Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music]

Yes, which is of course understandable but not action of the board. So, uh yeah, it's up to the board quite frankly whether you want to proceed without the applicant. Um, I'd like to give the option for there to be a discussion for whether or not we want to move forward to this or offer the applicant the opportunity to continue with the next meeting. We can discuss it amongst the three of you and and uh and make a determination as to what you'd like to do. Um, I I I would go for going ahead with it, moving forward. Go ahead. Good. All right. We're going to get it to move forward. That's good. All right then. I'm sorry. You could carry on. Like to open the floor for public comment. And the applicant is no longer here. Want to open discussion amongst the board members. Make sure to be on the mic. We got to be on the mic. Everybody and obviously uh and I'm sorry we it's been since we haven't met since November. Um, city attorney Jack Morgans. Just a reminder to um in in delivering the case, make sure that those six factors that the land development code requires be met are considered with whatever motion the board members wish to make and clearly state so on the record. They're contained in your staff report, which you should all have. And yeah, what I would say is it it you know, it appears the conditions are met and this is an improvement of of what's currently on that property and it it fits within the the findings of staff and agreed. Same. All right. Do we have a motion for an approval? Motion to approve. And and in that motion, is it based on the six factors

being met in the affirmative under the land development code, Mr. Hood? Yes, sir. Okay, then. So, the motion is made based on that finding. So, the motion's made based on the six factors. And do we have a second? A second. All right. Vote for approval. Say I. I. I. I. Okay. Passes 300. All right. Thank you very much. Moving on to case number BOA25002- 7126 Street [Music] just to confirm before we move forward we want to offer them yeah the applicant will have the same option afforded to the applicant I think Mr. chairman correct the applicant is here for this yeah wonder so uh yeah I don't mean to take away that Mr. Chairman, you can you can provide that to the applicant that option and seek it whether he wishes to go forward or we would like to provide you that we usually do have between five to seven members and tonight we are three. So for your just to clarify the board a full board is five members uh and two alternates seven individuals and uh uh we have a quorum tonight with three but we don't have a a five member board here and the land development code in order to approve a variance would require three affirmative votes. So you have three folks here tonight, but you know in the event that uh you know not it's not unanimous tonight there would be the a chance that you know you may have a better odds as it were with more attendees um at least mathematically. So, historically, the board has always given the applicant the option as to whether to proceed on and carry on with the three attendee quorum uh tonight or to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting and hope for a full board. So, it's up to the applicant, but if you'd come to the microphone to

advise what your decision is for public comment, state your name and your address and and what you'd like to do. Yes, I would like to move forward. I'm sorry. Um, good evening board. My name is Jonathan Dulo. Um, I purchased the property over at 7126 Street uh from my grandfather three years ago uh with a dream to build a home there eventually. Finally, uh, April of this year, I applied for my building permit. Um, every department approved my plan besides zoning. They reached out and said I was missing 1,250 ft. So, they recommended me doing a lot area variance. Um, so that's what I ended up doing. Uh, because I did not create the hardship. So that's that's all I'm going with. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, good evening again, Stephanie Straer, senior planner. So, tonight I am presenting BOA2-00002 for 7126 Street. So for background, this is zoned R2, single and two family dwellings. The zoning district minimum requirements for minimum site area are 7 7,500 in ft for single family dwellings. The existing conditions, the site area is 6,250 ft. So the applicant submitted a building permit in April 2025 for a single family dwelling which was disapproved by our department. The lot is non-conforming to the R2 development regulations. So they are required to get board of adjustment approval because their site area does not meet. Research determined that the lot split was done by warranty deed in 2022 which was provided in your staff reports. The applicant was the grantee on the warranty deed. Further staff did reach out to Ocola County Property Appraisers

office who confirmed the slit was done by the warranty deed. We did review of the legal descriptions. The deed in 2012, which is provided to the original granter of this warranty deed, stated lots 13 through 16 block 8. The warranty deed in 2022 states the east 62.5 ft of lots 13- 16 block 8. So it was done through that warranty deed where the applicant was the grantee. the city's formal lots process was not completed, which would have verified both lots met all development regulations for the R2 zoning. Again, staff did go back and looked at both parcels, the apparent parcel and the new 612 or 7126 street and confirmed no lot was done for either of those lots. So this is the graphic depiction of the zoning map and the graphic depiction of the future land use map for medium density residential. And this is the survey again to fit on the screen. It is sideways but that is where the single family proposed that is also in your stop report at a better angle for you um to show it does meet the setbacks. However, again the lot split was completed through that warranty deed. So the hardship was not done by the state. So with that, staff is recommending denial of the requested variance from the land development code, chapter 3, article 5, section 3.5.2.C to build a single family home on a 6,250T lot. And the board of adjustment shall make the findings that the requirements of the section 1.3.2.D.2 2.E have or have not been demonstrated by the applicant and again requesting denial of BOA25-00002 findings of fact. The applicant and staff are available for any questions. I have a question for you, Mr. Trader. Yes.

If there was a potential denial, what would be the next availability for this land use? It's potentially they would have to potentially sell to any neighboring lots so that they may combined and have it for there and then in the future if someone were to in either of those neighboring lots could demo it. There's different potentials but it would have to be combined in order to meet the current standards with another lot. And are there lots neighboring it that are currently open? No, there are two I'll go back to the area. There are two single family homes on either side. So, prospectively, if this was denied, there'd be a lot that would have to be adjoined with by one of those neighboring properties. Correct. Correct. Okay. Or rejoined in this case because it was split from the property closer to Illinois. Understood. Thank you, Mr. I I I have a question for you regarding the the non you know the lot being nonconforming to this standard the current land development standard. Are are there any other nonconforming lots like within view of this current non-conforming lot. Yeah, I think that that I apologize for interjection, but in board of adjustment is to not take into account, if you will similar properties uh that are non-conforming or that are conforming other areas. It's supposed to just solely focus on the code as it relates to the application. I understand the relevance of the thought process, but I think that's why the code is structured as it is to discount those considerations and in guiding the board to a decision.

Thank you. Yes, sir. No. Okay. I'd like to open up the discussion with the board. Uh Mr. Chim, would the um would the applicant do you may give the applicant a chance to Absolutely. Like to give um the opportunity for public comment. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jonathan. Thank you. I would like to state that in 2022 I did purchase this property um from my grandfather. Um so I did not create the hardship. I see that they said that I was the grantee. Yes. But I did not submit the lot split or anything like that. I purchased it. Um, another thing is is there's actually is a couple properties only three blocks from me that did that weren't lot of records and they built two single uh one single family home on that one back in 2023. The board approved it. Um, it was uh 791 on Third Street. So, which is three streets from me. Um, and they um applied for a lot area variance because they needed 9,200 square ft. They only had 7,500 and also their lot was not um split through the city. So, just something to keep in mind that um that property I actually can bring up this sheet here to show you guys. Um if you if you'd like to put it on the overhead because it's going to become is um I can give the board some history I think on that particular matter because I've been council to the board for some time. Is this the property in

which a member of the city staff was working on the uh on the property? The the the case that's being presented by the applicant as an analogous case to tonight. uh I would just give you by way of background differs to the extent that the city recognized that the city had created a detriment and a hardship to the applicant in that case some time back because of a city uh representative working with the applicant and going forward on the endeavor uh to a point where then uh it was realized that a variance would be needed. And so the hardship was determined by the board of adjustments to have been created by city staff and therefore not by the applicant in that case. Mr. Jonathan, question for you. Yes. Um during the um prior or prior to your purchase, did you reach out to our planning and zoning office to determine its potential for building use? No, I did not. Um I did not reach out to the city. Um at that time in 2022, I was living on that back lot. I had a small property already on that lot. It was a shed that I stayed in all throughout high school. Um so when I received a lot, I just learned what a lot of record was. I had no clue. I thought that was always a vacant lot there. Um, so when I purchased it, no, I thought I could put a house there because it met the road frontage, 62 1/2 foot by 100. So I thought I personally I thought that was enough square feet to build a home there. Okay. Thank you. Any other board members have any questions? Does your grandfather still own one of these properties? My grandfather passed away um less than a year ago. Uh, so no, he does not own

the property anymore. What about any other potential family in the surrounding area? Um, yes, my mother owns that property next door. Okay. So, I would like to try to build a house next to her is the whole reason why I'm doing this. The permit I did pull was a owner builder permit. So, like to build a house for myself. Any further questions? Remember to call for public comment, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to call for public comment. Sorry, we'll close. I'd like to open up a discussion with the board. So, I want to discuss two matters with the board here today. One is that there is a neighboring lot. Thank you. There is a neighboring lot that is technically owned by surrounding family. So the prospective use of that land could still be within the city limits, still within the city variances and codes. And not having the due diligence to reach out to the city to understand the process of building the property is a hardship on the applicant, not on the city. So, I'm trying to weigh and balance the opportunity for someone to build a home and working through their process of learning while they're moving about that and also trying to balance the fact that there is the possibility for this split lot to be rejoined and move forward from there. So, so, so basically pulling, you know, if the lots were together, then a permit with a dwelling with the correct setbacks or technically could could potentially Mr. Streer, could you potentially speak

to that? Yes. So, in the event that they rejoined it, and I'll go back to the aerial just for a better view. in the potential that they rejoined it and let's say they wanted to demolish the home and rebuild as long as it within the setbacks and it meets all of the other required minimums. Yes, it would be a buildable lot. Okay. And and oh, and I apologize. Just one more thing. And in potential they could do a duplex because the zoning is R2. So it's a single N2 family. So they could do a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit. And would the um for that second dwelling unit, would it be a alternative size to the dimensions that were presented today? Yes, it would. So, especially with if they decided to go with the accessory dwelling unit, we have those standards that were adopted by council. Understood. So, it would be a different dimension in that case. uh specifically accessory dwelling units depending on the acreage uh can be 60% of the principal home or a maximum of a certain amount of square feet. Okay. Um have we have any uh surrounding uh commentary from any of the neighbors suggesting that the building of this property would impede you know natural flow of the community? I did not receive any public comment for this case. Okay. So I think I just I do believe in the packet I at least I have something submitted. I think this is in the correct in the right packet from Mr. Hoover. Is that correct? That was for the uh third case. Oh, that we are continuing. I apologize. Yeah, that's the wet. I apologize. So quick question. If um assuming that this gets reabsorbed into one lot and they build an accessory dwelling, um is there anything in the future prohibiting them from doing a lot split

with that new dwelling on it? Yes, there would be limits on that that you can't have an accessory dwelling unit just by itself. Okay. Any further comments? I think the applicant wanted to speak Yes, please. Mr. Jonathan, I would um I would just like to state that I did purchase this lot and I did not split this lot. Um people buy lots all the time that are nonconforming lots. So, I just wanted to make that statement. will build on non-conforming lots and they have there's multiple like you know properties within town within the last two years that have been built on um so that's the statement I would like to make that I purchased this property then did this property gives it to me I worked for this property so that's what I like to say you have a a contract for sale and purchase Um, so I have the warranty and I did my grandfather's house. I worked on his property. I pulled a a roofing permit. I paid for his roof, sweat equity. At the time, I didn't have money to purchase the lot in the back. So, I worked for it for years. And my grandpa, he split the property. He so I could build a house there is what I did. Thank you. And you could even see that I pulled the permits for his house. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Do we have any other further comments? and and and there were there were no comments back from any of the other residents that were advised of the No, we sent out the public notice mailers as required by state statutes and we received no oral or written comments. Any questions that we received, they just wanted to know what the VA was. Many people don't know. So, thank you. Uh question for the board. uh comment I'm pondering is if this gets reabsorbed or not, the purpose of that property is going to be to be a living structure, a dwell a dwelling structure. Thank you. So with that in mind, I'm weighing, you know, what would the quality of life be for the neighborhood and for the applicant if it was reabsorbed versus if it was given the variance approval. Correct. and and my thoughts on it is so if it gets if it gets reabsorbed the principal responsible owner Jonathan is no longer the principal responsible owner correct so um issues with the property but are not Jonathan's right So I just a reminder I it just to help the board I I you know refocusing on the six factors I kind of weighing through them and reviewing because that is your guidepost and you know and whatever decision you make you make uh but those are the six factors that you have to consider those are and it's narrowly

tailored to those six and So there's um the applicant has presented uh feedback to those six and I believe the staff report has as well to to help you with that. Those are the those are the those are the the bullet points I guess. I would just remind you all to conserve. Are we comfortable making a motion? [Music] I'm relooking over. Yes, sir. The Take your time. That's the the items. Yes, please, Mr. Johnson. I just wanted to state that I do pay taxes on this land um every year and um I pay single family home tax for this property for as long as I own it and for the rest of my life that I own this land. I will own this property and I will be paying taxes on it. Just wanted to say I've paid taxes on it for the last three years. Thank you. [Music] Mr. Matthew, during your review of the six factors, is there something that you're weighing currently? Um,

what is this action for approval? It would be C. um literal interpretation of provisions of these zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. And then it has in quotations, not allowing me to build a home would bring me hardship. And then it goes on to state literal interpretation of the provisions of these zoning regulations and review. The recorded deed lot split would show the applicant as grantee created the hardship, therefore negating the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the R2 zoning district. I think everything kind of hinges upon on that as to whether or not this was a hardship brought on by doing the lot split or if that was um something that uh I guess was the result of the city's zoning. Right. I agree. Um I I have I you know for me it was really more around D, right? the the variance. Um if granted um uh reasonable use of the land, building or structure and um the the the setbacks on this would meet the the code for setbacks. Yes, his proposed structure does meet the current setbacks for R2 zoning. Any other [Music]

[Music] I'm [Music] As you as everybody in here can tell, there's some some confliction that that I'm I'm dealing with as far as um you know, where where this this lot is and and the information around it. I I'm I'm going to motion to approve the variance and that motion based on the the meeting of the six factors within the land development code. Uh it it's it's meeting factors for confirmation. Yes, that's what your motion is based on. It is based on the the factors that I'm looking at here within you know I mean I as in the affirmative. Yes. Just need to get that on the record. Absolutely. And I'll second the motion. All right. Go vote for approval. Say I. I. I. I. The variance is approved. Thank you board. I really appreciate you guys. Thank you. Thank you for your time this evening. Yeah. And the uh the third item, the applicant has requested to continue that to the August 13th meeting. So if we could get a motion to continue it. I have a motion. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. That'll be heard and I'll get. All right. This meeting is concluded. Thank you for

your time this evening. All right, gentlemen. And thank you [Music]

[Music]