Grundy Reporter

Grundy Reporter

Monday, February 17, 2020

Grundy County Zoning Board of Appeals Committee met October 15

By Angelica Saylo Pilo | Jan 4, 2020

Shutterstock 79887304

Grundy County Zoning Board of Appeals Committee met Oct. 15.

Here is the minutes provided by the committee:

I. Call to order / Roll Call

Attendee Name

Title

Status

Arrived

Dick Joyce

Present

Bob Breisch

Absent

Lisa Lynch

Present

Mark Hill

Present

Sid Nelson

Present

Al Skwarczynski

Present

Mark Sandeno

  Present

Present for the Meeting:

Ralph Aimone 19-ZBA-008

Mark Hanson 19-ZBA-010

John McNabb, 19-ZBA-009

Jeff Lapikas, 19-ZBA-011, also present for this petition: Harry Koster, Debbie Koster, Timothy Baldridge, Edmond Schuda, and Jenny Baldridge.

Staff Present: Heidi Miller, Land Use Director, Cheryl Wardell, Land Use Assistant, George Gray, Grundy County Administrator.

Present from the Grundy County Board: Ellen Hanson

II. Approval of Minutes

1. approve the minutes of the July 16, 2019 ZBA meeting

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Sid Nelson

SECONDER: Lisa Lynch

AYES: Joyce, Breisch, Lynch, Hill, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

III. Official Business

1. Petition 19-ZBA-008 Aimone Map Amendment a to AR

Miller reviewed the petition. Ralph Aimone was sworn in. Aimone stated that he would like to change the zoning from A to AR so four lots can be sold with building permits. Aimone stated that Johnny Run Creek is the south border of the property and gives a nice break for the farmer that is to the south of the property and for the new property owners.

Skwarczynski asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this case.

No public comment was heard, public comment was closed at 7:12 P.M.

No questions regarding this petition was heard from ZBA members.

The La Salle factors were reviewed.

1. The compatibility with the existing use and zoning of nearby properties.

All felt that the AR zoning would be compatible for the area.

2. The extent to which the property values of the subject property are diminished by the existing zoning restrictions.

All felt that the property value would not be diminished by the change of zoning.

3. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the County.

All felt there is no problem with the changing of zoning for health, safety and welfare of the County.

4. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant.

All felt that this was a good proposal for this property.

5. The suitability of the subject of the subject property for the purposed for which it is presently zoned.

All felt that the property would be suitable for building single family residences.

6. The length of time that the subject property in question has been vacant as presently zoned, considered in the context of development in the area where the property is located.

All felt that no hardships would be incurred.

7. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted Land Use policies.

All felt that the amendment meets expectations of the Comprehensive plan.

8. That the proposed amendment will benefit the needs of the community.

All felt that the proposed amendment would benefit the community.

A motion was made to forward the map amendment from A - Agriculture to AR - Agricultural Residential with a positive recommendation to the Land Use Committee by Hill, seconded by Nelson. Motion carried 6-0.

RESULT: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/23/2019 2:30 PM

MOVER: Mark Hill

SECONDER: Sid Nelson

AYES: Joyce, Lynch, Hill, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

ABSENT: Breisch

2. Petition 19-ZBA-010 Schaefer Map Amendment from A-AR

Miller reviewed the petition. Mark Hanson, representing the petitioner Richard Schaefer, was sworn in. Hanson stated that the rezoning of the parcels is to make the lots more suitable for building.

Hanson stated that each lot will own a narrow strip of land that will go to each parcel as shown in the survey.

Skwarczynski asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak regarding this petition. No public comment was heard. Public comment was closed at 7:22.

Review of the LaSalle Factors:

1. The compatibility with the existing use and zoning of nearby properties.

All felt that the AR zoning would be a positive use.

2. The extent to which the property values of the subject property are diminished by the existing zoning restrictions.

All felt that the rezoning would make the property more build able and be a plus.

3. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the County.

All felt there is no problem with the changing of zoning for health, safety and welfare of the County.

4. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant.

All felt that this was a good proposal for this property.

5. The suitability of the subject of the subject property for the purposed for which it is presently zoned.

All felt that the property would be suitable for building single family residences and for rezoning.

6. The length of time that the subject property in question has been vacant as presently zoned, considered in the context of development in the area where the property is located.

All felt that the rezoning would be good, and would fit right in with surrounding properties.

7. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted Land Use policies.

All felt that the amendment meets expectations of the Comprehensive plan, good use of the Land with the low LESA score.

8. That the proposed amendment will benefit the needs of the community.

All felt that the proposed amendment would benefit the community.

Motion to approve the Map amendment from A - Agricultural to AR- Agricultural Residential with a positive recommendation was made by Nelson, seconded by Sandeno. Moion carried 6-0.

RESULT: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/23/2019 2:30 PM

MOVER: Mark Hill

SECONDER: Mark Sandeno

AYES: Joyce, Lynch, Hill, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

ABSENT: Breisch

3. Petition 19-ZBA-009 Special Use Modification - McNabb

McNabb is asking to add storage pods to his facility at 3425 Route 47. Miller reviewed the petition. Miller noted that the owners were granted a special use in 2006 to build six storage buildings on the parcel. One storage building was built. The owner opted to not build the remaining five buildings due to flood issues in the area. Recently storage pods have been added to the storage facility site. The Land Use office asked the petitioner to remove the storage pods because they were not allowed on the property with the terms of their special use granted in 2006. The petitioners decided to open the special use and request the use of PODS at the facility.

John McNabb was sworn in. McNabb echoed the comments that the property was not suitable to build more buildings on because of storm water drainage issues. The property where the PODS are currently located is approximately two feet higher than the lowest part of the parcel. The pods currently sit on a gravel pad, and remain dry. McNabb noted that the pods were purchased after the Coal City tornado in 2015 for people to store their items while rebuilding. McNabb stated that he would like to meet the needs of Grundy County by being able to house these POD storage units. He would move the units to someone's home if that is what the renter would prefer. McNabb noted that the PODS can be housed six inches of each other. McNabb stated that if the petition is approved he will house the PODS on a gravel pad and higher than the lowest part of the property. McNabb acknowledged that there is a huge drainage problem with the parcel. McNabb asked if he could place decals on the PODS for easy identification and advertisement of the PODS. Skwarczynski asked if vandalism is an issue on the property. McNabb replied that vandalism is not an issue; however, theft has been an issue within the storage units.

Skwarczynski asked if anyone from the audience has any comments to be heard. No public comment was heard. Public comment was closed at 7:45 P.M.

Miller noted the six conditions that the Land Use recommends for this petition to include:

1. The storage containers shall be placed in an orderly and consistent method such that the units have the same distance apart form each other and kept in even rows.

2. Signage is allowed on the storage container on the front or rear of the POD only. The signage cannot exceed two foot by three foot of space. Numbering of the PODS is allowed on the sides of the POD.

3. All containers shall be kept in good and clean condition.

4. The location of the containers shall be approved by the Fire Department having jurisdiction.

5. The containers shall be placed on a dry and compacted gravel bed or concrete pad.

6. Screening shall comply with section 8-10-2-1 for Overlay districts on the west side of the property. The Lasalle factors were reviewed:

1. The compatibility with the existing use and zoning of nearby properties.

All felt that the use would be compatible with surrounding properties.

2. The extent to which the property values of the subject property are diminished by the existing zoning restrictions.

All felt that this was a positive proposal, and would be a good use for the property.

3. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the County.

Nelson felt that the proposal would fill a need in Grundy County for storage solutions.

4. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant.

All felt that this was a good proposal for this property.

5. The suitability of the subject of the subject property for the purposed for which it is presently zoned.

All felt that the proposal was a good use of the property.

6. The length of time that the subject property in question has been vacant as presently zoned, considered in the context of development in the area where the property is located.

All felt that this was just a different use of the original intentions of the special use.

7. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted Land Use policies.

All felt that the amendment meets expectations of the Comprehensive plan. 8. That the proposed amendment will benefit the needs of the community.

All felt that the proposed amendment would benefit the community.

Motion to forward petition to the Land Use committee with a positive recommendation. The recommendation includes the six conditions that are listed, made by Sandeno, seconded by Lynch. Motion carried 6-0.

RESULT: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/23/2019 2:30 PM

MOVER: Mark Sandeno

SECONDER: Lisa Lynch

AYES: Joyce, Lynch, Hill, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

ABSENT: Breisch

4. Petition 19-ZBA-011 Special Use for a Dog Kennel - Lapikas

Miller reviewed the petition.

A petition of opposition was read into the record by Skwarczynski. The arguments of the oppositions letter included:

1. No businesses in the area

2. Homeowners felt that their health maybe compromised due to excess dog feces leeching into the aquifers.

3. Devaluation of the properties.

The letter asked that these concerns be recognized criteria to deny the special use permit.

Jeff Lapikas was sworn in. Lapikas stated that his wife is currently training to groom dogs. Once she is done with her internship she will be able to groom dogs on her own. Lapikas stated that it was a dream of his and his wife to have a dog grooming studio, with a kennel. Lapikas noted the position of the building which will be more than 100 feet away from the neighbors lot line. Lapikas stated that the dogs will be penned. A dog run will be constructed on the north side of the building for the dogs to enjoy. The dog run area will be 253 sq. ft. All dogs will be brought inside of the building by six PM. The building will be constructed with insulation to help muffle the sound of barking dogs. The petitioner noted that the building would have it's own septic field. The petitioner requests for twelve dogs to be housed in the building at one time.

Public comment was opened at 8:26 P.M.

Harry Koster 3570 Airport Road. Koster read a letter from Bob Marshall. Marshall lives directly west of the Lapikas. Marshall's letter noted that the area where the dog kennel is being proposed is a very quiet neighborhood and does not feel that a kennel would create harmonious relations for the quiet neighborhood. Marshall asked that the Board vote no for this petition.

Koster testified that he was a police officer for decades. Koster noted that he has answered the call for neighborhood complaints, and a lot of the complaints were due to dogs. Koster stated that he has nothing against the petitioners he is just here to protect his investment. Koster noted that 3 Real Estate professionals acknowledged that there is nothing that states a dog kennel will depreciate your land value, it is their opinion that a dog kennel will depreciate a property by ten percent. Koster stated that for him that is a fifty thousand dollar loss. Koster stated that he would like to live in peace and harmony. Koster asked this petition to be turned down. Koster asked if signage would be allowed.

Koster noted that the petitioner's dogs charged him while he was going to get his mail. Koster stated that if he can't control his own dogs, how can we give him permission to take charge of twelve dogs. Koster noted that a property zoned commercial will be better suited for this business. Koster stated that he opposes this petition strongly.

Sandeno asked how deep Koster's well is, and what is his output? Koster stated the depth is over 300 feet, and he does not know the output of the well.

Debbie Kosters, 3570 Airport Road, was sworn in. Debbie had pictures of the yard where the dog kennel is proposed to go that the area has flooded. Kosters noted that this is the third time she knows of in the fifteen years that she has lived there that the property has flooded. Kosters noted that she has the highest elevation and during the last rain storm was worried that she would receive storm water in her home. Kosters noted that a pet grooming facility is two miles away from the proposed dog grooming and does not feel that a business in the middle of their residential neighborhood is necessary.

Timothy Baldridge, 3610 Airport Road, was sworn in. Baldridge noted that he likes the peace and quiet of his neighborhood. He built his dream home in Kendall County 20 years ago and had to move because of his neighbors. Baldridge stated that he met with all of his neighbors before he bought his home at 3610 Airport Road. Baldridge met with his neighbors because, he never wanted to have to move again.

Edmond Schuda, 3215 Airport Road, was sworn in. Schuda asked if the code states how many dogs are allowed on the property. Miller stated that the code states no more than 3 dogs per household, or 6 cats per household. Miller stated that this home is zoned agricultural so the petitioners are allowed 20 chickens per acre, 1 horse for every 2 acres, 1 cow for every 2 acres, I goat for every acre and 1 lamb for every acre. Miller stated that if a person has a three acre lot they would be allowed 1 cow, and 20 chickens; however, the landowner would not be allowed 1 cow, 1 horse, 20 chickens. One cow, one horse, and 20 chickens would require a five acre parcel. Schuda asked if a stipulation could be added that the Land Use office be able to look into any complaints regarding too many dogs on the property. Schuda stated that he does not support this petition. Miller stated that a condition could be added to state that only one dog at a time can be outside of the kennel.

Lapikas stated that he is not trying to start a turf war. Lapikas stated that he does not feel anyone would be affected by this. Lapikas noted that they just moved into the area, and a fence will be erected tomorrow.

Jenny Baldridge, 3610 Airport Road, was sworn in. Baldridge stated that she has two dogs, and dogs running at large is a concern to her because of her dogs reaction and coyotes in the area.

Miller stated that this special use is not for the grooming facility. A grooming facility does not require a special use. The petitioner could open a grooming facility without permission. The Special use is for the kennel only.

Public comment was closed at 9:01

Skwarczynski reviewed the conditions that would be placed for the special use. The conditions are as follows:

1. the kennel shall be limited to 12 dogs

2. All dogs that are brought in shall be properly vetted and be neutered or spayed.

3. The kennel shall post the license received from the Illinois Department of Agriculture and provide annual proof of the posted license to the Land Use Dept.

4. All rooms housing the dogs shall be conditioned for heat, cooling and ventilation.

5. The Grundy County Animal Control Department shall approve the construction of the facility and approve it prior to operation and during operations.

6. Dogs that are taken on walks, on the property, must be on a leash at all times.

7. The Land Use Department or the Animal Control Department may have unannounced inspections of the facility beyond the annual inspection.

8. All animal and medical wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with Illinois Department of Ag, State, and Grundy County requirements.

The La Salle factors were reviewed:

1. The compatibility with the existing use and zoning of nearby properties.

All felt that the use would not be compatible with surrounding properties.

2. The extent to which the property values of the subject property are diminished by the existing zoning restrictions.

Homeowners felt there property value would be diminished by this petition.

3. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the County.

Some felt that this proposal would interfere with health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the neighborhood.

4. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant.

The proposal was good for the general public, as it gives people a choice on where to board their dogs.

5. The suitability of the subject property for the purposed for which it is presently zoned. All felt that the property was suitable for the proposal.

6. The length of time that the subject property in question has been vacant as presently zoned, considered in the context of development in the area where the property is located.

All felt that the length of time that the neighborhood has been in tact has some influence on this petition, since most of the neighbors were long time residents of the neighborhood.

7. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted Land Use policies.

All felt that the Special Use is consistent with the Comprehensive plan.

8. That the proposed amendment will benefit the needs of the community.

Some felt that the proposed amendment would benefit parts of the community, but not other parts of the community.

Lynch reminded the audience that the petitioner is allowed to groom the dogs on the property. Lynch stated we are only voting on the kennels and the overnight stays of the dogs.

Sandeno motioned to forward to the Land Use Committee to deny the Special Use. Seconded by Sid Nelson. Motion carried 4-1, with one abstention.

RESULT: REFERRED TO COMMITTEE [4 TO 1] Next: 10/23/2019 2:30 PM

MOVER: Mark Sandeno

SECONDER: Sid Nelson

AYES: Joyce, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

NAYS: Hill

ABSTAIN: Lynch

ABSENT: Breisch

5. 19-ZBA-012 T ext Amendment to Prohibit the Sale of Recreational Cannabis in Unincorporated Grundy

A Text Amendment to prohibit recreational cannabis in Unincorporated Grundy County. Miller reviewed the petition.

Miller noted that we are adding definitions to section 8-2-5-36 this would make clear that Grundy County prohibits the sale of recreational cannabis in

unincorporated Grundy County. This petition does not take away a persons right to partake in recreational cannabis in the privacy of their home in accordance with the State law. Someone cannot be in the front yard smoking, only in the privacy of their home.

Skwarczynski asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this petition. No public comment was heard. Public comment was closed at 9:20 P.M.

Joyce stated that he has changed his mind on cannabis sales. Joyce stated that county resources are going to have to deal with the fall out of this bill and that the County might as well get the tax revenues from the sales in order to deal with any problems that may arise from this bill. Joyce compared it to the landfill. Joyce stated we ran the landfill out of town, Morris did not pay a garbage bill while the land fill was in operation, and now everyone's garbage bill is going up. Sandeno stated that he does not want anymore bars in the county. Sandeno stated that he does not want cannabis easy to get in Grundy County.

Sandeno stated it is almost impossible to police, but we have to draw a line somewhere. By not allowing it in the County that is a start for saying no.

Lynch motioned to send the Text Amendment to the Land Use Committee with a positive recommendation, Hill Seconded. Motion carried 5-1.

RESULT: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL [5 TO 1] Next: 10/23/2019 2:30 PM

MOVER: Lisa Lynch

SECONDER: Mark Hill

AYES: Lynch, Hill, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

NAYS: Joyce

ABSENT: Breisch

IV. Old Business

No old business was heard.

V. New Business

No new business was heard.

VI. Adjournment

1. adjourn

Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Mark Sandeno

SECONDER: Sid Nelson

AYES: Joyce, Lynch, Hill, Nelson, Skwarczynski, Sandeno

ABSENT: Breisch

http://grundycountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2538&Inline=True

Want to get notified whenever we write about Grundy County ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Grundy County, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Grundy County