Kendall County Zoning Platting and Advisory Committee met Dec. 7.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
PBZ Chairman Scott Gengler called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
Present:
Matt Asselmeier – PBZ Department
Meagan Briganti – GIS Department
Greg Chismark – WBK Engineering, LLC
Scott Gengler – PBZ Committee Chair
David Guritz – Forest Preserve
Fran Klaas – Highway Department
Undersheriff Bobby Richardson – Sheriff’s Department
Aaron Rybski – Health Department
Absent:
Brian Holdiman – PBZ Department
Alyse Olson – Soil and Water Conservation District
Audience:
Rick Porter, Chris Lannert, James Kohoot, Dan Morgan, JoAnn Willingham, Shabbir Shamsuddin, Gerald Chase, DM Studler, Boyd Ingemunson, Scott Koeppel, Dan Kramer, and John Tebrugge
AGENDA
Mr. Klaas made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rybski, to approve the agenda as presented.
With a voice vote of eight (8) ayes, the motion carried.
MINUTES
Mr. Guritz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rybski, to approve the November 2, 2021, meeting minutes. With a voice vote of eight (8) ayes, the motion carried.
PETITIONS
Petition 21-48 Brian Henrichs on Behalf of Baka Properties, LLC
Mr. Asselmeier summarized the request.
The Petitioner is requesting a map amendment rezoning the subject property from A-1 Agricultural District to R-3 One Family Residential District.
The Petitioner plans to submit preliminary and final plats dividing the property into two (2) parcels in order to construct one (1) house on each new parcel.
The application materials, plat of survey, topographic survey, and aerial of the property were provided. The property is addressed as 55 Riverside Street and is Lot 183 in the Fox River Gardens Subdivision. The property is approximately two point seven (2.7) acres in size.
The current land is Vacant; the property was previously used as horse pasture.
The Kendall County Future Land Use Map called for the property to be Suburban Residential (Max 1.00 DU/Acre). Yorkville’s Future Land Use Map called for the property to be Estate/Conservation Residential.
Yorkville Road and Riverside Street are private streets.
Mr. Asselmeier read an email from Greg Chismark noting floodplain on the property and provided a map showing the approximate locations of the floodplain. There were no wetlands on the property.
The adjacent land uses were Single-Family Residential.
The adjacent properties were zoned A-1 and R-3.
The Kendall County Future Land Use Map called for the area to be Suburban Residential (Max 1.00 DU/Acre). Yorkville’s Future Land Use Map called for the area to be Estate/Conservation Residential.
Zoning districts within one half (1/2) of a mile included A-1, A-1 SU, R-1, R-2, and R-3 in the unincorporated area. Properties inside Yorkville were zoned R-2 and OS-2.
The A-1 special use to the north was for a campground (Hide-A-Way Lakes).
EcoCat submitted on November 10, 2021. Protected resources may be in the vicinity, but adverse impacts were unlikely and consultation was terminated.
NRI application submitted on November 12, 2021. The draft LESA Score was 120 indicating a low level of protection. Bristol Township was emailed information on November 16, 2021.
The United City of Yorkville was emailed information on November 16, 2021.
The Bristol-Kendall Fire Protection District was emailed information on November 16, 2021.
The Petitioner desired to rezone the subject property in order to subdivide the property into (2) parcels and construct one (1) house on each of the two (2) new parcels created for a total of two (2) new houses.
Section 8:07.H of the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance does not allow properties larger than ten (10) acres in size to rezone to the R-3 One Family Residential District. The subject property is less than ten (10) acres in size.
The minimum lot size in the R-3 One Family Residential District is forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet. Any new homes or accessory structures would be required to meet applicable building codes.
According to the Plat of Survey, there is one (1) existing steel and frame pole building and one (1) frame stable on the property.
No public or private utilities are onsite. Electricity is at Yorkville Road and Riverside Street.
The property fronts Yorkville Road and Riverside Street, two (2) private roads.
Any new driveways constructed would be for residential purposes. Any new driveways would have to meet applicable regulations and secure proper permits.
No new odors are foreseen.
Any new lighting would be for residential use only.
Any fencing, landscaping, or screening would be for residential purposes.
Any signage would be residential in nature.
No noise is anticipated.
Any new homes would have to be constructed per Kendall County’s Stormwater Management Ordinance. The proposed Findings of Fact were as follows:
Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. The surrounding properties are used for single-family residential uses.
The Zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. The surrounding properties are zoned A-1 or R-3.
The suitability of the property in question for the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification. The property is presently zoned A-1. The property is less than forty (40) acres and does not qualify for any agricultural housing allocations. No new single-family homes can be constructed on the subject property without a map amendment.
The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question, including changes, if any, which may have taken place since the day the property in question was in its present zoning classification. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not recommend the adoption of a proposed amendment unless it finds that the adoption of such an amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the interest of the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals may recommend the adoption of an amendment changing the zoning classification of the property in question to any higher classification than that requested by the applicant. For the purpose of this paragraph the R-1 District shall be considered the highest classification and the M-2 District shall be considered the lowest classification. The trend of development in the area is single-family residential uses found in rural settings with wooded lots.
Consistency with the purpose and objectives of the Land Resource Management Plan and other adopted County or municipal plans and policies. The Future Land Use Map in the Land Resource Management Plan classifies this property as Suburban Residential. The maximum density for the Suburban Residential classification is one density unit per acre (1.00 DU/Acre). The minimum lot size for R-3 One Family Residential District zoned land is slightly over one (1) acre at forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet. Accordingly, the R-3 One Family Residential District is consistent with the Suburban Residential classification.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed map amendment because the proposal is consistent with the Land Resource Management Plan.
Chairman Gengler asked about the floodplain on the property. Mr. Chismark said the lot does contain floodplain from the Fox River based on the elevations contained on the plat of survey and FEMA floodmaps.
Chairman Gengler asked about restrictions regarding building in the floodplain. Mr. Chismark responded that the property was not in the regulatory floodway. The property owner would have to comply with the Kendall County Stormwater Management Ordinance. There were many lots in Kendall County that have floodplain, but also have houses.
Aaron Rybski agreed with Mr. Chismark. He noted the regulations related to septic systems. An alternative system will likely be required. The wellhead must be extended above the flood elevation.
Mr. Asselmeier read the Soil and Water Conservation District; see attachment. The NRI Report goes to the Soil and Water Conservation Board the week of December 13th.
Mr. Klaas asked if structures built in floodplains require flood insurance forever. Mr. Chismark responded that flood insurance would be likely. Structures would have to meet all applicable provisions of the Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Rick Porter, Attorney, presented an objection to the requested rezoning; see attachment. He felt having a R-3 zoned property in area zoned A-1 was inappropriate. He noted the subdivision was platted in 1927. He noted the exemptions in the Zoning Ordinance that allows houses on A-1 zoned properties. He noted the deed restrictions and argued that only one (1) home was allowed on Lot 183. He noted that almost all of the neighbors have objected to this request; meaning the map amendment will require a three-quarter (3/4) vote of the County Board and the request was unpopular in the neighborhood due to density concerns. The density would not be compatible with area. He noted that wetlands are located on the property. The property is a challenged property. He noted the area and streets are prone to flooding with odor issues from septic systems and sanitary issues will worsen. He also noted the large amount of hydric soils on the property with limited buildability. Additional buildings will create additional flooding on downstream property owners. He noted retail uses that could be allowed on R-3 zoned property. He also stated that the Petitioner has a history of not complying with County regulations. The existing uses are larger density. The property and area is zoned A-1. The trend of development is not toward increased density.
Chris Lannert, Lannert Group Land Use Planner, said the how to development the site was difficult. He provided exhibits, see attachments. Mr. Lannert agreed with the overview, but, when discussing the specific site, the situation becomes difficult. He argued that the previous rezoning in the area was probably illegal. He noted that fill had been placed on the property. He said it was a beautiful natural area. The Petitioner should not be able to build more than one (1) house on the parcel. Only a small portion of the lot was buildable. He advised the Committee not to be put into a position to accept the subdivision because the rezoning was approved.
Boyd Ingemunson, Attorney for the Petitioner, noted that the lot and neighboring lot merged Parcel Identification Numbers, otherwise the Petitioner could build one (1) house. He noted that every lot in the area was challenging to build. He noted that the request meets the Land Resource Management Plan and the intent of the subdivision.
Mr. Asselmeier asked if the Petitioner was aware that, if the request was approved, two (2) houses might not be able to be built on the lot. Mr. Ingemunson acknowledged that the lot has challenges and will have to meet regulations.
Mr. Klaas questioned the nature of the Petition. Mr. Asselmeier responded the present request is to rezone the property. If the rezoning was approved, the Petitioner could pursue a subdivision with the intent of placing two (2) houses on the existing parcel. Mr. Ingemunson said the Petitioner would ideally like to have the ability to build two (2) houses. The item before the County is rezoning the property.
Mr. Asselmeier explained that the parcel lost its grandfathering to have one (1) house and a rezoning was required in order to construct one (1) house.
Mr. Guritz noted that deed restrictions exist. Mr. Guritz asked if the owner of the property can build on the parcel without rezoning. Mr. Asselmeier responded no and that, if other property owners wanted a similar rezoning, all of the properties should be zoned R-3.
Mr. Asselmeier noted that agricultural activities could occur on all of the properties in the area. He also noted that, if the rezoning was approved, a future property owner could decide to do a subdivision.
Discussion occurred regarding the deed restrictions. The question was raised regarding which entity enforces the deed restrictions.
Mr. Klaas felt the Petition was flawed with the possibility that more than one (1) house could be placed on the parcel. He felt that the parcel should be entitled to one (1) and only one (1) house.
Dee Studler, neighbor and local business owner, described the neighborhood. She noted the animals in the area. She noted the people admiring natural beauty when traveling in their kayaks down the river. The area was not high density. She said the Petitioner has already violated the deed restrictions and will not follow the rules. She requested proper building.
Chairman Gengler asked how the property was zoned A-1. Mr. Asselmeier said that the County zoned the area during one (1) of the Countywide zoning. The subdivision was in place prior to the enactment of the first Countywide zoning ordinance.
Mr. Asselmeier asked Ms. Studler if she would be fine if the Petitioner used the property for a cattle or hog farm. Ms. Studler responded yes.
James Kohoot said that he had no problem allowing (1) house on the subject property. He was opposed to having two (2) houses on the property. He was concerned that third (3rd) home could go on the property. He questioned whether the Petitioner would have cattle or hogs on the property.
Dave Morgan, neighbor, explained why he moved to the neighborhood. He favored allowing the Petitioner to build one (1) house on the property. He expressed concerns that the property values will decline. He was also concerned with lighting and increased traffic congestion. He also had concerns regarding stormwater runoff.
JoAnn Willingham, neighbor, discussed the concerns about standing water in the wetlands. The area has a lot of bugs and snakes. She was against the rezoning.
Shabbir Shamsuddin, neighbor, has lived in the area since the early 1990s. He said the area was not designed for large densities. He had concerns about the width of the road. He said the Petitioner uses the road as a racetrack. He discussed the issues related to get a septic permit. He said the development and area is their life.
Mr. Asselmeier asked Mr. Ingemunson if the Petitioner would be interested in obtaining a conditional use permit for single family home while retaining the A-1 zoning. Mr. Ingemunson responded that he would need to discuss the matter with the Petitioner.
Mr. Porter said the Committee could recommend R-1 zoning under the Zoning Ordinance.
Gerald Chase did not object to allowing one (1) home on the property. He had concerns about standing water issues. Chairman Gengler felt that only one (1) house should be on the property.
Chairman Gengler made a motion, seconded by Mr. Klaas, to recommend approval of the map amendment rezoning the property to R-3.
The votes were follows
Ayes (1): Asselmeier
Nays (7): Briganti, Chismark, Gengler, Guritz, Klaas, Richardson, and Rybski
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Holdiman and Olson
The motion failed.
The proposal goes to the Kendall County Regional Planning Commission on December 8, 2021.
Petition 21-49 Irma Loya Quezada
Mr. Asselmeier summarized the request.
The Petitioner is requesting a map amendment rezoning two (2) approximately three point two-four (3.24) acre parcels from A-1 Agricultural District to R-1 One Family Residential District in order to construct one (1) house on each parcel.
The Petitioner plans to use Plat Act exemptions to divide the subject areas proposed for rezoning from the larger parcels.
The agricultural building permits for the parcels were used in 2003 and 2004. The only way houses can be constructed on the subject parcels is by obtaining the requested map amendment.
The application materials, plat of survey and aerial of the property were provided.
The properties are on the east side of Brisbin Road across from 14859 and 14975 Brisbin Road. The current land use is Agricultural.
The future land use is Rural Estate Residential (Max 0.45 Du/Acre).
Brisbin Road is a Township Maintained Major Collector. There are no trails planned in the area. There were no floodplains or wetlands on the property.
The adjacent land uses were Agricultural, Farmstead, and Hogan’s Market.
The adjacent properties and properties within one half (1/2) of a mile were zoned A-1 and A-1 SU.
The Kendall County Future Land Use Map called for the to be Rural Estate Residential. The Plattville Future Land Use Map called for the property to the north of the subject property to be Low Density Residential.
The A-1 special use to the west is for the sale of agricultural products, art, pottery, and home décor not produced on the premises (Hogan’s Market).
EcoCat submitted on November 11, 2021, and consultation was terminated.
NRI application submitted on October 18, 2021. The draft LESA Score was 199 indicating a low level of protection.
Seward Township was emailed information on November 16, 2021.
The Village of Plattville was emailed information on November 16, 2021.
The Lisbon-Seward Fire Protection District was emailed information on November 16, 2021.
The Petitioner desires to rezone the subject properties in order to build one (1) house on each of the two (2) new parcels created for a total of two (2) new houses.
Any new homes or accessory structures would be required to meet applicable building codes. No public or private utilities are onsite.
The property fronts Brisbin Road. Staff has no concerns regarding the ability of Brisbin Road to support the proposed map amendment.
Any new driveways constructed would be for residential purposes. Any new driveways would have to meet applicable regulations and secure proper permits.
No new odors are foreseen.
Any new lighting would be for residential use only.
Any fencing, landscaping, or screening would be for residential purposes.
Any signage would be residential in nature.
No noise is anticipated.
Any new homes would have to be constructed per Kendall County’s Stormwater Management Ordinance. The proposed Findings of Fact were as follows:
Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. The surrounding properties are used for agricultural purposes or larger lot single-family residential uses.
The Zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. The surrounding properties are zoned A-1 or A-1 SU for the sale of agricultural products, art, pottery, and home décor not produced on the premises.
The suitability of the property in question for the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification. The property is presently zoned A-1. The agricultural housing allocations for the subject property have already been used and no new single-family homes can be constructed on the subject property without a map amendment.
The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question, including changes, if any, which may have taken place since the day the property in question was in its present zoning classification. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not recommend the adoption of a proposed amendment unless it finds that the adoption of such an amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the interest of the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals may recommend the adoption of an amendment changing the zoning classification of the property in question to any higher classification than that requested by the applicant. For the purpose of this paragraph the R-1 District shall be considered the highest classification and the M-2 District shall be considered the lowest classification. The trend of development in the area is a mix of agricultural and single-family residential uses found in rural settings.
Consistency with the purpose and objectives of the Land Resource Management Plan and other adopted County or municipal plans and policies. The Future Land Use Map in the Land Resource Management Plan classifies this property as Rural Estate Residential. The R-1 One Family Residential District is consistent with the Rural Estate Residential classification.
Mr. Asselmeier read the neighbors’ opposition letters.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed map amendment because the proposal is consistent with the Land Resource Management Plan.
Chairman Gengler asked if the remaining portions of the property would be used for farmland. Mr. Asselmeier responded yes.
Mr. Guritz asked about the landscape waste. Dan Kramer, Attorney for the Petitioner, said the Petitioner bought the property in the summer of 2021. His client does not run a landscaping business. He noted that the trend in the area was low density residential.
Mr. Klaas asked if the Petitioner might seek to rezone additional portions of the property in the future. Mr. Kramer responded that the Petitioner knew when she bought the property that no allocations were available. His clients’ plan was to build just the two (2) homes.
Mr. Klaas noted that the division was not a formal subdivision. He requested land for a right-of-way dedication. Mr. Kramer agreed. It was noted that the right-of-way dedication could not be made a condition of the map amendment.
Chairman Gengler made a motion, seconded by Mr. Guritz, to recommend approval of the map amendment.
The votes were follows
Ayes (8): Asselmeier, Briganti, Chismark, Gengler, Guritz, Klaas, Richardson, and Rybski
Nays (0): None
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Holdiman and Olson
The motion carried.
Mr. Kramer requested that the proposal be continued to the January Regional Planning Commission meeting; he will submit a formal letter stating that request.
Petition 21-50 Tim Raymond on Behalf of TMF Plastic Solutions, LLC
Mr. Asselmeier summarized the request.
The Petitioner would like to construct an approximately twenty thousand six hundred thirty (20,630) square foot addition to the north and east of the existing approximately forty-five thousand six hundred ninety-two (45,692) square foot building located on Parcel One of the subject property. The proposal also calls for a stormwater pond north of the proposed addition. The addition will consist of two (2) new loading docks on the on the southeast side of the addition.
Section 13:10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires site plan review for structures on properties zoned M-1. The property has been zoned M-1 since 1966.
The property received site plan approval for the construction of an approximately thirty-four thousand (34,000) square foot storage facility in 2008.
The application material, site plan, civil plan, plat of survey, photometric plan, building elevations, aerial, and a letter addressing various concerns were provided.
The property is located at 12127 B Galena Road.
The property is approximately six (6) acres.
Galena Road is County maintained Major Collector Road.
The County has a trail planned along Galena Road.
There is no floodplain on the property. There are no wetlands on the property.
The adjacent land uses are Single-Family Residential, Wooded, Industrial, and Agricultural.
The adjacent properties are zoned A-1, A-1 BP, and M-1.
The future land use map calls for the area to be Rural Estate Residential.
Petition information was sent to Little Rock Township on November 24, 2021.
Petition information was sent to the Little Rock-Fox Fire Protection District on November 24, 2021. Mr. Asselmeier read an email from the Little Rock-Fox Fire Protection District, see attachment.
Pursuant to Section 13:10.D of the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance, the following shall be taken into account when reviewing Site Plans:
Responsive to Site Conditions-Site plans should be based on an analysis of the site. Such site analysis shall examine characteristics such as site context; geology and soils; topography; climate and ecology; existing vegetation, structures and road network; visual features; and current use of the site. In addition to the standards listed below, petitioners must also follow the regulations outlined in this Zoning Ordinance. To the fullest extent possible, improvements shall be located to preserve the natural features of the site, to avoid areas of environmental sensitivity, and to minimize negative effects and alteration of natural features. Fragile areas such as wetlands and flood plains should be preserved as open space. Slopes in excess of 20 percent as measured over a 10-foot interval also should remain as open space, unless appropriate engineering measures concerning slope stability, erosion and safety are taken. The majority of the subject property is already an improved industrial use. The only new landscaping will be around the pond. No floodplains or wetlands are located on the property. No excessive slopes exist on the property. A stormwater management permit will be required for the pond.
Traffic and Parking Layout-Site plans should minimize dangerous traffic movements and congestion, while achieving efficient traffic flow. An appropriate number of parking spaces shall be provided while maintaining County design standards. The number of curb cuts should be minimized and normally be located as far as possible from intersections. Connections shall be provided between parking areas to allow vehicles to travel among adjacent commercial or office uses. Cross-access easements or other recordable mechanisms must be employed. The property already possesses access off of Galena. The property presently has thirty-nine (39) traditional parking spaces and two (2) handicapped parking space.
Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular movements should be minimized. When truck traffic will be present upon the site, the road size and configuration shall be adequate to provide for off-street parking and loading facilities for large vehicles. Barrier curb should be employed for all perimeters of and islands in paved parking lots, as well as for all service drives, loading dock areas, and the equivalent. Parking lots in industrial or commercial areas shall be paved with hot-mix asphalt or concrete surfacing. No conflicts are foreseen. The parking lot will meet applicable surfacing requirements. The doors on the northern side of the building are currently used to assist with air ventilation. The two (2) new docks on the south side of the addition will be screened by a six foot (6’) chain link fence with slats as per the requirements of Section 11:06.F of the Zoning Ordinance.
Site Layout-Improvements shall be laid out to avoid adversely affecting ground water and aquifer recharge; minimize cut and fill; avoid unnecessary impervious cover; prevent flooding and pollution; provide adequate access to lots and sites; and mitigate adverse effects of shadow, noise, odor, traffic, drainage and utilities on neighboring properties. Improvements are laid out to avoid adversely impacting ground water, avoid unnecessary impervious cover, prevent flooding and pollution, mitigate adverse effects of shadow, noise odor, traffic, drainage, and utilities on neighboring properties.
Consistent with the Land Resource Management Plan-The proposed use and the design of the site should be consistent with the Land Resource Management Plan. This is true because the use is existing.
Building Materials-The proposed site plan design shall provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visitors as well as its neighbors through aesthetic use of materials, textures and colors that will remain appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. Buildings shall be in scale with the ultimate development planned for the area. Monotony of design shall be avoided. Variations in detail, form, and setting shall be used to provide visual interest. Variation shall be balanced by coherence of design elements. The subject property presently consists of three (3) one (1) story corrugated metal buildings and one (1) one (1) story frame building. The metal on the exterior of the addition will match the existing gray exterior. The maximum building height will be thirty-one feet, three inches (31’ 3”).
Relationship to Surrounding Development-A site shall be developed in harmony with neighboring street pattern, setbacks and other design elements. The proposed addition is in harmony with the existing use.
Open Space and Pedestrian Circulation-Improvements shall be designed to facilitate convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle movement within and to the property. This is not an issue.
Buffering-Measures shall be taken to protect adjacent properties from any undue disturbance caused by excessive noise, smoke, vapors, fumes, dusts, odors, glare or stormwater runoff. Incompatible, unsightly activities are to be screened and buffered from public view. Because the use is already in existence, there are no concerns regarding noise, smoke, vapors, fumes, dusts, odors or glare. The stormwater management permit will address any concerns regarding stormwater. As noted previously, the required fencing will be installed east of the new loading area.
Emergency Vehicle Access-Every structure shall have sufficient access for emergency vehicles. Circulation already exists in the property for emergency vehicles.
Mechanical Equipment Screening-All heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment shall be screened on sides where they abut residential districts. There is no mechanical equipment requiring screening.
Lighting-The height and shielding of lighting fixtures shall provide proper lighting without hazard to motorists on adjacent roadways or nuisance to adjacent residents by extending onto adjacent property. Cut-off lighting should be used in most locations, with fixtures designed so that the bulb/light source is not visible from general side view. The proposal calls for two (2) wall packs to be mounted thirteen feet (13’) in height on the north side of the building. As noted in Attachment 8, the foot candles will meet the County’s lighting requirements.
Refuse Disposal and Recycling Storage Areas-All refuse disposal and recycling storage areas should be located in areas designed to provide adequate accessibility for service vehicles. Locations should be in areas where minimal exposure to public streets or residential districts will exist. Screening shall be required in areas which are adjacent to residential districts or are within public view. Such enclosures should not be located in landscape buffers. Refuse containers and compactor systems shall be placed on smooth surfaces of non-absorbent material such as concrete or machine-laid asphalt. A concrete pad shall be used for storing grease containers. Refuse disposal and recycling storage areas serving food establishments shall be located as far as possible from the building’s doors and windows. The use of chain link fences with slats is prohibited. The property has existing refuse containers; no refuse containers will be added as part of the addition.
Pending comments from ZPAC members, Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan as proposed with the following conditions:
1. The site plan approved in 2008 shall be amended to incorporate the subject site plan.
2. The site shall be developed substantially in conformance with the submitted site plan, civil plan, photometric plan, and elevations. The metal siding shall be gray to match the existing building.
3. The November 23, 2021, letter from Tebrugge Engineering will be included as part of the site plan.
4. The site shall be developed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws related to site development and the type of use proposed for the site, including, but not limited to, securing the applicable building and stormwater permits.
Mr. Rybski asked if there will be a staffing increase. John Tebrugge, Engineer for the Petitioner, said no. The expansion will be away from the existing septic systems and water wells.
Mr. Tebrugge noted that the Fire Department did tour the building and they were satisfied with the fire suppression plan.
Mr. Klaas asked about stormwater in relation to the amount of impervious surface and the proximity to the Big Rock Creek. Mr. Chismark noted the existing stormwater basin and he has examined the calculations. He submitted numerous comments on December 6th and Tebrugge Engineering was reviewing.
Mr. Chismark expressed concerns regarding access to the control structure and maintain the control structure long-term. Mr. Tebrugge discussed creating a flat area for access.
Mr. Rybski made a motion, seconded by Ms. Briganti, to approve the site plan.
The votes were follows
Ayes (8): Asselmeier, Briganti, Chismark, Gengler, Guritz, Klaas, Richardson, and Rybski
Nays (0): None
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Holdiman and Olson
The motion carried.
REVIEW OF PETITIONS THAT WENT TO COUNTY BOARD
Mr. Asselmeier reported that Petition 21-26 was removed from the November 16, 2021, County Board agenda and will be reviewed at the County Board again on December 7, 2021.
Mr. Asselmeier reported that Petitions 21-32 and 21-36 were approved by the County Board.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Klaas made a motion, seconded by Undersheriff Richardson, to adjourn.
With a voice vote of eight (8) ayes, the motion carried.
The ZPAC, at 10:35 a.m., adjourned.
https://www.co.kendall.il.us/home/showpublisheddocument/22323/637769890577800000
Alerts Sign-up