Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

considers first class mail a priority and it's got to be under I can't remember what he said five and a half by eight. Anything bigger cannot be first class mail unless you pay for priority. Yeah. So any envelope this big, they they make no guarantees.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the W County Planning Board Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting of February 3rd. U call this meeting to order and everybody rise for the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Benton House, would you lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I have a roll call, please. Here, here. Mora here and Louisis Navarat here.

We have a quorum. Uh I'm going to uh ask everyone who has a cell phone to either turn it down or put it in airplane mode uh or turn it off. And also one last request. Anyone who is going to speak tonight hopefully has signed in. But I'm going to swear you in in mass anyone who's going to speak tonight. So please raise your right hand. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God. I do. Thank you. Uh first order of business is a minute approval of minutes. Everyone had a chance to read the minutes, I hope. Okay. And I'd like a motion on the minutes, please.

Okay, I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Motion, second to approve. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any oppose? Same sign. Okay. Our first case tonight is case number V, no, pardon me, ZZ-25-124. And uh the case will be presented by Jesus Preseno. Good evening, Jesus. Okay. Yes, I'll be going over zoning case 25124. The owner of the property is Cesar Nava Jr. The attorney is Nathaniel Washburn of KG LLC. The applicant is requesting a variance to bring the two homes on the property into compliance by converting one home into an ADU. Here we have a zoning map of the property with the subject property outlined in red. The subject property is zoned A1 and is 5 acres in size with 246 ft of lot frontage. The property is deficient for lot area and frontage. The applicant is requesting a variance for frontage and area to bring the entire property into compliance. The city of Wilmington is located directly north of the subject property. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property. The property is improved with two single family homes, a barn, and a detached garage. The zoning ordinance does not allow two single family homes on one parcel. As staff researched this property further, it was discovered that the building permits to allow the construction of two homes were issued by the city of Wilmington as the property was undergoing an annexation agreement. The first building permit was issued in 1999 and the second was issued in 2002. The annexation fell through and the property was never incorporated into the city. As the building permits were not issued by the Will County Land use department, the two homes are deemed to be in illegal non-conforming use. The

current order the property acquired the property in 2024. In 2025, the applicant submitted a damage repair permit. As the two homes are deemed to be illegal non-conforming uses, the zoning department cannot approve the pending building permit until the property is brought into compliance. The applicant was advised that the that the two options to bring the property into compliance were to convert one of the homes into an accessory dwelling unit or convert one of the homes into an accessory building by removing the kitchen that's currently in the building. The property owner stated that they intend to keep the kitchen and opted to move forward towards converting one of the homes as an ADU. Detached ADUs are permitted by right in the A1 zoning district. ADUs are limited in size to 49% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or cause the maximum coverage area of the underlying zoning district to be exceeded, whichever is less. Staff calculated that the gross floor area of the primary home is 1,949 square ft. 49% of 1,949 ft is 955 ft per the submitted architectural plan. The second home is approximately 1,345 square feet. Since the size of the second home exceeds 955 square feet, a variance from maximum ADU size is required given that the existing home was not issued a building permit as mentioned before from the county. The property will still be required to obtain a building permit from the land use department. Here we have kind of a zoomed in view of the PLA survey showing the two homes. the detached barn on the property. And here we have the architectural plan or the floor plan of the second home that will be labeled as ADU moving forward. Here we have a few pictures of the

property. First, the view looking south towards the existing primary house. Here we have the view looking north at the second home that will be converted into an ADU. Here we have the view looking north at the remaining portion of the property. The view looking northeast at the adjacent property. The view looking south at the adjacent property across Cole City Road. The view looking east down Cole City Road. And finally, the view looking west down Cole City Road. Now to go over section one of the varian standards and review criteria. Staff finds that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. As mentioned before, building permits for the two homes were issued from the city of Wilmington as the property was undergoing annexation. The annexation was never completed and the property remained in unincorporated Will County. The permits were issued in 1999 and 2002 respectively and the property owner acquired the property in 2024. The property owner acquired a deficient A1 property with an illegal non-conforming use and is now attempting to bring the entire property into compliance with the variance request that you see today. Staff also finds that the variance will not ex will not alter the central character of the locality. The primary dwelling has existed on the property for approximately 27 years. The second dwelling has existed for approximately 22 years. The variance request for maximum ADU size will bring the second home into zoning compliance. As mentioned before, a building permit will still be required. Additionally, for the variance for lot frontage area and sideyard setback per GIS areas, there are several A1 properties nearby that are also deficient area frontage and appear to have structures that encroach into the sideyard setback. Now, looking at section two, staff finds that the particular physical surroundings does result in a particular hardship. The property contains two

existing homes, both of which were built under building permits again issued from the city of Wilmington. Furthermore, the property cannot obtain additional lot area or frontage without creating additional non-conforming A1 zone parcels. Staff finds that the alleged hardship was not created by the property owner. The hardship stems from the construction of two residents permitted by the city of Wilmington 27 years ago. In addition, the parcel was created in 1998 with deficiencies in both lotage and lot area. And lastly, staff finds that the grassing of the variance will not will not be detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the neighborhood. The variance will allow for the conversion of the existing single family home into an ADU. There will be no expansion of the building footprint with the requested variance and the use of the property will remain residential in nature and consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. With that said, staff is recommending approval of all the five requested variances. With the agencies notified, we did not receive any comments or concerns and I'm happy to answer any additional questions.

I have no questions. Does anyone have any questions? We have no questions. Thank you very much, sir.

Are there any uh concerned citizens or objectors to this case here tonight? There are not. May I speak to Mr. Washbworth? Good evening, sir. Good evening. We we have no objections objectors here tonight and we have a recommendation of approval. Uh

I was going to say uh with no objectors and uh with the very uh articulate staff report uh we just ask that you abide by staff's recommendation and uh approve. But certainly I'm here if you have any final uh questions for the applicant and Mr. Nava is here with me as well. Um, but we are perfectly comfortable standing on staff's recommendation and report. Thank you, sir. And we'll go ahead and take a vote. That's Thank you, Mr. Chairman. number 25124 item number.

I have a motion second. May I have a roll call, please? Mitchell, yes. John, yes. Benhousen. Yes. Yes. War. Yes. Yes. Same case. Chairman B-25-165. Make a motion for approval of 3006.91. Second. I have a motion. Second. May I have a roll call? Yes. Yes. Yes. Melissa, yes. And Houston,

yes. Thank item B-25-175. Make a motion for variance for lot area from 10 acres to 5 acres. Second. Motion. Second. Roll call, please. Yes. Yes, yes, item B-25-176. I'd like to make a motion for app variance for sideyard setback west side 4.24. Second motion to second. Roll call, please. Yes.

John, yes. Yes. Navarat. Yes. Aaron Warick. Yes. And Chairman Houston. Yes. Same case. Item B-25-177. I would like to make a motion for a variant for sideyard setback 50 ft to 48 ft. Second. I have a motion. Second. Roll call. Mitchell. Yes. John. Yes. Yes. Louis. Yes. War. Yes. Yes. Pass everything. Sir, previous person not.

Our next case tonight is ZC-25-135V-25-179 and V-25377 and Brian Rner will be the presenter. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I was just trying to get things lined up there on the screen. Um, as you mentioned, this is zoning case ZC25-135. This is for two variances. Uh, one is a variance for minimum lotage from 80 ft to 0 feet for pin 30-07-30-0000-00-0000. The second variance is for minimum lot frontage as well from 80 feet to zero feet for pin uh 30-07-30-200-003-000000. Um the applicant for this request is Juliet Shanahan LLC and Steuart Lter is has a 50% interest in that and the agent is listed as Evan Vamick if I'm saying that correctly. I apologize if I'm not. And unfortunately, Evan was not able to be here this evening. Um, he lives in the Cleveland area and they've had a lot of snow, so he wasn't able to travel, but he did send Chuck Smith, who is out here tonight, to represent him. This is the zoning map of the subject property. I'm sure uh many of you are familiar with it. It's the old Caterpillar property uh or part of it. Uh it's highlighted there in yellow. The property is zoned I3, which is the most intensive zoning district that the county has. So, heavy industry. Uh you can see the surrounding uses are similar. Uh they're heavy industrial

uses that are zoned I3. Uh some of those um heavy industrial uses are located in the city of Joliet, which is the hatched pink area that you can see to the north and west and also to the slightly to the east. All right, this is uh an aerial view of the property. Uh again, highlighted in yellow to tell you a little little bit about the property. Um it's located just south of Shanahan Road or US Route 6. There is a lighted intersection uh with turn lanes that provide adequate access to the subject property. This access road has been there for over 70 years. uh mapping and platting records indicate that pin 30-07-30-100- 0007 uh- 000000 was created on July 19th, 2004. Mapping and platting records also indicate that pin 30-07-30-200-003-0000 was created on March 2nd, 1981. These divisions did not conform with the street frontage requirements of the I3 zoning district at that time. Um, however, they did have direct access to the street frontage through the commonly owned land just north of the subject properties. Uh, the applicant that is before you tonight did not have ownership of those properties at that time when those divisions were created. Um, I mean, essentially this these properties became I I don't necessarily want to say landlocked, but they had zero frontage because the city of Joliet annexed property immediately north of them in 2012. So, that cut off their direct street frontage on Route 6 or Shanahan Road. Even though that lighted intersection is there, that's like a private drive. It's not a road. Um there

is a large industrial building on that property that you can see uh that was used uh sorry was constructed by Caterpillar around 1950 and was operational by 1951. Over several decades the site was used by Caterpillar to produce hydraulic components like pumps and valves. Um the other property was also part of this request uh which is the smaller um property that's immediately to the east. These properties are located within the Joliet facility planning area as well. Here's a couple of surveys of the property. It's a very large uh survey. So, this is um the property that's on the westand side and had to be cut in half. Uh the these are also in your packet as well. This is the second property which would be on the eastand side. Now, this uh photo here is looking generally to the southwest uh at the subject property from about where the frontage um starts for this uh where it butts the city of Joliet's property is right near that access drive. Here's a couple pictures of the public hearing signs that were posted on site. They were up in accordance with the requirement in the zoning ordinance, uh, which is at least 15 days before, but no more than 30. I know that because I put them up. Um, this is the pro a photo of the properties looking south. Now, this is a photo of that lighted intersection that I told you about earlier with Route Six and the access drive. Uh, another photo of that intersection. And this right here is looking to uh the east uh of the subject properties towards the or old uh I guess it would be Exelon uh coal plant.

This is another photo looking south at the subject property. uh you know as you've heard many times in Jesus just before me we apply the criteria in the zoning code when it comes to making recommendations for variance request um and there's two criteria there right in the beginning that the plight of the owner is due to the unique circumstance uh and B that the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Well, this property has been developed in this area for um over 70 years. So staff does not see that granting this variance is going to impact the character of the locality. The unique circumstance here is the city of Joliet annexed a strip of land in front of them which thereby uh made these properties have zero frontage. So uh we believe that it meets that requirement. And then as we go further into the criteria, we look at the particular physical surroundings. So in this case, there's nothing they can do to have direct frontage on Route Six. I mean, this is the situation. The annexation cut them off. So the the way their property lies uh impacts that. Um I suppose it could be applicable to other properties that fall into this same situation. Uh there's this isn't based on an exclusively to make more money of the property. it's to bring the property into compliance with the zoning code um that is adopted by the county board. Uh they did not create this hardship um and this won't be detrimental to the public's welfare nor will it uh increase the danger of fire. So for those reasons, staff is recommending approval of both variance requests. Um and that's all I have. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

I have no questions. Anyone else? We have no questions. Thank you. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case here tonight? There are not. Okay, Mr. Smith, we have no concerned citizens or objectors. You're welcome to speak if you want to, but otherwise we'll just take a vote. Thank you, sir. I would like a motion on KCC-25-135 at all.

Mr. Chairman, regards to case number ZC-25-135, variance number 25-179, move for the approval of a variance for minimum lot frontage from 80 ft to 0 feet for pin number 30-07-30-1000-007-0000.

Second. I have a motion to second. May I have a roll call? Kimberly ment

yes and same case number variance number 25-377 move for the approval of a variance for minimum lot frontage from 80 feet to zero feet for pin number 30-07-30-2000-00003 3- 0 0 second. I have a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Yes. Yes. Yes. War. Yes. Yes.

Thank you, sir. It's nice to see you tonight. Case number ZC-25-136 and V-25-376. Alex Van Patton will be our Alec Ben Patton, pardon me, will be our presenter. Tried to make you an Alex there instead of an Alec.

No problem. I'm used to it. Uh, so I'm reviewing uh zoning case ZC25-136. The owners of the property is V Vincent Congine and Rannon Hulcom. Uh the applicant is requesting a variance to build uh two attached garages. Uh this image uh shows the zoning map of the subject property outlined in red. The property is zoned A2 with 4.99 acres of area and 260.28 ft of lot frontage along South Carl's Drive. The A2 zoning district requires minimum lot area of 2.5 acres and 300 ft of lot frontage. The lot was created on January 24th, 1969, which was before lots requirements were established. This law is deemed legal non-conforming due to not meeting lot frontage standards. Uh this is a 2025 aerial of the property. The property is improved with a single family home and metal frame pole barn. The owner plans to demolish both these structures to build a new single family home with two attached garages and a porter coach and a frame pavilion. Uh this is a plat survey of the property uh that shows a single family residence port and two attached garages uh which are outlined. Uh so this is a view looking west uh at the subject property. Uh this is uh the view uh that shows the rough location of the proposed uh two uh attached garages. Uh this is uh view uh

looking north at the adjacent property. Uh this is view looking south at the adjacent property. This is view looking northeast um at the adjacent property. Uh this is view looking southeast at the adjacent property. Uh this is view uh north looking down South Carl's Road. And this is view looking south down uh South Carl's Road. And then looking at the first set of criteria. Sorry, my pages are sticking. Uh so yeah, looking at the first set of criteria, staff finds the play of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The property owner wants to build a two to build two attached garages and a porta coach uh with uh that will exceed the maximum accessory building area for A2 district. Uh the lot is legal non-conforming which does allow new structures to be built without bringing the lot uh into compliance. Though any new structures are required to meet zoning and building standards for A2 districts. Uh the larger garage will store the owner's recreational vehicle or RV. Uh RVs are not required to be parked in an enclosed building. They can be parked outside as long as they are parked on a constructed driveway that does not encroach into the right of way. Uh the desire to build over the maximum accessory building area is a personal desire and not can be considered a unique circumstance. A staff finds that the variance if granted may alter the essential character um of the locality. Looking at the surrounding area, there's one parcel that has received approval for a variance for maximum accessory building area. Another one has also received administrative adjustment. However, one variance does not define the area's character and the approval of another variance of the similar scale could begin to establish a pattern of larger accessories accessory structures potentially altering the character of the locality. And then looking at the second set of

criteria, staff finds a particular physical surrounding shape or topographical conditions of the subject property does not result in particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from the mere inconvenience of the strict letter of the regulization regul regulations were to be carried out. The hardship u does not come from the physical conditions of the subject property. the owner could build smaller accessories accessory structures and still fit the RV or park the RV RV outside on a constructed driveway. Um, it is staff's professional opinion that the granting of the variance will not detr uh be detrimental to the public welfare or undulutely injurous uh to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Any proposed buildings will be reviewed by the county road district, fire protection district, and health department for compliance. And so staff recommends denial for the variance. And I am happy to answer any questions. a uh I'd like to make almost a statement more than a question in the respect that I believe that the county has got to revisit. They're looking at storing of RVs. Among other things, they don't want to give you a garage height tall enough to get an RV inside the garage. Um, and I know from personal experience, and I'm sure others here do that, uh, storing RV outside, you end up in invaded by mice and other critters that eat your electrical wiring and cause you all kinds of problems where inside you have the possibility of at least controlling some of that a little bit. Um but having having made all those statements uh I understand this the current zoning as we have it stand but I

do know this area and this area has a lot of varied structures very different kinds of houses a lot of them don't meet standards that we have today so uh I don't believe that changing you say what changing one would make a difference, but I don't believe that if you did change one, it would make a difference either because they have so many different structures there. Um, just my personal opinion. Having pontificated, I'll quit and I'll ask the board if anybody has anything that they want to talk about.

I guess I would follow up on that. So, they could ask for state zoning, but this estate zoning would also be limited to 3,000 square feet, correct? Yeah. Yeah. estate zone would also be but I know that usually the staff would look at how big the estate zoning is and might say it's equal to three lots which would be x number of square footage and then not make this that unusual. So they do a bit of a work around if for some reason we said no on this but it it would just make them have to go through a lot more steps to accomplish the same goals they're trying to get here. Everybody kind of follow that. Okay. Any other petitioning for the client? I just wanted to make sure the 3000 foot was right

and I and I wanted to get my statement into the board records. So, any other questions or Oh, thank you very much, sir. Are there any concerned citizens or objectors to this case tonight? There are not any concerned citizens or objectors. Uh would the uh primary contact Vincent Carbine or Rihanna here? Would you care to come up please?

Please give your name for the record. Hi, I'm Rian Hulcom and I'm one of the owners. Um, I hate public speaking, so I'm sorry. I got suckered into this. Down to where it's comfortable for you, the mic. There you go. Okay. Um, so we would like to store our our motor home indoors. Um, mainly for that young gentleman for nice protection. Um, the weather in Illinois and it's aesthetically more pleasing not seeing an RV when you're driving by. Um, our property is a little bit higher up, so I believe if we parked it outside, you would be sealed driving by. And in my opinion, it's just a little unsightly. Um, so I'd really appreciate um, consideration for variance.

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. I'd like the motion on case ZC-25136 and V-25376. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for approval for ZC25-136 for a variance D-25-376 for variance for maximum accessory building area from 300 square ft to 3,987 square ft. Second. I have a motion to second. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. John, yes. Battenous. Yes.

Narat War. Yes. And chairman Houston. Yes. Okay. Pass. Wonder if they'll be limited in that argument when they build the house. Well, they sometimes have to come. Hey, do I before you leave, are we uh talking to you about this case? Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. That explains a new face.

Next case is in vision fair. Sorry, pull my screen up. Please introduce yourself so we know who you are.

Okay. Um, hello. Uh, for those of you who do not know me, I'm Nicholas Hernandez. I'm the community planner for, uh, the Will County Land Use Department. Um about two years ago I started um well the county has a neighborhood plan for Fairmont. Um and that was written in 2014. So I was tasked with um updating it about two years ago or it's going on about two years now. Um and I just have since I'm going through the process I needed approval from um the landings committee planning and zoning and eventually the full county board. So I'm kind of here um I believe it's part of the packet and hopefully everyone got a chance to at least take a look at it. Uh, but I'm kind of here just to kind of give a little quick presentation about um kind of the highlights of it and then to answer any questions from um if anyone has any questions.

You gave people one word to describe Fairmont. That was interesting. Yeah, there's there was a lot of different uh a lot of interesting different um reactions to that. So prove it. Yes. Open up the public hearing. Oh, this was sent through the land use. Yes, you're correct. Thank you. You jump me. Uh at this point, may we uh temporarily close meeting and open up a public hearing?

Mr. Chairman, motion to open a public hearing about the Envision Fairmont plan. Second. All in favor? I better better take a roll call vote. Mitchell, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Pass. All right, sir. It's back to you, M.

All right. Thank you. All right. So, um, all right, I'll just I'll jump right into it. Um, so, one of the main things that we did, um, is we wanted to make sure that we were thorough with the with, um, the residents. So, a good way to reach out to them was to create, um, a survey. Our survey we sent to pretty much every home in the it was about 800 homes, I think we sent it to um, throughout the Fairmont uh, neighborhood and then we came back with almost a hundred respondents. um our survey was both in English and in Spanish to kind of cover um all everyone involved um in the area and then also we had um a version that was created specifically for children. Questions were pretty much the same but you know just kind of more kid-friendly and less you know planning jargo jargony. Um most of the respondents were from Fairmont with many of them being there for over 20 years. Um, there were a lot of elderly folks. So, a lot of them have been there. Uh, I heard a lot of stories about, you know, how they went to a lot of folks went to school there. They went they've been living there most of their life or they left and came back. Um, so it's kind of nice to see that that dynamic of it. Um, most of the individuals I talked to were un unaware of the original plan or did not participate in it. Some were, but most were not. Um, and then a lot of the the main a lot of the main focus for a lot of folks were uh sidewalks, street lights, cleanliness, community events, transparency. Um, and I'll kind of talk more about that later, too. In the original plan, there were update there were a set of goals and objectives um that were that were created in order to kind of see what the uh community was thinking, what was their priorities, what they wanted to kind of like the guiding forces of of the pres of the uh plan. Um and with that, I had a ranking system to ask um individuals to rerank the um the three objectives and then out of the seven goals, rerank your top three most important. And for the

objectives, the most important were was the improved infrastructure, then the bringing bringing new growth, and then followed by the stronger sense of community. Um, and as for goals, uh, it was to redevelop vacant parcels, uh, address the housing stock, and then provide and preserve, uh, quality green space. And then with that, we also figured out that there were four new goals that uh, respondents really um, focused on. I kind of just I kind of just took a conglomerate of what the responses were and we fashioned up some new um new goals for it. And those new goals were to beautify Fairmont through cleanups, added aesthetics and code enforcement. Uh to improve information dispersal of methods inclus including a creation of a community newsletter andor social media account. uh to improve community engagement through increased numbers of community events and community activities and to mo uh the modernization of utilities and utility equipment um throughout Fairmont. Another activity we did was a word cloud where basically we had asked uh individuals uh what was the first word they thought of um when it came to Fairmont. Some of the responses were overwhelmingly it was mostly positive. There are some uh some not so positive responses in there, but overwhelmingly as you can see uh the bigger the the bigger the word, the more often it came up. Home, family, community, diverse, and potential uh came up the most. Kind of just showing you um what a lot of individuals think about the neighborhood. I also did an activity that I called I just made it up for this. I called it this or that where basically I gave um individuals a choice of would they prefer obviously this or that and overwhelmingly flood reduction was the number one thing that trumped all other um all other choices. Um then followed by drinking water and then the a lower crime rate. So then kind of just like a quick recap

of everything that was covered because there was a lot of there were there were a lot of different things that were covered in um with throughout the whole document um and with the survey. Uh I wanted to highlight the changes in demographics. Um it was majority African-American population but now there is a large Latino population presence there. Um, also there were we did uh three main community outreach events um to kind of get uh to go out and meet folks where they're at. And then after that we got we were uh contacted by a local church and they wanted to um be a part of another event. We ended up doing a fourth event which was great. Um so that turnout ended up being the best turnout um and the best responses. Um the survey was helpful to understand the wants and needs community as I had mentioned. Um there are a list of already list of things that were already accomplished. Um towards the end of the document there is um essentially like a yeah a recap of the original plan and the things that um an update of what had been done since 2012 up until now. um talked about some of the key findings uh you know stable and updated infrastructures needed along or needed with um along with and increased uh and welcoming aesthetics. Uh recommendations were given continually update the plan and we're working on it with community partners. Uh I still am in the process of working with uh local stakeholders to try to see who wants to do what part to try to implement the plan to kind of uh accomplish some of the goals that we have. as I'd mentioned the four new goals that were there and then also um at the end of the document there's an action plan of things that needed to be accomplished kind of who will be accomplished time frames and all that and then kind of just the next steps to just continue to raise awareness um for the updates to others to let them know if they want to be a potential partner stakeholder developers everyone like that um the public a 30-day public comment period which is ending and then

also eventually we'll need um a full county board approval and then just kind of the shared responsibility of updating and implementing the plan. And that was what I have and I'll take any questions um from anyone who has them. Well, I notice in here that you have the first step in process is updating the Fairmont neighborhood plan was to justify the need for an update. Did did the majority of the people you questioned feel there was a need for the update?

Yes, definitely. I think that um a lot of initially a lot of respondents uh or a lot of participants unfortunately felt either forgotten or like they weren't a part of the process or their opinion didn't matter. So I wanted to make sure I was thorough to go and talk to different individuals to hold community events to meet meet folks where they're at. um to try to be more thorough. So the the main thing for us was to get that buy in to make sure that it was justifiable to make sure that you know putting the time and effort into it um was worth the potential outcome. And I believe that um from talking to um talking to the neighborhood residents, I think that it was justified. Well, I've read I've read most of the comments that were in there and um it looks like uh they're happy with a lot of things, but where they're unhappy, they're very unhappy.

Yes. And one of the things we tried to explain to folks was that um things will not unfortunately happen overnight. uh you know there's no magic fix to things but um since the uh the start of this process um newsletters have been created and w more widely dispersed um there's also a a flood study done by the army US army corps of engineers that have taken place um with eventual work in the area that they had deemed most um appropriate for that um so there has been some traction there's a creation of a community development corporation by a local church. So they're going to be a partner moving forward um with implement implementing different goals that we once we kind of figure out what the goals the specific goals and their capabilities are um and once they become more established because they've only been around for a couple of months now um then we're going to kind of see what the next steps are, what's feasible and what will work moving forward. The other thing that fascinated me was uh in 2012 uh the number of houses that were um at a minimal level financially

and in 2023 you got six houses and they're worth over a million bucks. Yeah, I was I was um I was interested interested specifically with that one. Um just because I I'm familiar with the area. I just try to picture which house it is. Um but I'm not sure which ones they are. Um another thing that um that I was actually just documenting earlier today is there have been a lot of demolitions that have taken place for um blighted homes, homes that you know are just either eyes or falling apart, dangerous. Um, so we're I'm I'm compiling compiling a list of that currently to kind of and I'm going to write a report about it um to essentially justify, you know, if demolitions are, you know, if we need more demolitions, if they're good things, bad things. Um to kind of just also help with, like I said, the blighted homes, the potentially dangerous homes to make sure that um even if we demolish those homes, that the lots don't sit vacant for long.

Right. Yeah. Right. Well, with flood control being the problem, that must mean there's no storm sewers in that whole area. It's just open ditches. Well, Juliet's taking over that, though.

Yeah. So, um yes, and the there's not really a maintenance plan in um in play for kind of like how to manage the uh the ditches. But yeah, the city of Joliet has taken over the sewage system, the water and sewage system. So that already um any improvements they're going to do are coming forward or forthcoming. And then as I mentioned there is a study and there is work to be done that um from the results of the US engineering uh army engineer army corps of engineers um and that should I believe the money has to be used by the end of this year like September of this year um I believe it's ARPA money so all that money that we have earmarked for that has to be used by the end of this year. Uh I was involved in the process but then it kind of just went over my head in in terms of you know was more the higherups dealing with it. Um and they as the last time I had heard about it they were um in the process of they had put a request for proposals out and they were uh putting it out to bid for engineering firms to come in and do the work. So that is moving forward um as we speak. Yeah,

I have dealt with the Army Corps of Engineers professionally over the years and um when a general says he wants something done a certain way, everybody else on the civilian side kind of just stands back and that's the way it gets done, right?

Yeah. There there was some outreach for there there's separate outreach um events for that one too because they were very thorough with that. So we had two separate outreach outreach events uh with the Army Corps of Engineers. uh we'd worked closely with them and then Blackport Township. Um so it was kind of like a conglomerate of different uh different stakeholders which was nice and like I said the um we had some pretty good turnouts for both events too. So um that was good to kind of see that you know a lot of neighborhood residents are very concerned about you know the state of things and moving forward. So it's good to get the feedback to till we know. Any other questions or shall we open the recommend approval for I'm querying the board here now.

Should I close the public hearing first before the vote? Yeah. Well, you want to close it before you vote? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I'm Yeah. Pick comments. I'm quing for comments is what I'm asking. Okay. Y. All right. And uh do I close the public hearing? Motion to uh close the public comment for the Envision Fairmont plans. Second. I have a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mitchell, yes. Yes. Yes. Warrior. Yes. And

yes. and a move to open the the meeting again. So move. Thank you. Second. Anyone? Second. All right. Motion. Second. Open the meeting and uh we'll take a vote, folks. So, this should be addressed as the Fairmont Neighborhood approved neighborhood plan of Dundum 2025, I think it's Yes. Yes. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept and approve the Fairmont Neighborhood Plan Addendum 2025. Second. I have a motion to second. I have a roll call.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I congratulate you on all your work. I know how much work this is.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You Well, unless we have any announcements from staff. Yes, go ahead. where St. Patty's Day. Have we confirmed the other dates, special meetings? So they they don't get confirmed soon. They're not happening on those dates, right?

So they they were um advised to find a different location. Okay. Our next schedule meeting will February 17th, I should say. So, uh, if that's all there is, I'll accept a motion of move to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn it. Okay, we have a movement. Do I have a second? All right, motion second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. We'rejourned. I probably should rethink this. I don't think this room could handle 250.