent index numbers 11-04-22-400-001-0000 11. Another number 11-04-22-200-007-0000 and 11-04-22-200-006-0000 and 11-04-22-91-0000-0000 and 11-04 4-22-200-015-0000 provided all the other application requirements are satisfied.

I have a motion second. Kimberly Mitchell because in fact the decision being appealed is not but I think that something needs to be changed about the way these cases are worded. I mean there needs to be another way that we can approve but not say that staff is wrong and something has to change about voting no. John Kefner yes. Roger Bentonhausen yes. Lewis Navarat, yes.

Karen Warick and Chairman Hugh Stippen. Yes. Approved. So you wanted to say something like the administration be appealed as an error, but due to extenduating circumstances something. Yeah. I mean I don't read that statement and then what because that's what we're doing. I I I would put it under the book where it just annoys me that every single vote we have to vote in the affirmative. You know, it it just seems weird. If even if we've discussed it, like all of us say we're going to vote no on something, we still have to say I'm in fa make a motion to approve it. So there's probably some legal ease that it gets very confusing if you don't do it that way.

Okay, that's we're not going to change it. Let's let's not confuse things. Our next case tonight is Vext-26-00001, VEXC-25-00002 and zoning K Z-24-045 and variances V-24188 and V-24208 and obviously Margarite Kenny is going to be our presenter.

Yes. So this case and actually the request um for the next one are in very similar locations. Um this particular variance extension is requesting two extensions for um the variances related to the number of required mowings and the maximum ground cover plant height. Um this applicant is intending to construct a solar or commercial solar energy facility at 2816 Chicago Street in Juliet. Um, this property is just west of the Chicago Speedway. Um, so it's generally located north of Schwitzer Road, east of Chicago Street, and west, like I mentioned, of the Speedway. Um, October 1st of 2024, this commission approved both variances. Um, the applicant has applied for two permits associated with the two separate commercial solar facilities planned at the site, which is Moonshaw Renewables and Summerstone Renewables. um the special use associated with this property has another year to legally establish this use. However, as mentioned with variances, they only are valid for one year unless they are established. And if you remember this request, the first variance extension request was before you last fall. Um where what happened was last spring the farmer planted the field before the solar facility can go in and establish a ground cover section. Um, so the applicant requested the variance extension which expired March 30th. Um, since the applicant was not able to plant a section of the field to establish the native pollinators quite yet, um, the applicant is here for their second and final extension, um, you would have to vote for each variance extension. So, two separate votes would be required for this request. Um, but staff is recommending approval of the second extension for each of

these. And I do apologize, the PowerPoint's a little inaccurate, but that's the gist of this request. Any questions?

I the only question I have is that uh does this mean that they are going to start now? the the plan is if this extension goes through um what we've allowed solar facilities to do in the past is as soon as um they are able to they'll plant either a section or the full field with a cover crop or um if they're ready to do their native pollinators, they'll plant that and then as soon as their permit is issued for the um construction of the solar facility, they'll go in and actually build that side. But we allow them to go ahead and plant the plantings. um they'll sign an affidavit and show the location of where they're planting the seed mix as well as adhere to the requirements of the solar ordinance in terms of the maintenance of that planting once it's you know established that they mow it that they take care of it to make sure that weeds don't grow amongst what they planted and um they kind of get the head jump with ground cover management practices as well. Okay. Are there any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case here? There are not. Okay. Um, is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Would you like us to just go ahead and take a vote? There's no concern citizens, but would you like to come up and speak?

A lot of solar matters. Okay. It's on VX VXT-26-00001 at all. I would like a motion. Mr. Chairman, case number ZC-24-045. Move for the approval of various extension-26-001. Second. I have a motion and I have a second. May I have a roll call? Okay. So,

the first variance is for the required mowing that we're taking. Kimberly Mitchell, yes. John Kefner, yes. Roger Bettton, yes. Lewis Navarat, yes. Karen Warick, and Chairman Hugh Stippen, yes. Same case number ZC-24-045. Variance extension number- 255-002. Move for approval of Excuse me. So we we now have to vote for that. We're still on VEX 260001. Right. So the first vote was on variance 188 and the second vote is on variance 208.

Correct. So we're on 208 which is the um height 13 in to 36. I'm sorry. Motion Roger Bettinous second. I'd let you step into it. I I second that. Kimberly Mitchell. Yes. John Kefner. Yes. Roger Bettinhousen. Yes. Lewis Navarat. Yes. Karen Warick. And Chairman Huippen. Yes. Approved. To me. I couldn't figure out how to do it. I just sat here. And so we've already heard the case, but Right. I go.

So, as Margarite said, it was kind of like a a double. Now, we're on a pace extension VX Summer Stone and Runners Moon Show. I think I've got it figured out now. So, Mr. chairman for ZC24-046 vex 26-002 a motion for extension for variance 24-189 which is the number mot Kimberly Mitchell John Kefner yes Roger Bettinhousen Lewis Navarat Karen Warick and Chairman Hugh Stippen

yes for the same VEX 26-0 02 that's associated with ZC 24-046 approval of variance 24 extension of variance 24-19

Kimberly Mitchell John Kefner yes Roger Bettinhousen yes Lewis Navaret Karen Warick and Chairman Houston yes Yes.

Our next case is VE XT26. No, I got that. Oh, yeah. There are companion pieces. Yeah. Okay. I thought we had to do one for each of the the souls and the So, all the variances have been voted on. Okay. Wonderful. Then that puts us backward to the end of the meeting and we have Excuse me. Have we uh any announcements or anything from staff or anybody?

Go ahead.

Mr. Risner. I was quickly going to say um your comments tonight about the effective period with the special use permit are noted um somewhat related to that. We're going to be talking with the land use and development committee soon and then after that there'll have to be a public hearing on some text changes pertaining to solar regulations. And within the solar regulations that the state has handed out, there's also stuff in there about uh how long a special use permit is valid for and information about extension periods. So if we're in that section of the code, we may end up having to make some other changes, too. So this conversation that we had tonight will be noted, and I'll share that with the land use and development committee. I know we also have a board member in the room tonight who's probably heard these comments as well. Uh, so I I just want to let you know I'll do that.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, maybe now would be a good time to throw something else out. It's some of our cases, the public has complained that they're not getting notified early enough before cases. It's right right now what the legal notice has to be three weeks prior and the notification 3 weeks. So, we have the zoning ordinance is specific with the dates of notification. It's uh no later than 15 day or yeah, no later than 15 days notice. No sooner than 30 days. So you got to have between 30 and 15 is when it needs to be postmarked and sent to the applicant.

Um same thing, you know, the paper falls in that same time frame that it's getting posted within that time frame. And the sign also has to be up on the property with no sooner than 30, no later than 15 days before. So that's the standard in the code. That's what we do. Um, sometimes people refuse delivery of mail. Sometimes people's address on file with the county is at a different location because the propertyy's in trust and maybe they didn't get it. So there are things that do occur. We use the county system for the address on file for the property where the tax bill is sent.

I think most people are probably getting it, but they do want it. They're throwing it out as a hell, Mary. The other one that really annoys me is the number of people that live a quarter half mile away and complain that they didn't get notified. We need to do a better job of letting people know before them that unless you are absolutely abudding it, you weren't legally required to be notified. But as you can imagine from some of the later cases, I've been ripped on pretty bad. But does the bunny property mean if it's farmland, you're on 50 acres and the house is on the west side of the 50 acres? Yeah. Yeah. Anybody that touches anybody that's across the street, even if

Yeah. Even if it's like kitty corner, as some people say, we get them all. And if the owner of the property in question who's making the request also owns the adjacent property, then they got to go one more property. They got to keep going till they don't own. So, thank you. Yeah. And like bad elections where people start stealing signs, anybody who wants to disrupt this, all they have to do is start stealing the signs out of the line and then people would say, "We weren't notified. Any other announcements?

Yes, please. Is as fast as you're waiting.

Well, I I think the other caveat there is it's return receipt. So if you're not home, you got to go back to the post office. So there's been a lot of times I'm like, I'll get to it in four or five days. So that really can slow it down, too. I've even gone to the post office and they say, "Oh, we don't have it. The mail carrier must have it." So then you got to wait till the next day. The return receipt is probably a bigger problem than the slow mail. Not really. Our staff checks all those return receipts prior to coming to planning and zoning and they're always there. But I'm what I'm saying is the problem for the person to pick up. Well,

yeah. So, but I still think it's ticky tack to say I didn't get noticed in time, especially in some the cases that we've had, the whole public knew. So, I would also like to inform the commission that um Jennifer may or may not come to to many of our meetings because she has accepted a new position within the department. So, she's done a good for you. Are you replacing Kelly or is have you already replaced Kelly or No, we're to interview soon for that position. Okay. So, it may go wrong, isn't it?

Well, I guess we shouldn't need executive session for this, but uh I've been asked repeatedly to comment on the reason for my vote in cases, and I'm pretty sure legal counsel says I really shouldn't do that. No. Okay. But I have been cornered a few times. I've had to just say in cases, this is what I tend to do. I try to be specific because I'm not supposed to talk about I just found out we're already in litigation over this issue. It's just just just hot off the presses. So, uh that it's let's just not comment at all on this.

Don't forget, John, we're an advisory board. It's county board's responsibility to make the vote. All we do is give them advice just like we give land use gives them advice and they can accept it or deny it and go on and vote the way they want to. And and and and I was thinking about it even after talking with Chris Weise before this. It's just inappropriate for me to make any comments knowing that there's another chain yet to be heard in the cases.

Well, people say, "Well, you should recuse yourself if you have dealings with people." I've been here long enough and I've been involved so much that I have dealings with about 25 to 3,000 people. Am I going to recuse myself every time one of them comes up? No. I'm going to vote the case on the merits and on what we're supposed to do. Now, if I had a financial dealings with the people, that would be different, but my my dealings are usually noninancial. So

I would like there to be some kind of disclaimer out there that explains to the general public that the role of the planning zoning commission is different parameters than maybe the county board. We have to look at things differently. That's something that that every training session I've done is like county board looks at tax implementations and other things in zoning cases where we are solely supposed to apply the policy that's already in place. You can tell he never had a session with Mary Kato, right? I've only heard about these veant about us voting. Yeah.

Well, our next scheduled meeting will be April 21st. And I'd like a motion for adjournment. Motion to adjurnn. Second. A motion. Second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is terrible. Now I got time to go.