►
Description
Planning, Zoning & Agriculture Committee Meeting 11/20/2019 9:00 AM
A
C
E
D
C
You
is
there
anyone
here
for
public
comment,
gentlemen,
I'd
back
you,
there
know
what's:
okay,
okay,
we're
good,
no
be
for
public
comment.
Everybody
received
a
minutes
online
or
in
a
packet.
Is
anyone
I
like
to
make
a
motion
to
accept
the
minutes?
Okay,
mr.
Washington
miss
Peters,
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
okay
motion
carries
okay,
we're
gonna,
have
the
building
report
from
for
October
219
can
I
get
a
motion
to
approve
that?
Okay,
mr.
Pope
second.
B
Yeah
in
your
packet,
thank
you
in
your
packet
is
the
monthly
building
report
for
October
2019.
Last
month,
we
issued
two
new
house
permits
total
valuation
of
six
hundred
forty
three
thousand
dollars.
Total
permits
issued
was
98
at
a
value
of
three
point:
nine
million
dollars,
and
we
collected
fees
and
revenue
of
thirty
one
thousand
six
hundred
nineteen
dollars.
C
B
B
B
The
property
has
been
sitting
there
for
several
years
well,
at
least
two
or
three
years,
in
the
condition
that
it's
in
you
can
see
some
of
the
photos
there
of
the
property,
the
back
door
is
standing
wide,
open
windows
are
open
and
or
broken
out.
The
porch
is
unsafe
to
walk
on
that
yellow
line
you
see
in
there
is
a
natural
gas
line.
We
do
not
know
if
it's
actually
containing
natural
gas
or
not,
and
when
you
walk
in
the
door.
There's
no
flooring
in
the
in
the
structure.
B
B
It's
in
pretty
bad
shape,
some
of
the
history
of
the
property,
the
current
owner
purchased
it
in
2016
the
gutted,
the
prob
the
house.
Without
any
permits,
we
issued
a
stop-work
order
when
we
found
out
about
it,
they
did
come
in
to
get
a
demolition
permit
to
demolish
the
inside
of
it
in
2017,
and
then
we
issued
another
stop
work
order
in
April
2017
because
they
were
continuing
additional
rebuild
work
without
a
permit.
The
original
permit
was
just
to
demolish
the
structure.
B
They
came
in
to
inquire
about
a
permit,
never
came
back,
so
we
never
issued
another
permit
on
the
property
and
it's
been
sitting
there
in
this
condition.
Since
then,
over
that
time,
though,
we've
been
sending
out
letters
and
violation
notices
with
little
or
no
response
from
the
owners
they
in
October
of
this
year
we
got
a
judgment
in
the
Kankakee
County
Court
for
$1,500,
and
the
owner
did
not
appear
in
court
in
that
particular
instance.
So
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
do
we
do
now?
B
A
E
E
In
fact,
we
had
gotten
a
temporary
restraining
order,
injunction
emergency
on
the
house,
because
there
had
been
a
swimming
pool
that
kids
were
getting
into,
that
hadn't
been
drained
mosquitoes.
It
was
an
issue
we
did
that.
Then
we
went
through
the
process.
We
were
allowed
to
demo
it
and
that
time,
though
somebody
did
come
in,
buy
the
property,
and
so
we
didn't
actually
have
to
demo
it.
E
So
our
hope
is,
as
we
proceed
on
this
properly,
we
probably
would
seek
to
have
it
boarded
up
first,
because
we
we
can't
allow
an
open
subfloor
to
be
there,
especially
now
that
we
know
it's.
We
need
to
kind
of
proceed.
Cuz,
it's
a
safety
issue.
We
would
probably
try
to
do
a
boarding
up
first,
it's
my
understanding.
There
has
been
some
interest
in
the
property
is
just
trying
to
get
the
owner
to
maybe
sell
it.
E
C
F
A
E
E
F
E
C
C
You
anybody
else
have
any
questions,
so
all
favor
say:
aye:
okay,
we
approve
it
mr.
schemer
horn.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Next
up
the
CBA
case,
19-13
is
a
request
for
a
text
amendment
to
the
county
code,
121
295,
sitting
of
a
wind
energy
conservation
system,
petitioners
Kankakee
County.
You
know
motion
to
approve
okay,
mr.
Fairfield,
okay
and
next
to
him.
Over
there
we
got
mr.
Payton.
B
If
you
recall
last
month,
this
case
was
before
the
before
this
committee
and
it
was
determined
that
it
would
be
tabled
until
this
month,
so
I'm
bringing
it
back.
There
was
a
lot
of
additional
discussion
on
the
wind
farm
or
RPI
wind
energy
ordinance
in
general,
and
but
it
didn't
really
pertain
to
this
actual
case,
so
we're
bringing
this
case
back.
If
the
committee
would
like
to
discuss
when
energy
wind
energy
ordinance
in
more
detail,
we
can
certainly
put
that
on
a
future
agenda
to
do
so.
B
But
anyway,
what
we're
asking
for
here
is
to
increase
the
height
of
wind
towers,
the
maximum
height
allowable
for
wind
towers,
from
499
feet
to
699
feet,
which
is
section
3
item
a
in
the
ordinance
and,
along
with
that
to
increase
the
minimum
setback.
Distance
from
participating
dwelling
from
the
men
are
the
greater
of
1,000
feet
or
1.5
times
the
tower
height
and
the
minimum
distance
from
a
non-participating
existing
dwelling
to
the
greater
of
1,200
feet
or
two
times
the
tower
height.
Those
are
the
three
changes
being
being
asked
today.
B
C
C
B
Me
run
through
this.
Okay.
Go
ahead;
no,
it's
a
little
complicated.
Alright,
the
original
proposal
is
on
the
screen
of
no
that.
Actually,
that
is
the
final
proposal.
The
property
is
located
right
on
Arthur
birch
Drive,
just
about
at
the
intersection
of
the
I-57
southbound
ramp
on
the
route
50
and
Illinois
Route
50.
It's
a
one
of
the
properties
just
in
front
of
the
what
was
Arthur
birch
trailer
park,
I
think
it's
oak,
Oak
Creek,
Trailer,
Park
Town
Park
had
a
public
hearing
on
July
8th
and
it
was
canceled
due
to
improper
notice,
August
12th.
B
The
case
was
continued
to
allow
for
the
modification
of
their
request.
September
9th
case
continued
to
allow
for
new
findings
and
staff
report
to
be
developed
october,
7th
the
case
continued
on
request
of
applicant
November
4th.
The
final
proposal
was
received,
reviewed
in
the
recommending
recommendation
to
deny
the
proposal
was
from
the
Zoning.
Board
was
six
to
zero,
and
that
was
unheard
end
of
the
record.
The
original
request
was
for
a
three
sided
billboard
located.
That
would
be
a
little
green
triangle
there.
B
The
property
is
outlined
in
red,
contains
a
single
family
home
and
he
detached
garage,
and
at
that
time
they
were
asking
for
for
variances.
First
of
all,
our
ordinance
only
allowed
it
allows
a
two-phase
sign,
so
they
were
asking
for
a
variance
for
the
third
phase
they
were
allowing
or
they
were
asking
for
a
variance
for
the
sign
to
be
40
feet
high.
B
Instead
of
the
required
30
feet,
they
were
also
asking
to
reduce
the
set
back
from
the
road
to
10
feet
instead
of
the
required
40
feet
and
a
variance
to
allow
more
than
one
billboard
in
a
2500
foot
interval.
We
our
ordinance
only
allows
one
billboard
for
every
2,500
feet
radius
around
it,
so
they
modified
that
request,
September,
9th
and
E,
and
brought
back
two
billboards,
one
facing
the
off-ramp
and
one
facing
route
50.
Under
this
scenario,
only
one
variance
was
required.
B
They
decided
that
they
would
meet
the
height
and
setback
requirements
and
just
the
variance
to
allow
more
than
one
billboard
in
a
2500
foot.
Interval
was
asked
for
so
at
that
time,
since
the
proposal
had
changed
so
much
and
they
did
not
change
their
findings.
Of
fact,
the
Zoning
Board
felt
that
those
are
those
fine
no
longer
applied
to
this
and
they
continued
the
case
to
give
them
time
to
develop
new
findings.
B
Along
with
developing
new
findings,
though,
on
November
4th,
they
also
came
back
with
yet
a
third
proposal,
which
was
two
signs
one
facing
towards
route
51
facing
the
off-ramp,
but
only
on
one
pole,
that's
the
area
outlined
in
red
there.
Under
this
scenario,
they
still
needed
the
setback
from
right
away.
That
sign
only
sits,
13
feet
from
the
right
away,
not
the
40
feet
as
required,
and
they
still
needed
the
variance
to
allow
more
than
one
billboard
in
a
2500
foot
interval
just
a
little
background.
B
B
B
The
bar
found
that
the
reduced
setback
will
endanger
the
public
safety
and
that
no
useful
information
concerning
the
science
effects
on
property
values
was
presented
further.
The
board
found
that
any
information
provided
regarding
the
effect
on
property
values
was
the
opinion
of
the
applicant
and
not
based
on
facts.
B
C
B
Not
a
billboard,
because
the
Billboard
has
the
2,500
foot:
okay
radius,
not
without
a
variance
if
they
were
the
the
property
is
zoned
commercial,
even
though
it
has
a
single-family
home
on
it.
So
it
would
be
possible
to
have
a
sign
to
advertise
a
business
if
they
were
to
if
they
were
to
convert
that
property
into
a
business.
C
F
B
And
keep
in
mind
that
if
you
move
that
red
circle
to
around
one
of
those
others
that
2,500
feet
may
not
exist,
it's
2,500
feet
from
the
sign
itself,
so
that
that's
a
moving
target.
If
you
move
that
circle
over
to
one,
then
five
four
and
three
may
drop
out
of
it.
So
there
may
not
be
any
sides
within
2,500
feet
of
that
particular
sign.
B
E
C
C
Okay,
anyone
else
bearing
none
all
in
favor,
say
to
deny
this
and
accept
that.
But
did
the
you
agree
with
the
CBA
and
expects
accept
their
denial
of
the
findings?
All
in
favor,
say:
aye,
nay,
motion
carries
okay.
Next
up
is
EB
aka
case
1914
request
for
a
special
use,
permit
number
13
C
for
a
single-family
home
in
the
r1
single-family
residential
district,
on
a
parcel
generally
situated
in
section
14
of
BER
bonus
Township,
the
petitioner
is
Michael
Olynyk,
jr.
and
property
owner
and
applicant
get
a
motion
to
approve
okay.
C
B
Bit
a
little
rundown
yeah
mr.
Olynyk
owns
the
two
properties
outlined
in
red
on
the
map
there
and
is
going
to
be
combining
the
two
into
one
parcel,
which
would
be
I
9.1
six
acre
parcel
that
zone
single-family
residential.
Our
ordinance
requires
that
a
single-family
home
on
a
parcel
in
that
district,
that
is
on
a
parcel
larger
than
two
acres,
requires
a
special
use
permit
so
that
in
order
to
construct
the
home,
so
that
is
what
mr.
Olynyk
is
asking
for
is
for
especially
use
permit
to
construct
one
single-family
home
on
that
property.
C
B
Give
you
a
quick
rundown
for
the
first
quarter
of
fiscal
year,
2020,
which
started
July
1st
September
30
through
September
30th
of
this
year.
The
state's
fiscal
year
starts
in
July,
and
so
we
had
11,000
479
trips
during
that
time
period,
which
is
an
increase
of
9.6
percent
over
that
same
quarter
last
year.