Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

start. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is January 20th, the W County Board Planning Zoning Commission regular meeting and we're calling the torderator. Please everyone rise for the pledge of allegiance. Roger, would you lead us in the pledge?

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. Moment of silence for Chicago leaders. Yeah, they did very well get to where they got to. Um, can I have a roll call, please? War

here.

Yes, we have a quorum. Um, I'm going to swear everyone who's going to speak tonight in in mass. So, all of you who are going to speak, hopefully you've signed in already, but even if you haven't signed in, please raise your hands. I tell it I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, help me God. I do. I didn't hear. I do. Come on, guys. Thank you very much. Uh, one more request. Anyone who has a cell phone, either put it in airplane mode, turn it all the way down or turn it off. Thank you. We are going to have approval of minutes. The minutes from the hearing of December 2nd, 2025. May I have a motion for approval?

Second. I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. Okay. The next one is a motion for approval for a public hearing of December 16th, 2025. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. All right. Our first case tonight, first zoning case will be ZC-25-127 and Jesus Preseno will be our presenter. Nope, not Jesus tonight. Okay, sorry about that. Alec Van Patton, is that Yes. Yes. You're you're the presenter tonight. Thank you.

Okay. So, I will be reviewing zoning case ZC-25-127. The owner of this property is John Harky. The applicant is requesting two variances to build a detached garage. Next slide. This image shows a zoning map with the subject pro property outlined in red. The subject property is zoned A1 with 0.81 81 acres in area and 243 uh feet of lawn lot frontage uh along West Smiley Road. The parcel received approval of a special uh use permit for remaining A1 and being below 10 acres uh through 4292-RS2 in 1996. The zoning case uh stated uh that it met zoning standards for the law at this time. Uh so the parcel is deemed a legal non-conforming A1 parcel. Next slide. Uh this is a 2025 aerial of the property. Uh this property is improved with a single family home and uh two uh frame sh two frame sheds. Uh the owner plans to to to demolish the two pre-existing sheds and construct a 30 footx 40 foot uh detached garage. The proposed location would encroach on street and sideyard setbacks. The applicant is requesting variances to encroach on these required setbacks. Next slide. Uh so this is the plat of survey survey showing the proposed detached garage uh outlined uh in dark gray on there. Next slide. Uh so this is just a a picture of view

looking uh southwest at the subject property uh from the northeast corner. Next slide. Uh this is view looking at the proposed location of the garage uh and the sideyard setback uh encroachment. Next slide. Uh this is view looking souththeast at the subject property uh from the northwest corner. Next slide. Uh this is view looking southwest at the adjacent property. Next slide. Uh this is the view looking north across from the subject property. Next slide. Uh this is the view uh looking west down Smiley Road. Next slide. And then this is the view uh looking east along uh Smiley Road. Next slide. Uh so now to go over section one in the variances standards and review criteria. A staff finds the play of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The property owner wants to build a detached garage that encroaches into the 100 foot street setback and 50ft sideyard setback for the A1 zoning district. Uh the lot has a special use to be zone A1 while being less than 10 acres. and during this it was deemed to meet lot standards at the time. However, any new structures need to meet current zoning standards. Desire to build a detached garage encroaching uh into setbacks as a personal desire and cannot be considered a you unique circumstance. Uh staff also finds the variance may alter their essential character of the locality uh in the surrounding area. There are no parcels that have received approval for a variance uh for street yard street or yard setbacks. Next slide. Uh now looking at section two, a staff finds a particular physical surrounding does not result in particular hardship. The hardship does not come from the

physical conditions of the property. There are other suit suitable locations on the property on which a smaller detached garage could be built and meet street and sideyard setbacks. Staff finds that the condition of which the variance application is based uh would be generally applicable to other properties. desire to build a structure encroaching into setbacks can be seen as a common request request among A1 zone properties. Lastly, staff finds that granting the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare welfare or improvements uh in the neighborhood that detached garages proposed in the southeast corner of the property away from any homes or nearby structures. Additionally, the building will be used for personal vehicle storage. Next slide. Uh so staff is recommending denial for both variances.

Thank you. Yes. Go ahead, John. So your first point was it it is possible to put the building there, but if if I'm looking at the math right, it that building almost would have to be in the exact center. Yeah, it would. Yeah. Have to be in the center. And technically the is kind of really restrictive. Yes, technically it is. Yeah, restricting for what they are back in the sides and they would have to put it. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you very much. Um, are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case here tonight? There are not. Okay. May I uh have the owner, our primary contact come up, please? Would you please come up to the podium? I know the staff has advised you that uh this isn't going to fly according to county rules. So I have presumed that you have a reason why you wanted to sit situate it where you have it. Uh would you please state your name for the records and then give us your reason?

Uh John Harky. um want to put it there cuz it doesn't have a garage and I've always had a garage of any house I've ever lived in. I don't understand why there isn't one there anyway, but um I would like to have one there. I went through the process with them and say, "Hey, what can we put it on the other side?" But then there's a couple big concrete uh old uh bins there that are in the way. And I'm like, "Well, I can't put it there." I was under the advice when I bought the place that I could it was grandfathered in and I could build it. And then I found out it wasn't. So I was like, "Wow, this isn't good." But it was past the attorney's review before I could get out of it. So I would still like to live there and build myself a nice garage, but uh without a garage, I can't do it. I'm I have to rent it or sell it.

Okay. Um anyone have any questions? Nobody questioning. Okay. Would you Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. You're welcome. Mr. Chairman, ZC25-127 B25-172 given no objections from uh the public. I would approve for motion for approval for variance for street setback from 100 ft to 42.2 ft. Second. I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. John Kener? Yes. Yes. Leavat. Yes. War. Yes.

And chairman Houston. Yes. In the same case, variance 25-173, approval of variance for sideyard setback east side from 50 ft to 17 ft. Second. I have a motion second. May I have a roll call? Mitchell, yes. John Kener, yes. Roger Benhousen, yes. Leavat, yes. War, yes. And chairman,

yes. You've passed, sir. You get the garage. Next case tonight is ZC-25-86V-25-119 and Kelly Quisinski will be our presenter. Good evening.

Good evening. Okay. So this is ZC-25-086. Um the owner of the property is Khaled Ga and the agent is Yousef DC. Um the owner is requesting a variance for rear yard setback from 50 ft to 24.92 ft. Um here the property is outlined in yellow. Um the parcel is located in Creek Township along Exchange Street. Um it is zoned A1 with 19.72 acres. Um the subject property received a complaint on June 12th, 2025 regarding a structure built without a permit. Um the applicant has submitted a building permit for the structure that was built without a permit and upon review zoning um found that the structure encroached on the rear yard setback. Um here the property is outlined in red. The subject property is zoned A1 and is surrounded by A1 and R1 residential zoning. Um here is a PL of survey of the property showing the existing structures. Um the structure constructed without a permit can be shown outlined in red. Um this structure encroaches on the rear yard setback. Um and based on conversations with applicant, this building is used just for storage. This is a view looking west along Exchange Street. This is a view looking north across from the subject property.

This is looking east along Exchange Street.

This is looking southwest towards the location of the structure from Exchange Street. This is looking south at the subject property from Exchange Street. This is looking at the residents on the property. This is looking at the existing buildings on the property. These are some more um existing buildings on the property. Um, this is looking north at Exchange Road from the center of the parcel. And then finally, this is looking souththeast at the structure um located that's encroaching on the rear yard setback. Oh, I have more images. Um this is another um aerial image of the rear yard or the rear structure that's encroaching on the rear yard setback and the property line is shown um outlined in blue. Okay. A full analysis of the variance standards and review criteria can be found in the staff report. Um but for a summary of section one staff finds the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The accessory structure was built without a permit encroaches on the required 50 foot rear setback. Um had the owner applied for a permit, they would have been informed of the setback requirement. Um staff does not view lack of knowledge of the rules as a hardship. Um granting the variance may alter the essential character of the area. Um no nearby properties have similar setback encroachments or variances. Um however the structure is mostly hidden from public view um which would reduce um visual impact. Um for section two of the variance re review criteria staff finds no hardship. Um the structure could have been built elsewhere on the property and the issue arose because the owner built

without a permit. Um the conditions are not unique compared to other A1 parcels. Um staff finds the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties. Um the owner is working on the building permit and will be required to um comply with all applicable codes of agencies notified. There were no comments or objections were received. Um staff is recommending denial for the variance of the rear yard setback. Um I'm happy to answer any questions for you and the applicant is also here tonight as well.

What remediation would you offer for the applicant? just a a smaller building the for to comply. Um I mean I think the main thing with this one is I can pull up the aerial view of the parcel but the parcel is almost 20 acres. Um so it's pretty large so they have a lot of space to meet setback requirements. Um then it for the rear yard and the sideyard it would be 50 feet. So they have a lot of room to meet that 50 feet. So it really um kind of building without a permit start kind of the encroachment kind of came from that

um without knowledge of needing the 50-foot setback. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions? You say the the applicant is trying to get a building permit. Correct. They have a building permit submitted. that decision here tonight. What if they can't get the building permit? Yeah. So, they're working on the building permit right now. Let's say um if this were to be approved, then zoning would be able to sign off on the permit. Let's say this variance is denied, then zoning would not be able to sign off on this permit until they move the structure to be located meeting setbacks. Um so, they'd be required to meet that 50- foot setback and move the structure. So

to leave it where it is. Yes. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Kelly. Do we have any concerned citizens or objectors to this case tonight? We do not. Okay. May I hear from uh Mr. Ysef DCI? Are you the contact? Okay. Evening. Good evening, sir. Please state your name for the record and then tell us why you were put it where it is.

Okay. My name is Yousef DC. I'm speaking on behalf of Mr. Khaled Gabin. Okay. Unfortunately, the contractors who built that uh barns at that location failed to uh bolt within the blood serve, you know. So we did not know any thing about the variance between the front, the back, whatever it is. So we were shocked when we found that barn was not built properly because it's actually a slab of concrete and that the top of it is just plastic, you know. Yes,

that's dark. The only thing we can do is just remove the whole thing the arc and the you know the plastic otherwise let's you know it has no effect on people. We put hay all these equipments you know for for the farm itself. So no animals even nobody can even get close to that area because this is also a flooded area. So we use it only is for storage you know and unfortunately again I said as I said uh the contractor who took a lot of money almost like $500,000 to build all these burns he failed to you know fulfill the you know I mean the specification of the city of Juliet or whatever it is they should have known better you know just building something like that cost $200,000 around $1,000 building it wrong so we were shocked as well. We didn't know any about the variance to begin with.

Okay, I understand. And only I think we may just simpl it, you know, or just uh it has no effect on people, whatever it is, you know, that's up to you guys, you know. Appreciate your help with that. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Can you get a building permit? No. No, because they were supposed to be included within the other three barns that were built at that time. Those plans are included with the other barns.

They were supposed to be, but we didn't know that because the, you know, when we did the contract, okay, the flat of survey we had it included that part as well, but the blood of survey was, you know, sent to the city of Juliet was not included. That's when you have the aerial image on it. It showed on that property that was built. But unfortunately, we didn't have any, you know, faint idea that that was built illegal or illegal the building. Is it on a slab? You said it's on a cement slab. This is a big cement slab. That's it. No. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. on case number ZC-25-086V-25-119. May I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, ACC-25-086 for variance B-25-119 variance for rear yard setbacks from 50 ft to 24.92 ft to bring structure into compliance. Second. I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call, please? Abstain.

Mitchell, yes. Rogerous. Yes. Leavat. Yes. War. No. And chairman. Yes. One abstain. Okay. You passed that one by. We have one more to go.

No, that's right. That's all all one case. Pardon me. Yeah, you pass. Minimum passport was to pass. Yeah. And to clarify, Mr. Chairman, I'll be abstaining from this next vote as well. Okay. Next case is ZC-25-099/V-25-137. Um, and Jesus presenter will be our presenter.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening. Yes, I'll be going over zoning case 255099. The owner of the property is Britney Calp and the applicant is requesting a variance to bring the constructed poleb barn into compliance. Okay, here we have a quick zoning map of the property with the subject property outlined in red. Subject property is zoned A1 with 5.14 acres in area and 482 ft of lot frontage along schoolhouse road. The property received approval of a variance for minimum lot area through zoning case 2 211099 in 2022 and the property is deemed a conforming A1 parcel. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property again outlined in red. The property is improved with a single family home, a frame shed and a pole barn. The owner was placed in violation for building a second pole barn on the property without obtaining a building permit. The property owner submitted an after-the- fact agricultural exempt permit in November of 2024. As staff reviewed the plan of survey submitted as part of the building permit, it was discovered that the pole barn was built encroaching onto the required 50 foot rear setback. The applicant requesting the variance to bring the pole barn into compliance and allow the zoning department to approve the pending building permit. Here we have a plat of circular property showing the built polebar kind of the darker outline. top of the screen. Here we have some few pictures of the property. First, the view looking east at the subject property. Here we have the view looking at the pole barn that was built that encroaches into the rear setback. Here we have the view looking at the northeastern portion of the property. Here we have the view looking south at the southeastern portion of the property. We have the view the view looking west

at the adjacent property across schoolhouse road and the view looking north down schoolhouse road. Now to quickly go over the range standards every view criteria. Staff finds the ply that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The property owner built a pole barn that encroaches into the required 50oot setback in the for the A1 zoning district. Although the property owner submitted an an agricultural exempt building permit, a exempt permits are still required to adhere to the zoning district setbacks. The desire to build a poleborn encroaching into the required setbacks is a personal preference and cannot be considered a unique circumstance. Staff also finds that the variance may alter the central character of the locality. In the surrounding area, there were no parcels found that have received approval of a variance for rear yard setback. Staff also found that the particular physical surroundings does not result in a particular hardship. The hardship does not come from the physical conditions of the property. There are other suitable locations on the property on which the pole barn could have been built meeting the 50oot required rear yard setback. Staff finds that conditions on which this variance application is based would be generally applicable to other properties. The desire to build a structure encroaching into setbacks can be seen as a common request among A1 zoned properties. And lastly, staff finds the granting variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the neighborhood. The pole barn was constructed on the far southeast corner of the of the property away from any homes or nearby structures. As mentioned before, the property owner is and will continue to use the building for agricultural purposes. With that said, staff is recommend received any comments from any agencies and I'm happy to answer any additional questions. I presume that this uh owner and I suppose I have to ask the owner the question, but I presume this owner

thought that because they were exempt in A1 exemption uh that they didn't have any restrictions on where they built. Is that what your surmise is or the correction? Yes. So, as mentioned, the property built the structure without a a building permits. It was only after it was placed in violation that she came in for the building permit and that's when she applied for the agricultural exempt permit. Okay. Um and I don't believe the applicant is here. Um but you can maybe ask. Okay. Perfect. So yeah, probably better to ask the property owner. Okay. Is there any other question from anyone? Thank you very much. Susan,

thank you. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case tonight? There are not. May I hear from the applicant? Good evening. Please give your name for the records first. Britney Calp. Hi. Um, but we want to question as to uh why it got built without a permit, etc.

You were kind of spot on when you asked. Um, there's a lot of misconceptions with being zoned agriculture, whether you have to have the permit or not have to have the permit. Um, people kind of some get away with it, some don't, unfortunately. And that's we put it up and then now we're trying to go in compliance with it. Well, actually, you you were legal putting it up. It just wasn't in the right place. Yeah. And um I don't know what you can do about that except ask the contractor if he didn't understand what he was doing.

Well, there's two other buildings on the property that if you go further one way, I've got animals housed in it. Um, and until this other structure was put up, you know, there's really no moving that structure. Same with the one that's in front of it. So, there really wasn't a much better spot to put it. If you go right there, you can kind of see. Um, so the animal fence goes around the entire property um on the south side there and then on the east side as well. Um, it was basically put there to give the animals more room to graze. Um, and then like I said with the other two structures there, it kind of was hard to put it anywhere else.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else have any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. on KC-25-099 and V-25-137. Uh, I would like a motion, please.

Pull your mic down, would you? Yes, hear you. Mr. Mr. Chairman, motion for approval for case number ZZ25/099 B25137 variance for animal confment setback from 50 ft to 20 ft. Second. I have a motion and I have a second. May I have a roll call, please? Mitchell, yes. John Kener, abstain. Benhousen, yes. Narat, yes. War.

Yes. All right, sir. You have a majority of vote or ma'am I should say. Pardon me for the sir.

Sir. Next case is ZC-25-115V-25-158. Like Van Patton will be our presenter. So I'm reviewing zoning case 25-115. The owner of this property is Christina Jenkins. Uh the application is requesting a variance to bring the lot into compliance to be able to build a single uh family house. Next slide. Uh this image shows the zoning map uh with the subject property outlined uh in red. The subject property is within Mooney Township located between South Dittle Drive and South Murvy Lane. The property is zoned R2 with 87,184 square feet of area and 127.6 feet of lot frontage along Murphy Lane. The R2 zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 40,000 square ft and 100 ft of lot frontage. The subject parcel contains a part of lot 5 from Green Ridge subdivision platted on August 15th, 1978. uh previous owners of lots five, six, and seven in Green Ridge subdivision reconfigured uh these three lots into four parcels. The four parcels were created deficient in lot frontage along Murphy Lane. Next slide. Uh this is a 2025 aerial image of the property. The subject property is unimproved. The applicant is looking to bring the property into compliance to build a single family residence on the property. Without the variance, no permit can be issued as a lot is not

conforming with R2 lot frontage requirements. Next slide. So this is the PLA fur uh survey showing the proposed uh single family residence. Next slide. Uh and this is view uh view looking west at the subject property uh showing its defic deficiency uh in lot frontage. Next slide. Uh this is uh view looking southwest at the adjacent property or at a adjacent property. Next slide. Uh view looking uh this is view looking northwest at another adjacent property. Next slide. And this is view looking east uh at the adjacent property across from Murphy uh Lane. Next slide. And this is view uh looking north down Murphy Lane. And then this is the view looking south down Murphy Lane. Uh now to go over section one in the variance standards review criteria. staff finds that the plight of the owner is due is due to unique circumstances. The property owner wants to build a single family residence on the R2 lot. Uh the law is deficient in lot frontage uh for the R2 district uh which requires 150 ft of lot frontage. Uh this is due to division of land from PDC-22-00005 on January 21st, 2022. uh to build a single family residence uh the lot needs to be brought into compliance. Uh staff finds the variance if granted will not uh alter the essential character uh of the locality looking at the surrounding areas. Uh there is one parcel the parcel directly south of the property uh that has received approval of a variance for lot

frontage and there are three other parcels or three other lots in the area that appear to be short uh on uh our two lot frontage requirements. Next slide. And then looking at section two of staff's professional opinion that the physical surrounding shape or tobo topographical conditions of the subject property do result in particular hardship upon the owner uh as distinguished from the mere inconvenience if the strict letter um of the regulations were to be carried out. Staff finds the parcel was created with 87,184 square feet of lot area and 127.6 6 ft um of lot for Angel on Murphy Lane. Uh this is uh after the uh county adopted the zoning ordinance that requires R2 uh lots to have 150 uh feet of lot frontage uh making the lot not non non-conforming. The law is currently unbuildable following uh the zoning ordinance regulations. This is not does not meet the minimum uh lot standards of our two zoning districts. the variance uh the applicant has applied for will bring the lot into compliance and allow single family residents to be built on the property. A staff's professional opinion uh that the alleged difficulty of hardship was not created by the person presently having the interest in the property. The property was created as a non-conforming lot by division of land uh from PDC-22-00005 on January 1st, 2022 and per the recorded deed, the applicant acquired the property on July 9th, 2025. Uh last staff finds that uh granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or improvements of the neighborhood. The applicant intends to build a single family home uh after bringing the lot into complyment compliance. Uh if looking to build on the property, the owner will have to apply for a building permit and BR2 setbacks. Next slide.

And so staff is recommending approval of the variance and I can answer any questions. I have no questions. Anyone have any questions? Thank you very much. I just had pardon me. It's only 127 foot in width or frontage. It's almost how do you even position a house on that without coming back and asking for sideyard setbacks? Don't make a wide range. So I I guess it can be done. I just Is it 30 foot sideyard setback or 50 for an R2? 50.

I see. Not I was thinking tax. from from what I remember from looking at the uh site plan that it would that what they propose is meeting setbacks from what I remember and even if it doesn't then you know you know that's just proposed there can be any changes to it since a building permit hasn't been if you look at the area looks like the two neighbors of the south have pulled it off. Yes. And there is one built in the south and for uh and they just got variance for the lot frontage of the one to the south. There was no variances for setback. So,

and we just looked up um the setback for the R2 district and it's 15 feet for a sideyard. So, they do have room for almost 95 plus. Yeah. Thank you. They could build a little shack.

Any other questions? Thank you very much. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case here tonight? There are not. Okay. May I hear from the uh owner or the primary contact? Good evening. Please give your name for the record. Hello, my name is Christina Jenkins.

Thank you. Um, we just question and we want to make sure that you understand that your lot is substandard for what you're trying to do. But it's recommended for approval uh because of the fact that it has in the past had other standards that it was allowed to be built under.

Mhm. So, uh, we were just asking that you know that you're going to have to get your contractor and make sure that you have the sight lines, everything correct because you're right at the edge of where you could go. Oh, yeah. Okay. I understand. All right. That's all we want to do. Anybody else have anything that they'd like to say? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ZC25-115 B25-158 given approval by staff motion for approval for variance for lot frontage from 150 ft to 127.60 6 f feet. Second.

I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. John, yes. Yes. Yes. War. Yes. And chairman Houston.

Yes. It's unanimous. You got it. Thank you. Our next case tonight is case ZC-25-126 and V-25-170. And Kelly Kuinski will be our presenter. Okay. So, this is ZC-25-126. Um the owner and applicant is Equity Trust Company with Lynn Henkins um with 100% interest. Um the applicant is requesting a variance for maximum accessory building area um to construct a detached garage. Um this is a lot outlined in red. Um the parcel is located in Planefield Township along Penny Lane. Um the lot is currently improved with a single family residence um with a attached garage and a detached garage. Um the applicant is looking to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a new 2800 square ft detached um accessory building. Um with this the subject property will exceed the maximum accessory building area of the zoning district. Um here the subject property also can be seen outlined in red. um and it's zoned R3 and is surrounded by um other R3 residentially zoned properties. Um here's the plan of survey of the property showing the existing structure um and the proposed structure. The proposed structure is shown in gray towards the bottom of the screen. Um this structure will meet the rear and sideyard prep property line or setback requirements of the R3 zoning district.

This is a view looking north along Penny Lane. This is looking southeast at the subject property from the northwest corner. This is looking west across from the subject property. This is looking east at the location of the existing structure to be demolished and the proposed location of the detached garage. This is looking southeast at the southern adjacent parcel and this is looking south along Penny Lane. Um a full analysis can be found in the staff report, but to summarize section one of the variance um standards and review criteria. Um staff finds that the owner is not due to unique circumstances since the request is based on personal preference. Um the property owner intends to construct an additional detached garage for storage which would result in exceeding the accessory building area. Um staff staff also find that the granting of the variance may alter the essential character of the locality. Um staff found one other property in the area that received a variance for accessory building area. Um however, one variance request does not define uh area or the character of the area and approval of another variance of similar scale could begin to establish a pattern um potentially altering the character of the locality. Um, for section two of the standards and review criteria, staff finds that the physical conditions of the property do not create a hardship as the request stems from convenience rather than a unique site constraint. Um, the desire to exceed accessory building area is common across all zoning districts. Um, lastly, staff finds that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and surrounding properties. Um the proposed structure um will is

proposed to meet required setbacks of the R3 district and will be required to obtain a building permit. Um of agencies notified, there were no comments or objections received. Um but staff is recommending denial of the variance for maximum accessory building area um from 1500 square ft to 3,942 square ft. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions and I believe the owner and applicant are also here tonight.

Um, I don't believe I have the calculation with me. Um, but I can look at it. Mhm. To build this footage still over.

It's not current. No, it has it currently is with the attached garage and the existing detached. He's under currently. Um, so he's looking so he's going to build a much larger detached garage compared to the previous one. Um, if I can go back to the plat. The the blue underneath the gray is the existing garage. Um, so it looks like it's 33 feet by 23.5 ft about those structures and adding new structure. No, with the new structure, he'll be exceeding it. He'll be exceeding alone.

Yes, he'll be exceeding it if Yeah. Well, he's putting he's placing it on top of the existing structures. So, he's bas he's kind of expanding it. Um, but he's going to demolish the existing prior to building the new one since they're put it's going to be placed in the same location. Um, so he's basically kind of replacing it. So, he's more of it's more of an expansion of the accessory building area. Is that Sorry. Does that make sense? Have we any other questions?

Kevin and Kim, you got any other questions? Thank you very much. Are there concerned citizens or objectors to this case here tonight? There are not. Okay. May I uh hear from the applicant?

Good evening. Good. Thank you. Please, please give your name for the record.

Sure. Good evening everyone. My name is Len Henkins. Uh I was up here about 10 years ago. We built this home. It's my retirement home. And the plans then was to expand and make it a cold storage so I can get my vehicles and equipment in there. uh as you guys discussed there's the numbers are somewhat misleading but true in the sense that I'm I'm demolishing them and expanding and plus the concrete pad is in that square footage which initially I didn't know so that uh just to give you some insight that it makes it seem a lot bigger than what it is. Uh but as you know it's I just don't have enough space to get my vehicles and and keep the storage in. Um also brought uh not to create a trend but these are photos.

Yeah, please speak to the mic you just keep them at all. You don't get them back.

Yeah, you can keep them all. I made copies for you. But these are photos of less than a block over uh with buildings and structures similar to what I'm having or requesting. Then I hope I get approved. Um, if you if you look on the addresses on there, these are uh I'm on Penny Lane. The next street over is Ash. The 23650 would be this building with the address on it. Very similar what I'm trying to do. And that building was constructed less than a year ago. This is another one right next door to that same one that's in there. The 23660 also constructed got multiple shelters on it right next to that one. 23664 same multiple structures. I'm hoping that this brings more curb appeal and I'm able to get my vehicles in. And then this is the nearest one to me where this property has five structures on it. Um, so

the the problem is we don't know what the property area is on these properties. I understand. I I I just want to let you know that's literally the street over from me. Yeah. And I don't know all the rules and I seen that was all the variance that was noted before and I'm hoping I have the ability to get all my vehicles and yard equipment under one roof. Mr. Chairman, you did ask if there was anybody to speak on this case other than the applicant. I did and there was no objectors here.

Think you're going to make it. Normally I This is a pretty big thing. If there was objectors, I would be swayed somewhat because it usually would be complaining about the water or something. But uh you've shown proof of other residences and there's nobody here to object. So long as I'll be a yes vote. Thank you, sir. Um, we have no other vote and no other questions. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and vote now then. Anybody, Mr. Chairman, ZC25-126, variance 25-170. Approval of variance for maximum accessory accessories building area from 1500 ft to 3,942 ft. Second.

I have a motion and second. May I have a roll call? Doner, yes. Mitchell, yes. Battenous. Yes. Louisis Navarat. Yes. War. Yes. And Chairman Houston. Yes. You're unanimous, sir. Call the builder. Yeah. Call the builder. Yeah.

Call the builder before prices go up anymore. Our next case tonight is ZC-25-123S-25-053 and Jesus presenter will be our presenter. Okay. Yes, I'll be going over zoning case 25123. This is a special use for recyclable material dropout facilities outdoor. The property owner for this property is THC LLC with Jonas Badria as a manager and Al Matas Rudianis also listed as a manager. The agent for this case is Thomas Stasquez of Statam LLC. As mentioned before for the applicant requesting a special use permit to allow the current metal scrap business to allow customers to continue dropping off their metal scrap outside of the existing building. Here we have a quick zoning map of the property outlined in red. Such property is zoned I1 and is 1 acre in size with 264 ft of lot frontage along in 189th place. The property is deemed a conforming I1 parcel. The property is located within an industrial subdivision to the east. The property is within the village of Moina and is zoned P1 which is their public quasi public and conservation district. Here we have an aerial view of the property again outlined in red. As mentioned before, the property is within an industrial and industrial subdivision with other uses such as a truck and vehicle repair, vehicle rebuilding, and various contractor shops. A matter of scrapins is currently operates from the property. This is classified as a recyclable material dropoff facility. An indoor recyclable interior drop off facility is permitted by rights in the I1 zoning district, meaning a special

use permit is not required. If any part of the business takes place outside of an enclosed building, the use is classified as a recyclable material drop off facility outdoor which requires approval of a special use permit. The metal scrap business allows customers to drop off their scrap metal outside um outside of the enclosed building. The property was placed in violation in March 2025 by code enforcement for having those drop off bins outside of the enclosed structure. The applicants did attend a pre-application meeting with staff where staff outlined the process to obtain a special use permit. The applicant is now here applying for a special use permit to continue allowing customers to drop off the metal scrap in the provided outdoor bins. The outdoor process the outdoor processing of recyclable materials requires an additional special use permit which the applicant is not requesting today. The bins will be emptied and moved inside of the building when the business closed. Here we have a plat of the property showing the existing building which the metal scrap business operates from. And next we have a few pictures of property. First the view looking south toward the existing business and the outdoor storage bins that the customers usually drop off their metal scrap in. Here we have the view looking southwest at the adjacent property. Here we have the view looking northwest at the adjacent property. We have the looking the view looking west down 189th place. And finally the view looking east down 189th place. Now to quickly go over the special use permits and review criteria. A full copy of the staff analysis for the special use permit is included staff report. But to quickly summarize, staff finds that the special use permit will not be detrimental or endanger public's health, safety, morals, comfort, or general

welfare. The applicant is applying for a special use permit to continue operating the metal scrap business while allowing customers to drop off their scrap metal outside. As mentioned before, the applicant is not requesting to have outdoor processing of metal scrap. Section 155-9.210 210 list all the requirements that the business must must must adhere to including the types of materials that can be accepted and the amount of time the material can be maintained on site. It is a staff's professional opinion that the proposed special use will not be injurious to the neighborhood. The property is lo located within industrial subdivision with other uses are currently operating from. The metal recycling business is in continuation of industrial uses that incur within that subdivision. Staff also finds that the special use will not impede the normally and orderly development of the area. The surrounding area is already largely developed with industrial uses as shown in the pictures. With that said, staff did receive comments from the village of Moina and Frankfurt Township that were both sent out as a memo. The village of Mokina stated their opposition to the request due mainly to concerns with the village's long-term planning objectives, the floodway that runs through the property, and the potential of odors being carried to residential areas located nearby. Frankfurt Township stated in an email that the township board voted to recommend denial of the special use permit as well after it was heard at their planning and their board meeting on January 12th, 2026. However, the email did not state the reasons why they recommended denial. And with that said, staff is recommending approval of the special use permit with the outline for conditions. And I'm happy to answer any additional questions.

Go ahead. If I heard you right, you said they bring the material in every night. Yes. Is that required by the code or is that just what they've been choosing to do? That's what they've been choosing to do. Um if this was permitted or this was approved, they would be allowed to um kind of keep those bins outdoors, but they did state in the pre-lication wheel staff that they usually bring the bins inside for I guess common courtesy for their other businesses that operate from there and all all businesses conducted with bins brought in. There's nothing put down on the ground. Correct. Correct. So these are movable. So they're allowed to move them inside. That's why they kind of do that currently. probably don't want them looted overnight. Correct. Probably by scrap people. Yep.

Yeah. So they do empty it like I said customer drop off their scrap in the bins and then at the end of the day the business does empty them inside the building. So it would just basically be allowing the customers to continue dropping off their metal scrap outside. The way I would envision this is kind of like a self-s served drop off. Correct. Yes. Does keep stuff from being thrown in the ditches and pollution. Does it uh does it create any uh odor or debris flying around?

So for this one, I would imagine not because there's basically just customer dropping off their metal scrap. Um any processing that would be done would be enclosed inside as mentioned before if they were if the business was proposing to do any type of processing which probably would incur more orders that would require another special use permit which the applicant is not requesting today. So they would not be allowed to process anything outside. It would just be gathering the scrap outside. And it says, "Such a facility would likely generate nuisance conditions, including noise, unsightly views, and potential environmental concerns." Correct. If that was the case, we wouldn't approve any solar facilities. We wouldn't allow garbage pickup in people's front yards.

So, I don't know. I I don't think they make a very good case. Well, the this says that Bina is objecting to because they wanted in I3, not I1. Correct. Yeah. The letter did they state that that proposed use would better fit into their I1 um their I3, I'm sorry, zoning district, but for us, we it's currently zoned I I1. It just require a special use permit in our zoning districts. And Frank Township doesn't give any reason for dying denying. And they just say the board denies the correct. Yeah, I just received that email saying that they just recommended denial at their board hearing. Okay.

Any other questions for any other questions? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there concerned citizens or objectors to this case here tonight? There are not. Okay. Is the applicant or agent here tonight? Good evening. Please give your name in.

My name is Thomas Dascus. I'm the agent for the property owner and I represent the the applicant the business that operates as Would you give your name also why I stand? Good evening. My name is Teresa Scalona. Thank you very much. Um, you heard the objections, so we're we're asking you to give us some reasoning why you think that this should go through. Well, they've been raise the mic to suit yourself, sir. Yeah,

they've been operating a good a good business and it's a good they have been very good tenant for us and they clean. So, uh, we found out that we needed a, uh, special use permit to collect the materials outside in, uh, uh, zoning approved metal containers, but they keep everything inside for the night, so it's not in anybody's way. Um, the property is is on a very industrial district and the traffic that they bring to the property is is minimal. So um and rather than one of the board members mentioned it's better to have it in in a containers in business that collects scrap metal than all over the place where it doesn't belong and it pollutes the u the environment.

Yeah. We saw all the trucks parked alongside your businesses up and down the road. So uh I think traffic is the minor thing to worry about in this particular circumstance. Um, but have anyone have any questions? Yes, please do. This just people wanting to get rid of stuff. Do you buy this stuff or just like I guess most people who want to drop off scraps want money?

I put it down. Uh, we buy we buy we pay for that. Yeah, we we buy uh when the people come throw the the metal and we pay. When we done, we clean everything outside. We put on the big trucks and we make everything is clean out. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you very much. I would like a a motion on case ZC25-123 is SLS25-053. Mr. Chairman, motion for approval for case number ZZ25123 S25-053 special use of permit for recycle material drop off facilities outdoors outdoor along with the four conditions. Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call? Kimberly Mitchell, yes. John Kener,

yes. Yes. Lewis Navarat, yes. Eric Warren, yes. And Houston, yes. Okay.

My next case tonight Is there a next case tonight? Yes, here it is. ZC-25-128, S-25-055, and V-25-171. Uh, Margarite Kenny will be our presenter for this case. Good evening.

Good evening, ma'am. How are you?

I'm good. So, zoning case ZC2128 um takes place in Lockport Township and it's vacant property on New Avenue in Lockport. Uh this property has come before this commission a few times in the last several years. Um, so this may um be a reminder to some of you or look familiar. Um, so the owner is FiveStar Landscape Company where Omar Benites is 100% interest and the agent is Bill Zelwinsky of Advanced Consulting Engineers. Um he was not stated on the staff report um due to my mistake, but the applicant as mentioned previously was approved for a special use permit for the outdoor storage and a variance for the fence height back in um 2021 early 2022. The applicant applied for the necessary site development permit in 2023, but the permit was delayed in getting issued. Um, resulting in the special use permit needing a couple extension requests which were approved by the county board. Um, and then essentially with the permit not being issued, the special use lapsed. So, they're coming before again. Um, the permit has received engineering approvals. Um hopefully if everything gets approved, zoning will finally be able to sign off on the permit and they would actually get their permit issued and legally establish their special use. Um they also came forward again for the variance for fence height, I believe, um in 2023. So again, just for this commission's um recollection, special uses have two years to legally establish the use with the issuance of a building permit. variances have one year to establish. And typically for fences, we do not require building permits, but if they are working as part of screening requirements, things like that, usually they are shown in the site development

plans and um might not necessarily get in installed until that permit is issued. So, I have the aerial on the screen of this property. Um the property is an un unimproved parcel. It's approximately 1.85 acres. It's on the east side of New Avenue with 400 ft of frontage. Um you can see the image on the right. Um it has significant grade changes. So um the parcel is relatively narrow. It's approximately 117 ft to 192 feet in width. And with the grade changes um it severely limits the developable area. um primarily to the northwest portion of the site. Um there are also some pipeline easements that further contain and curtail development. The property does not currently have any um access to New Avenue and IDOT would be issuing that permit. Um again, I believe the I do entrance permit uh has been issued or is very close to being issued due to how long the site development permit has been in review with our office. and we do require ID do approval um to issue the permit. Um regarding this area, Archer Avenue is um stated as an IDOT project needing to be expanded. Um and in terms of this area, um the village of Lockport sees this as pretty much a gateway to their industrial developments further along New Avenue. So just the plat survey on the screen and then looking at the site plan again it's showing um a future built maintenance garage on the property again it's showing it is going to be meeting setbacks so they are showing about 10 ft off the rightway line of New Avenue. um the entrance culvert with that building.

Again, you know, they'll need a building permit for that. We would review for, you know, minimum parking standards, but essentially what they are requesting for the outdoor storage is basically the concrete uh or not concret well concrete storage bins along the sides and then the gravel area in the center. Um, with that they would need some landscaping requirements and typically outdoor screening requires some type of solid fence or landscaping material. So, they are proposing a solid fence. Um, and that would be located within the street setback requirements, which is why they're requesting that variance for fence height. Um, so they can secure the property, they also can um, assist with the screening. So, looking at the zoning map, you can see the property um is zoned I1. Um that was the 2021 2022 zoning case that actually also reszoned it. There is a mix of commercial, residential, and other industrial uses along New Avenue and along um Archer Avenue, State Street um to the east. And then just looking at the city or village of Lockport, city of Lockport, excuse me. Um the subject properties indicated by where that yellow arrow is pointing. But you can see they also have a mix of zoning districts in the area. So looking at the subject property, um this is just looking north at the property, looking east, and you can start to see how much of that grade is changing. And then looking south, looking um north and south along New Avenue, looking northwest across New Avenue, looking southeast, and then the applicant has an additional

property further north along New Avenue. Um this is just a photo of that property. Um, and mainly the reason why it was included is the city of Lockport just has concerns that um, this the proposed property would look very similarly to this property and they don't believe this property is compatible with some of the existing uh, businesses they have. They have uh manufacturers. They have trucking companies that have buildings. They have offices. Um some are headquarters for certain businesses. And having just an outdoor storage without a building is concerning um to the city, especially since New Avenue, both sides are considered kind of the gateway into their industrial area um for this area. So the criteria by which uh the special use permits are analyzed is provided in your staff report. But I'm going to briefly summarize um the key points of staff's analysis. Um basically with um as I mentioned new avenue is characterized by industrial uses. Um as I mentioned we have truck repair facilities, trucking companies, refineries, manufacturing operations both within the city of Lockport and unincorporated will. The proposed outdoor storage yard is compatible with and similar in nature to these existing uses in the area. Um many of the um city of Lockport uh properties do have some type of outdoor storage associated with their buildings and headquarters. Um there are physical limitations to this particular site that should help mitigate any potential impacts. So again, they do have to meet the county's regulations in terms of setbacks, um, landscaping, screening, and all that's going to reduce some of the area that's developed. I do believe there is shallow bedrock in this area, so it also will impact how much they can actually dig

into the property. Um in terms of uh the initial operations, there's no physical or principal structure proposed at the time, but there is a condition saying that there should be some type of portable um facilities on site that would allow um any of the workers working from the site to access the appropriate facilities um to accommodate restroom needs, things like that. Um the site development permit would allow this outdoor storage yard to operate while they continue on for the building permit um should that actually come to fruition in the future. Um the development would be required to meet the county's requirements and that includes the water resource ordinances, the building code, the zoning ordinance, um storm water, things like that. um as well as I do, the Lockport Fire Protection District and Health Department um regulations that come into play during the permitting process. Um and then in terms of the I1 lot standards, we do look at setbacks. Uh especially with the building, they're going to have to be set back according to the I1 standards. The proposal meets all the criteria um to the effect that they've submitted to staff and we've real uh analyzed. So going forward um we do think it's a favorable request. Um regarding the variances um again staff previously has been supportive in recommending uh approval to these. So in terms of this to just very briefly summarize there are unique circumstances this property given the physical characteristics um the fence would provide screening and security for the site but it does have to be located closer into the street setback and then the essential character in the area is industrial. There's many properties along this corridor that have

outdoor storage and perimeter fencing within that street rightway. So the request is within character. Um regarding the second criteria, there are site constraints with the additional setback and additional regulations that uh reduce the develop area. So staff would consider this a hardship request. Conditions are unique to this specific property. The applicant seeks to operate the landscape business from the property and requires the space to store the materials and equipment. The parcel is difficult to development and the variance allows the possibility for it to be developed um for this particular use and the proposed fence would be requiring uh would be required to comply with our vision clearance uh site requirements. So again there would be safe access to and from the public right ofway from this um location. Regarding the agency uh comments, the activity taking place um from the Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District just stated um that this particular use would have little to no effect on the existing lands. The ecoat um provided by the IDNR identified protected resources. It's the Hines emerald dragonfly that may be in the vicinity, but further evaluation they determined it would not have adverse effects on um the dragonfly. And then the other agencies notified usually the fire district road district did not provide comments. Um, with that being said, staff is recommending approval with four conditions um, very similar to what the requirements and conditions were prior um, to the prior special use and then approval of that special or the variance. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Will they have to get a special use permit for or or a u variance for uh, outdoor facilities? No. So, um, having basically an outdoor portable toilet or something like that really would just be shown on the site plans. They would have to have a maintenance plan and then I believe the health department would take a look at that requirement as well. And then once they come in for the actual building, um, I do believe it does have to be improved with water um, to meet commercial building codes and that's where they would get like the more permanent bathroom facilities. It's not a that's not a very deep property be because of the inclination at the back.

Correct. So, uh they're going to whatever they're going to have do is going to have to be very strategic. Correct. Okay. Thank you. This a request that the um municipalities could ask a legal objection on for the special use permit.

No. So, with the special use, the best case scenario would be um if they provided comments or concerns, they could potentially be added as a condition. Um there was some questions in terms of the fencing and having landscaping on the exterior side of the fencing if that's contradictory to the city of Lockport, which typically has their chain link fences along the right of way and then have their landscaping on the inside of the property. Um the county would probably prefer to see the landscaping on the outside because it does stress up the fence and the property a little bit more, but it does have to be maintained. So, but they can't file a legal objection.

They cannot file a legal objection. It's simple majority vote. Um it's really what comes down to it is there's any additional conditions um that could make this use more compatible, they could be added. Um, but you spell that out that the terrain on the property. And I assume there's some flood plane or something. It just really can't hold many buildings. And so that's what they're asking. And one has to wonder if they like to just see better tax revenue than an outdoor storage lot, which probably doesn't give them really much tax revenue. And I feel for the applicant if they were able to file legal objection because they probably spent thousands upon thousands of dollars and they're just being held up here.

To have approved them once and then not be able to be approved a second time. I think it'd be awfully dirty on our part. Okay. And they may end up when they start to build actually putting the building back in the side of the hill and giving themselves a certain ground temperature, 55 degree temperature to insulate the building up automatically on the backside. So that's that's common in hill areas. Yeah,

I do think based on the site plan, the building is actually going to slightly start going into that elevation change. I think the problem is just I think it's bedrock, so it's very hard to dig in further into that stone without blasting and there are residential uses in the area and things like that. So, I think they're gonna from what it looked like on the site plan they're showing is they're trying to use as little extreme construction on the site as possible and and bedrock in that area has gas that they have to concern themselves with remediation. So,

okay. Thank you very much. Anybody No one else has any questions? Thank you. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case tonight? There are not. Okay. Um, is the uh primary contact Mr. Omar Bonitez here? Okay. Good evening, sir. Please give your name for the record. Good evening. Bill Zeleleski with Advantage Consulting Engineers in Lamont, Illinois.

Okay.

Everything that was explained was was very detailed exactly what's happening. Unfortunately, you know, it's taken us four years to get to this level. Uh there's 30 plus feet of fall from the east property line to about the middle of the site, which is very restrictive. You are correct. The building will be minimum excavation because of the bedrock and it will be probably pushed into the side of the hill a little bit to get as much room as possible. Uh the building is proposed. We do have the IDOT permit. The bond has been set. Uh Will County's engineering department has approved the plan and unfortunately because it's taken so long, everything has expired and we're back here in front of you for the same reasons we were before.

Okay, I understand. We will we will hopefully be able to remedy some of your problem. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions from anyone? No. Thank you. Thank you. On case ZC-25-128 S-25-055 and V-25-171. I would like a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, please pull your mic down just for the minute. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. Motion for approval of ZC-25-128 special use permit S25-055 special use permit for an outdoor storage with four recommendations. Second. I have a motion and second. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. John, yes. Yes. Navarat. Yes. Warren. Yes. Chairman Houston. Yes. You have a unanimous vote, sir.

Mr. Chairman, same case EC25-128 for variance-25-171 variance for fence height within street setback from 4T to 8 ft. Second. I have a motion second. Roll call, please. Yes. John, yes. Yes. Warren, yes.

Yes. Okay. Next case tonight is ZC-25-130s-25-057 and Margarite Kenny will be our presenter. Okay. So, this zoning case 25130 takes place in Wilton Township. Um, it is located in Wilton Center. Uh, the address is 29450 Cedar Road in Manhattan. And the applicants are Robert and Anna Cole. The applicant is looking to bring their legal non-conforming residential use of the property into compliance to expand their house. Um essentially so looking at the aerial of the subject property you can see the property is on the northwestern corner of the bend of US 52 um as it cedar cuts straight down south and then you have Arsenal Road, Juliet Road um kind of splicing through there as well. Um this property is about 89 acres which is about 38,768 square ft. It has frontage along Arsenal Road which with about 202 ft and then um Cedar Road has about 172 feet. The site is improved with a single family residence and a detached garage. The residence um was constructed in 1938 and predates the county's zoning. Um, in terms of this property, the access is

through Arsenal Road to the south. Um, and the property is located just northwest of the northern limits of the county's plan reconstruction of Wilton Center Road, which is Cedar Road in this area. Um, which actually extends south to Wilmington Potone Road to the south. Um, this area does see a lot of traffic. Um, mainly because US 42. Um, and Arsenal Road sees about 225 daily trips, but then Cedar US52 is where the traffic really comes into play. So looking at the zoning map, you can see this area is a mix of um estate residential, single family residential, and this corner is still zoned um local commercial. So it's zone C2. Um it is not located within any facility planning area, which is usually um municipalities that kind of envision future um utility needs is what a facility planning areas typically is. Uh the property was originally zoned B1. So in 1947 the county adopted zoning and it was zoned you know local business. At that time the zoning ordinance allowed for residential uses to be on commercial. Um assuming they probably had a commercial component to it, but you also could live on the site with your business. Um in 1978 the county decided that was a bad idea. they stopped allowing those two uses to go hand in hand. And since then, the house being used residentially has been a non-conforming use. Um, in September of last year, the applicant submitted a building permit to expand their existing residence. In order to expand, they have to bring the non-conforming use in compliance. Um, so that's the countyy's sunset provision for a non-conforming use essentially. And so that's why they are here. they are able to apply for a

special use permit for a non-conforming use provided that they are um showing that there's a need for this within the county and um it is very well known that the county does have a housing need and allowing them to continue to reside in the property and use the property residentially which is how they have been doing it um to continue on is a good um notion for in terms of zoning and the county need. Uh so that this is the applicant's first request for the special use and if approved it would run with the land and apply to the entire site. So looking at the subject property um this is just the survey. You can kind of see the existing house um from 1938. The hatched area is what they're proposing in terms of an expansion. And then they have a typical detached garage uh 22 by 24 um towards the front um area along Arsenal. So looking at some photos of the property. This is just looking north at the property from Arsenal Road. This is probably the southeast uh southwestern corner. This is looking almost from Cedar um and Arsenal. So this is the souththeast corner. And then this is looking west along Arsenal Road. This is looking south across Arsenal Road. This is looking um south along Cedar. And then this is looking along Arsenal Road and then towards where it actually intersects with uh Cedar Road and becomes Juliet Road. And then this is looking north along Cedar US52. So in terms of the criteria with the special use permit on the screen lists the criteria. Um the staff report has the in-depth analysis but to briefly

summarize um the residential use has existed on this application for or this location approximately 88 years. It's within a wellestablished and highly development developed Wilton Center. um and it's primarily residential in character still. Um the continuation of this residential use would be consistent with the existing land uses in the area. Um the expansion of the residence is to better accommodate the current needs of the applicant. And the since the residence is existing, there's adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities um for this. and the proposed expansion would further require um any additional updates or upgrades to be added um in order for them to get the building permit for this addition. Um in terms of this property already has access from Arsenal Road and Will County DOT will prohibit any access from Cedar Road in this area. Um so with that being said, the proposal satis excuse me satisfies all criteria um shown on the screen. In terms of the agency comments, um none objected. Uh in terms of the ecoat obtained from IDNR, there are no identified resources in the area. Um DOT just has some concerns with some existing parking that are occurring in the rightway along Cedar and it would prefer that it gets removed but in terms of the existing access they don't have issue because they don't have jurisdiction over Arsenal Road. It would be the township. Um but they would not be granting any access off Cedar and the applicant is not proposing any access off Cedar. In terms of the recommendation, staff is recommending approval of the special use for a non-conforming use for a single family residents with two conditions. Um, and that's all I have. I'm happy to

answer any questions. I have no questions. Anyone have any questions? Thank you very much. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case? There are not. Okay. There's the owner applicant here. You have you don't have to come up unless you want to because there's no objectors and we have a um Mr. Chair recommendation from staff to approve.

Given recommendation from staff motion for approval for ZC25-130- Whoops. Oh yeah. S25-057 approval of special use permit for non-conforming use single family residents with the two conditions as noted by staff in their report. Second. I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call? Mitchell, yes. John Keith, yes. Yes. War and chairman. Yes. You pass unanimously. case with special use. I started special use

our last case tonight is a TU the TU25-011 temporary use permit for weddings and events and Brian Rner will present the case and Mr. Chairman, I will I guess I'll abstain from this because I believe all the other years I abstained because I do have a business interest. However, very minor, but we have a full commission office that stays. That's always a good idea when you've got a business interest anyway.

All right, give me just a second to pull this up. All right. This is temporary use permit uh 25-011. It is a temporary use permit for weddings and events. And this is in Wilton Township. The applicant is 15839 uh West Doyle Road LLC and behind the LLC is Leo Delair who is here this evening. Give me a second to This is an aerial view of the property. Let's see if I can make this a little larger. It's uh outlined in yellow and Doyle Road would be on the north side and Galer Road is on the west side. Um the building that's on the very south side of that property is where the weddings and events would be held. And I should mention this is the third year that uh Mr. Deair has requested this use. Uh a little bit closer view of the property. Um you can see in the green roof building that's where the weddings and events take place. This is just a survey of the property. This is Mr. Delair's uh site plan that he provided with his application showing the building um and the parking areas that come off of the uh his driveway there, his gravel driveway on the south side of Doyle Road. You can see by the zoning map that this is primarily an agricultural area with some estate residential uses, but

everything in this immediate area is zoned agricultural. This is a photo of Doyle Road. The entrance is on um your left hand side in this picture. This is the photo looking south towards the subject property. This is the north side of Doyle Road. Um a photo of where the parking area is on the property. And this is just a photo of the building from Galer Road. I do have nine conditions on this temporary use permit. Um these are the same nine conditions that have been on the temporary use permit the previous two years. I want to point out that um since uh this business has been operating which uh is generally May through October. We have received no complaints. They have complied with all of the requirements of the fire district and the county land use department. Um, so we are recommending approval of this request and it uh Mr. Deair uh shared with me this evening also that he's been recognized for having one of the top wedding venues in the area. So that's uh really good and we're glad to hear that. Uh if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

I have no other questions. Anyone understand? No, no questions. Thank you very much, sir. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case tonight? There are not. Is the applicant here? We have no objectors and we have a recommendation of approval. Would you like us to vote or would you want to come down and make a comment? Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes. 25-01. Make a motion for approval of temporary. Second.

I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. Yes. Yes. You're approved.

We technically businesses here we traded. Now I presume that we have no executive session but you want to make announcements. Correct?

So there have been solar. So being that they're so large there is facility at JJC that the the main campus and

okay

so it does see 400 people and um the two dates in mind, one is March 16 start 5:30 and the other March 18 on Wednesday. Now these dates are only they have completed applications on work. So um with that being said, should they fulfill these two dates, we need to a know that we have a full committee that will present the the cases and b that we have able to vote cases. We have over 200 variances that are being uh brought before you and the two special permits.

Can we clarify the dates? You said March 6th and 18th. March 6, which is a Friday. Okay. Yeah. Friday. I was okay. Goodbye. Day night, which is a Wednesday. So, yeah, but it's the day after St. Patty's Day, so don't come with your head tucked under your arm, you know. These would be the only cases for the night then, too. Correct. Okay.

So, one one of the cases are probably Frankfurt of Green Gardens involved too. Yeah, maybe not. I was told that none of the properties is in Lincoln Way School District. Yeah, I don't know the exact boundaries. So, all Frankurt Township and Lincoln probably. No, but you would know this better.

Frankfurt Township shares two school districts. Okay. Goes up to stagger. So I could submit to you PIN numbers and I could submit it to you that you know we need we need

I'm available either day. I I like the Friday the six better than I like the 18th. They have to be on specification. So they they are projecting these

and I can shed um some light. So the March 6 would be the project that's more focused in the Create Washington Mooney and Will Township area. Um so that would just cover that particular zoning case, the variances for that. Um and then the 18th would be the one that's the Manhattan, the Green Garden Township and uh Wilton Township project. um which would be the larger project but again it allows um being on site the rest you're suggesting but we should take both days or what they would be separate so we have two large solar and we're foreseeing separate nights for each of these cases.

Okay. So it's a possibility we could meet four times that month maybe um with the 18th we would be meeting the 17th if we had cases for the normal except 17th is St. Patty's Day. So, you probably won't meet on the St. Patty's Day. Well, if we have the work, we'll be here. As of now, do we believe we have cases for the third and 17th? We're not quite there yet for the 17th.

Well, these will be at Governor's Day. No. So, uh, the applicant is willing to meet closer to the project areas to kind of help alleviate some of the commute times for any residents who want to come and state their concerns. Um, as well as elected officials and, you know, the commissioners. It's just those were the dates those venues gave them. Um, so we're trying to see if our commissioners are available those dates. Would you repeat the the times and the dates and where these meetings take place? So, governor's state would be March 6th at 5:30.

5:30. Okay. Again, this is very tentative, but at least looking at your calendars, if we know you guys are available, that helps us lock in the deal a little bit more when their application is complete. Um March 18th at 5:30 could be at Lincoln Way West. Both of them will be just March 18th. Just one. So the first March 6th, Governor State. Governor State. Okay.

And we're thinking keeping the meeting time at 5:30 because it seems like you guys can make it um with making it here. And then March 18th would be the Lincoln Way West location. Yeah. And also start at 5:30. West will be where in the auditorium I believe so. Okay. Because I think if I remember correctly and you guys can correct me, but auditorium one end of West and the gym is on the other end, right? Yeah. And I believe with Governor State it would be I think their performing arts building.

Okay. So, it's a large venue that has the auditory capacity and I think both of them um would have the audio visual capabilities that we would ask for for a public hearing. We're not even certain on these. If they if it takes two more weeks to finish up the applications, we're falling into April then, aren't we? Potentially. Yeah. We just decided to try to book a trip to New Orleans in April or end of a March. So, I guess going a little far for me and you know depending on how late we would be there.

Is this the same applicant for both the Okay. So like you can't vote for either one, can you? Well, I don't know. I know that on the 18th I have a conflict of interest with the green garden one. He's he's one of the landowners. Not that I am. No, I'm surrounded by it. Okay. I I don't have any I don't have any But you don't have property in it then. No. Okay. I'm But I've got it on the west, the east, and the south. So, I'm surrounded by it. So, technically, I would imagine that's a conflict of interest where I can't vote yay or nay. I don't think I can even comment on that particular Is that true? How would that be? Because that that would mean I couldn't vote on a piece of property next to me. No,

I don't think you could actually. Actually, never did that in the any of the training. The training even said I could vote for a relative member that wasn't a direct sibling as long as I didn't have a financial interest in the case, right? Or the other. So, your vote is not, right? I don't know. And and you could and you're restrained the same way. If you have a business dealing with them, you can't vote. But you could vote to your next door neighbor's property without a bit of problem if you don't have any business with them. Is that your lawyer that's advised you that or is the county? He did

your own lawyer. Yeah, I haven't talked to county but and even the creed I don't know what to say. Chris, what was your what would be your opinion?

I don't know. Okay, that's fair. I I'll have to let me take a look at the issue and and get an opinion. I don't think this ever happened. The solar companies actually threaten me about not being able to participate. So yeah, there's a certain conflict is you know I can understand that but no financial interest but still that doesn't mean that's not the only way you can be conflicted. I don't know. I I'm I'll just have to take a look at what the law said.

Can I expand that just a little further then? Because when I first came on this commission, I know there was a lawsuit up north being filed against I guess the PCC and the county board. If he was to do a vote or something and be sued by this company or anybody are we covered under the county, correct? Yeah, we get a million dollars indemnity, but we don't have to hire a lawyer unless we chose to. We we have county representation. He would represent you for Yeah. The problem is they start out their lawsuits with $3 million nowadays. Yeah. Unless you step out of line and commit some kind of, you know, crime. My point is we're already down one commission. I can't participate. That puts us down to five commission.

Kim doesn't come. You're down to four. I think some of the concern is just capacity because we know from experience with the last one we were almost at capacity and we filled this room we offered the committee room here. So if we these are bigger projects the one in cere's about the same size. The one in Manhattan's about double that. So, we figure there's gonna be a lot more people coming out,

but this would be the official public hearing. So, if they want their voice on record for the case to go forward, they would be here to comment. And I can almost guarantee that it'll be teleadvice, but there's going to be 10 or 12 of you that have traveled. Would we be within our right to say find a place downtown Joliet? I mean, we did consider JJC for both. I think some of the questions is regarding the project location. Does it make more sense to meet halfway and actually go kind of in the area of those projects? That was to save time for the residents.

Well, it does make sense just like it made sense that time. There was 60 people here. I asked to move their case forward, but then the several the one applicant had children and they had to wait till 11:30 to have their case and I felt like a complete jerk afterwards because I really screwed the other people that were earlier on the agenda. They had to sit through three and a half hours of testimony. You know what? You always you always take your chances when you come here what time your case is going to be anyway. If you're the last case, you're the last case.

I mean, it does come down. You do have say, too, on the location. We're just we're asking to get better information so we can go back to the applicant to pinpoint locations. And

they uh got an Uber for you. Pick you up and check. Yeah. Well, you can Uber black. I've heard of it. I I'm I know a little bit about it. My son's got me kept me in the know. Well, governor state for Kim is exactly across the county length. I mean, you're starting in Shannon, right? All 422 miles wide. Yeah. Exaggeration, of course.

Is Is there going to be a a time limit for these meetings? because I I'm guessing that one for uh Green Guard and and that that's over with 6,000 acres with between two and 300 variances. I don't know how you get through that and then listen to all the objectors that are going to be there. I mean, you're going to be there.

I think in terms of the rules, you could potentially limit public comment regarding the cases um kind of how you have in the past. But in terms of hearing everything, you can postpone or continue the case if it gets too late. We just have to make sure we kind of plan for it and have a publication where we encompass maybe two dates like we did the last time and we didn't need the second date, but just plan for maybe two nights um either concurrent like following each other or a week after where we could potentially postpone. But some of the concerns is just the publication for the time of the meeting. We need to make sure we have that.

The announcement for these meetings is going out to the general community or is it strictly going to be held to the adjacent land owners? It goes to the land owners and then it will be publicized in the newspaper. at govern.

Okay. And we know sometimes people half mile mile even come from the mile.

Well, the townships are very well aware of both of these projects. Um so I'm sure the townships will keep any concerned residents apprised. Um, you'll have any municipalities within a mile and a half get notified. Public agencies, road districts, they get notified of the zoning requests. Maybe maybe in your announcement though um you could not you could add a statement saying that we would welcome and recommend any group to bring forward a single speaker to to come for the group's concerns.

So you've been doing this quite well saying like the first three people you don't have to come up and repeat everything. Can we pull the audience say how many of you are opposed because of this this and this and get a show of hands. Can we do that?

We are in the midst of trying to work something out like 13 and that once we get there we'll find out. In the grand scheme of thing, it's just a shame we have to sit here and listen to this, but it doesn't make any difference when it's all said and done. Vote yay or nay. It ain't going to make it doesn't make any difference. It's just a waste of time. But Springfield says we have to do it.

So then the other issue is if we had to continue the meeting, if we have to hear it within 45 days, does that mean just start hearing it or do we have to have the conclusion within? It's concluded within the first 60 day or when the application's complete, you have 60 days to complete the public hearing and then they have 30 days for the county board to hear it. So, it was not quite an answer. I appreciate what you said, but it was a little dance, I think. I mean, so we want to get it done in the first place. We want to get it done as quick as

we had a problem. Yeah. Meeting the 60-day date. I think the question is with if we did have a long session that we were tired, we wanted to adjourn for the night and continue it to another time. We have to make sure that that second part is within the 60 days as well and that the conclusion is completed within 60 days. I believe we do.

Okay.

So, we know we won't have four. Yeah. Anybody else? Roger.

Yeah. He might just get the flu that night, too, though.

My chauffeur will drive me. I'll be there. I could make it for sure, but I'm I'm in for both. You got four. So you're asking us if we should force them to come to Joliet though.

Right. But if you have the preference for Juliet, I mean that's something we can tell them, too. I do somewhat care about you folks. You got to drive. Well, but I know not everybody lives in Joliet. If you have it, you might listen to less comments if it's here or near here. I mean, if you have it right in the middle of that, you can count on a huge I think you're gonna count on a huge crowd charge, but she's right. It may it may trim it down 5%. Who knows? But yes, what would you hold it at, Juliet? Julie at East at the auditorium or

no JO has a little spot down something that holds 300 people at least. Yeah, that's why I said Julian is at the auditorium because I know they hold that that quantity of people without any problem. I do whatever.

Have you ever done anything? I don't know. other conferences. I mean technically our meetings tonight like we do share somebody could go on to WebEx and be listening to the meeting tonight. It does not appear we have they allowed us to teleconip but not not they stopped it right after co they stopped our permission and you're still doing it in the courthouse. Yeah, but they stopped our permission right after CO. That's why I said,

well, the state statute may not allow it. I thought the state did stopped it for the courthouse. They allowed it for CO because they didn't want, but I'm saying it's still being used in the Will County Courthouse. Well, I'm not arguing with you. I don't know that fact. All I'm saying is they I I'm not arguing with you. All I'm saying is that they stopped it for us. They don't allow us to do it. They stopped it here if what he's saying is I would say if they already got those dates set those venues set long as you have four commissioner that's all I

yeah my case I mean I should be good unless unless I got to leave town traveling classes or whatever whatever that come you don't have to recuse yourself from these, do you, Jen? No. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for the information. We will have a motion to second. Wait a second. She said she's got another thing. No, she asked for a motion to adjourn.

Did you ask for a motion to adjurnn? Okay, we have a motion and a second. I don't know who made the motion. Karen did motion. I second. Second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any oppose? We're out of here. Thank you folks. I wasn't too