Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello.

Hello.

No, I don't think so. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a Will County Planning and Zoning Fiction regular meeting of March 3rd. We'll call this meeting to order. Will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance?

Would you lead us to the pledge, Roger? I will. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the government for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

I have a roll call, please. here. Yes. Mitchell here. Here. I'm going to swear everyone in who's going to speak tonight in at once. So, all of you who have signed in and intend to speak, 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. I didn't hear the I do, but I presume you said them.

Um,

yeah. Next thing. Would would you please turn off, turn down, or in other ways immobilize your cell phones for this meeting? Thank you. First order of business is approval of a minutes after the roll call. We had the roll call, correct? Yes. Quum. I declare a quorum. Am I right? Um, everyone had a chance to read the minutes of February 3rd. Okay. I would like a motion to approve the minutes of February 3rd. Then

move to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Signed. Okay. Next is February 17th minutes. Uh I everyone read them. Is there any corrections or missions or anything? If not, I'd like a motion. Move to approve the uh February 17th minutes. Second. All right. I have a motion, a second. I'm going to abstain because I was not at the meeting. So, everyone else, all who in favor signify by saying I.

I. Any oppose? Same sign. Okay, we're approved. Our first case tonight is zoning case GC2131. U is uh going to be presented to us by Jesus Peno and we will start that right away.

Good evening Jesus. How are you sir?

Good evening. I am always good to It's always good to be here. Okay, I'll be as you mentioned, I'll be zone going over zoning case ZC25131. The owner of the property is Angela and Adam Craky and the attorney is Nathaniel Washburn and they are requesting a variance for maximum accessory building area to construct a new detached accessory structure. Okay, here we have a zoning map of the property with the subject property outlined in red. The property is zoned R2 with 1.95 acres in area and 547 ft of combined lot frontage and the property is deemed a conforming R2 parcel. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property. Again, subject property outlined in red. The property is improved with a single family home, a 825 square foot attached garage, a 101 square foot detached shed, and an ingground pool. As mentioned before, the applicant would like to construct a 30x40 detach accessory structure, which is approximately 1,200 square ft in size. With the proposed accessory structure, the property would exceed the 1,800 square foot maximum accessory building area for the R2 zoning district. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of the new building as proposed without reducing the size of the building. Here we have a the picture of the plat of survey. The new structure is shown kind of where the highlighted yellow words are. And here we have a few pictures of the property. First, the view looking at the subject property from Banbury Lane. The view looking down the existing driveway where the accessory building is proposed at the end of that existing

driveway. The view looking east at the adjacent property across Banberry Lane. The view looking southwest at the remaining portion of the property. The view looking north and finally the view looking south. Now to quickly go over the variance standards and review criteria. A more detailed analysis of the criteria that was used to determine the variance can be found in the staff report. But to quickly summarize, staff finds that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. It is the applicant's personal desire to build a new structure that will cause the property to exceed the maximum necessary building area permitted in the R2 zoning district. Staff also finds that the variance request may alter the essential character of the locality. There are no parcels within the surrounding area that have received approval of variances for the permitted maximum accessory building area. Now looking quickly at section two, staff also finds a particular physical surroundings does not result in a particular hardship. The hardship does not come from the physical conditions of the land. The desire to obtain more accessory building area is a convenience request and again not a hardship that comes from the land itself. Lastly, staff finds that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the neighborhood. The building will require approval of a building permits. Additionally, per the submitted site plan, the new building will meet the R2 zoning district setbacks of 47 feet from the rightway, 10 ft from the side property lines, and 5T from the rear property line. With that said, staff is recommending denial of the variance. Staff did not

receive any comments or concerns from any public agencies, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions. Anyone have any questions? No questions. I guess I should follow up since you did recommend denial. So R2, if I read this right, requires a minimum 40,000 square foot for Ariel. Yeah. Yes. So technically this lot is two R2 lots. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. You probably said that, but I'll look something up. I should either. But then we had a zoning case not too long ago just to the south of this that did have a fair number of objectors to it as well, didn't we?

Um, I don't recall from memory. It might be, but yeah, at least for this specific case, I didn't receive any objections from any neighbors or any township officials or road district officials as well. Thank you. No problem. Thank you, sir. So, this case wouldn't require any further variances as far as battery. That's correct. Yes.

Are there any concerned citizens or objectives to this case tonight? There are not. May I hear from the attorney, Mr. Washington? Good evening, sir.

Good evening, uh, Chair Stippen, uh, members of the planning and zoning commission. Um, I think, uh, staff did a good job of summarizing the situation, though I, uh, disagree with their recommendation. Uh, I would say the following. Uh my client uh has uh as member Kefner very aptly pointed out a lot that is over twice the size of a regularly zoned R2 lot which requires 40,000 square ft. We're at uh north of 80,000 square feet at nearly 2 acres of property. Uh to Mr. Kefner's other comment uh there are actually two other cases that were in the vicinity of this. One of them happens to be uh further to the south. It was a 1acre lot, also zoned R2. There were neighbors that objected, which resulted in denial. However, uh I don't know how it would be lot line to lot line, but if you uh throw it in old Google maps, 1237 Green Street in New Linux, which is a half a mile drive from property to property, following uh Banberry over to Green, was a 34,000 and change lot. uh which was zoned R3 with a maximum accessory limit of 1,200 square f feet. That gentleman was granted by this commission a variance to put a private shop uh exceeding the accessory structure up to I think it was north of 4,000 square ft on a lot, you know, far less than half the size of this property. Uh and that was to run a business in a residential neighborhood. My client has uh due to the size of his lot some abnormally large uh lawn maintenance equipment due to the near twoacre size. He's got a larger than average lawnmower and other equipment to maintain the property. He also inherited a fairly sizable boat that currently takes up the entirety of

his garage, forcing the nice fancy lawnmower to sit outside. So, this is not really a matter of convenience. It's a matter of necessity for my client to be able to both maintain his property uh himself without having to pay a landscaping company to do so and to keep all of his belongings in a safe space where it's, you know, climate controlled and out of the weather. Uh we did uh and I don't know if any of this made its way, but I'm happy to pass it along uh if it would help. We do have signatures from several of the residents in the area. My client did leave a letter uh that I can also pass to uh staff uh for inclusion in support. We're aware of no objectors. No neighbor that was spoken to had any objections to the request. And you know, certainly I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, but I think the abnormally large size, we could have two full lots with two full houses each with 1,800 foot of accessory structure. That would be far more building and structure than what we're asking for with this relatively modest variance. So, we would hope that this commission would support that and grant the variance.

Any questions from anyone? You had you had mentioned that 4,000 foot building that was approved by this commission. Do you remember when that was?

Uh, I have that here. Let's see if I've got the exact date. I should have guessed you would ask me that and that's the one thing I didn't leave on my easy cheat sheet here. Uh I believe it was within the last year though I can find that report unless staff happens to be able to bail me out on this one and tell me when it happened. It was older than the other case uh on I think it was Willow that was the one that got denied. This one would have been it looks like I think no it was uh Willow was in November of last year. The other case I'm guessing it's this set of dis looks like December maybe of last year.

That was you said about a half mile from

Yeah, it's uh the address is 1237 Green Street in New Lennox. It would literally be you take Banberry onto Sycamore. You hang a left and it's literally a half a mile door to door and it's a much smaller lot about 35,000 square feet in zoned R3 and I believe it was 4,000 plus square feet. I don't have the exact number. Or do I? 1500 square foot cap. Looks like 42. No, I know it was north of 4,000. And I'm looking poorly through my lovely notes here. Sorry, it was just shy of that. It looks like it might have been 3,942 square feet. So, approximately 4,000.

Definitely help your case if there's no over here from the public. But I guess since you got that the notice is from the neighborhood taken look at it. Yep. I'm happy to provide that. Okay. Yeah, I was uh know what that does to you.

I was say it was a a bit of a cluster today. My lovely lovely assistant of many many years had her hip replaced. So I have been acting as my own uh judge, jury, and executioner of things. So I uh apologize for my apparent lack of uh organization. I would say she knows she's got me now because uh I'm if I'm this discombobulated without her. If it's all right when I'm not fumbling on the fly, I will uh hand those up. But we do have those sheets here available. Um and I also have a letter that the uh applicant uh had left with the neighbors that we didn't get signatures from that I can uh also enter into the record. Well, having no objectors here helps helps that you have done a job with your clients.

Okay. Is there any questions? Any other questions? Thank you very much, sir. Very much appreciated. I will make sure staff gets those uh signatures. But case number uh ZC-25-131V-25-174. I would like a motion. Mr. Chairman, motion for approval for case number ZZ/25-131B-174. Variance for maxable accessory building area from 1,800 square f feet to 2,120 ft.

I have a motion and I have a second. May I have a roll call vote? Yes. Yes. Navarat. Yes. Yes. Garland. Yes. And chairman.

Yes. You're welcome, sir. Our next case tonight is ZC-26-00005 and we have a V-26-013 and Kelly Kruinski is our presenter. Good evening, Kelly.

Good evening. Okay. So, this is zoning case ZC-26-00005. Um, the owner and applicant of the property is Aaron Papo Well. Um, the owner is requesting a variance for sideyard setback from 10 ft to 4.5 ft. Um, here's an aerial view of the property with the property outlined in yellow. The property is located in Planefield Township along Plum Street. The lot contains four separate pins, all zoned R3. These four pins can be considered one zoning lot. This zoning lot is improved with a two-story residence with a 528 square foot attached garage. Um, the owner is looking to construct a 768 square foot detached garage for additional storage. Um, this will comply with the maximum accessory building area of the R3 district. The proposed garage will encroach along the sideyard setback in order to align with the existing driveway on the property. Um here is the zoning map with the property outlined in red. The subject property is zoned R3 and is surrounded by other R3 properties. Um to the northeast of the property abudding um is the city of Crest Hill and there is business zoning districts located there. Um here is the PLA survey of the property showing the existing and proposed structure outlined in red. Um the pros garage um is shown approaching on the sideyard setback. This is the view looking southwest at the residence. This is looking um at the existing driveway. This is looking at the eastern property line. This is another view of the eastern

property line. Um looking at the um eastern sideyard setback encroachment. Um this is looking southeast along plum. This is looking north across from the subject property. This is looking northwest across from the subject property. Um this is looking northwest along Palm Street. Um and finally this is looking at the um northern adjacent parcel. Okay. A full analysis of the variance standards and review criteria can be found in the staff report. Um but to summarize for section one, um staff finds that the owner is due to unique circumstances as the existing driveway along the eastern property line limits alternative placement of the proposed detached garage. Um staff also finds that granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the area as nearby properties have similar setback encroachments. Um for section two of the variance review criteria um staff finds that a hardship related to the property's physical layout um is present. Strict enforcement of the setback would require relocating or expanding the existing driveway resulting in additional cost and sight disturbance. Um while setback variances are common across residential parcels, um the request is not based off financial gain as the garage is intended for personal storage. Um, finally, staff finds the variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Um, the owner is working on the building permit and is required to comply with all um, applicable codes. Um, finally, of agencies notified, there were no objections received. Um, also in I believe it's the last page of the staff report, um, a letter from the abuing property owner along the eastern setback encroachment um, was provided.

in this letter states that she has no problem with the proposed sideyard setback encroachment. Um, with that, staff is recommending approval of the variance for sideyard setback along the eastern property line. I'm happy to answer any questions and then I believe the applicant is also here. I have no questions of you. Have anyone else here? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any objections or concerned citizens to this case tonight? There are not. Okay. Mr. Chairman, take a motion. Yes, sir.

DC26-005. You have a recommendation by staff and no objectors. Approval of variance 26-013 variance for minimum sideyard setback east side from 10 ft to 4.5 ft. Second. I have a motion and a second. May I have a roll call? John, yes. Yes. Yes. War. Yes. Matt Garland. Yes. Chairman. Yes. All right, sir. And my hats off to the most unique lot formation I've ever seen. Yeah.

I know where the gold is buried. The arrow points right to the tip of the where where the treasure is buried. Anyway, I'm like panero. This next case tonight, uh we have a uh problem with the case with the with the from what I understand from the signage for advertising the case. And uh with that problem, we're asking for a recommendation to move this case to April 7th. So moved.

Okay. So I have a motion to move to April 7th. Do I have a second? November 7th date. Yeah. April 7th. Moment. Wow. Okay. Say, may I have a roll call, please? Yes,

Houston.

Yes. Okay, over here. Our next case tonight and our last case tonight, as it turns out, is ZC-25-140/v-25-379. Um, and Alec Van Patton will be our presenter tonight. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. Uh, so I am reviewing zoning zoning case ZC 24140. The owner of property is Jeffrey and Lynn Mezer. The applicant is requesting a variance uh to build an addition to their house. Page stick. Uh so this image shows the zoning map of the subject property outlined in red. The property is zoned R3 with 9,362 square ft of area and 55.1 ft of lot frontage along Blossom Street. Uh the R3 zoning district requires min lot minimum lot area of 20 uh K square feet uh and 90 ft of lot frontage. The lot was created as part of Sunnyland subdivision uh in 1925. Uh this was before 1978 when lot standards were introduced. Uh sometime after a subdivision was plotted, the lot gained 5 feet in the southeast corner. Uh but legal non-conforming lots are allowed to gain lot frontage and keep their legal non-conforming status. Uh so looking at a 2025 area of the property, uh the property is improved with a single family house and attached a garage. the owner plans to build a 35- ft x 16 ft addition to the residence. Uh this uh is a pla survey um of the proposed addition uh with the proposed addition uh outlined in red and then kind of looking at uh the characteristics. So this is the view looking at the subject property from Blossom Street. Uh this is the view uh looking at the sideyard setback uh encroachment and where the proposed addition will be. Uh this is the view looking at the detached garage and residence from the northeast corner. Uh this is the view uh south looking at the adjacent property. Uh this is the view looking at the southern adjacent property. Uh this is the view north across from the subject property. Uh this is the view uh looking northwest

across from the subject property. Uh this is the view northwest uh down Blossom Street. And this is the view uh southeast um down from Blossom Street. So now looking at um section one of the varian standards review criteria uh staff uh finds the play of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Uh the house was built in 19 uh 50. Uh this um was before uh this is legal non-conforming structure uh for encroaching sideyard setbacks. The addition of the house's considered expansion of this nonconformity uh must be brought into compliance. A staff finds the variance if granted uh may not alter the essential character of the locality. Other resistant uh residence has existed uh encroaching into the side yard setback for 75 years. So it's already part of the locality and uh relative or for the size of the addition uh that will make their residence uh around 13 uh 1,390 square ft. And based on GIS aerials uh there are five parcels with houses uh at or above that same size. And then for a summary of section two of the right uh criteria. So staff finds the property does uh does result in uh hardship uh to the owner based on the size. Uh so as stated it was plotted in 1925 before lot requirements. So many of the uh parcels in the um in the subdivision were plotted uh well short of R3 district standards. And to kind of put it into perspective, so the this lot size uh of this lot is a lot closer to the modern R5 district. And looking at R5 districts, uh the sideyard setback uh is only 5T on that uh which shows kind

of the difficulty of meeting the 10 ft uh sideyard setback for a lot of this size. As staff's professional opinion, the alleged difficulty or hardship was not created by the property owner. The residence was constructed encroaching in the sideyard setback in 1950. And according to record D, the owner uh obtained the property on October 8th uh 2024. Uh and so staff is uh recommending approval of the variance and I can answer any questions. I have no questions. Anyone questions? No.

Thank you very much. Are there any objectors or concerned citizens to this case here tonight? There are not. Um, we uh you give you the option of coming up and speaking if you care to or we'll just go ahead and take a vote depending on what you want to do. Hi, I'm Jeffrey Mezer and uh we're building this addition for my sister-in-law. Um once you get in my house, only takes three steps to get in my house. It's a flat house. You don't have to go any more steps. So, it's it's for her and for myself. I I can't walk too well anymore. So, thank you everybody.

Yeah. Thank you, sir. Okay. on case GC-25-140/v-25-379. Uh like a motion, Mr. Chairman. Motion for approval for case number ZZ-25-140 B-25-375 varance for side yard setback from 10 feet to 5.62 ft. I have a motion second. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. You're approved. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm not hearing well.

Yes, please. staff all met our newest board member. Okay,

so I shouldn't ask to go to executive session. Any public comment or exe any announcements from the staff? I thought I would ask something but I thought it best if it wasn't on the recording following. Just want to make an announcement. Our regular next meeting is April 7th here at the county board room. Have a special meeting which will take hopefully one day but it is scheduled for two days. March se March 18th 19 at the Renaissance Center. We have questions about parking at the Renaissance Center

across the street on each corner from the Renaissance Center. There's parking. I believe that there's parking on the other side of the Renaissance Center. How about handicap parking? Is it available there? Okay.

500 ft.

Basically, right across the street. which it's only two blocks from here if we walk. Thank you, sir. Yeah. From here. No, you would go south to street. It wasn't one. Yes. There's a Chicago street then. Well, I would one way southbound, but I mean it's No, it's south. It's south.

It's south one block and west one block. The re the back of the Renaissance building is on the east side, but it faces west. It's right next to the building that's going to be I forget what's across the street. Yeah. But handicap parking is first come, first serve. So those of us who might need it probably should arrive early.

We don't have that package be given to us now.

Be okay. I was hoping we'd have it today so we could Yeah, this is the creep. So, this one should be voluminous than the other ones. Luminous. I wanted to use that word publicly. I am made new guy laugh scratch that off my [ __ ] list. Would you like a motion to journ, Mr. Chairman? I will so move tojourn.

Yeah. I was just waiting to see if Don had anything else to Okay, then I would like a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Same size. We're made in the official record with the sign. All right. I have to try I tried on the last one. That's