Kendall County Zoning Board of Appeals met May 31.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Randy Mohr called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Cliff Fox, Tom LeCuyer (arrived at 7:14 p.m.), Randy Mohr, Dick Thompson, and Anne Vickery (left at 8:36 p.m.)
Members Absent: Scott Cherry and Dick Whitfield
Staff Present: Matthew Asselmeier, AICP, CFM, Senior Planner
Others Present: Jeremy Dippold, Samantha Dippold, Boyd Ingemunson, Tim O’Brien, Tom Fleming, Sheila Trost, Paul Scholtes, Joe Frescura, Pat Frescura, Ramiro Guzman, Kim Larkin, Mark Fecht, and Seth Wormley
MINUTES:
Member Vickery made a motion, seconded by Member Fox, to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2022, hearing/meeting.
With a voice vote of four (4) ayes, the motion carried.
PETITIONS
The Zoning Board of Appeals started their review of Petition 22-01 at 7:03 p.m.
Petition 22 – 01 – Jose and Silvia Martinez
Request: Special Use Permit for a Landscaping Business, Variance to Section 7:01.D.30.b to Allow a Landscaping Business on a Non-State, County, or Collector Highway as Defined by the Kendall County Land Resource Management Plan, and Variance to Section 11:02.F.7.b of the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance to Allow a Driveway Zero Feet from the Southern Property Line
PINs: 03-12-100-004 and 03-12-100-013
Location: 1038 Harvey Road, Oswego Township
Purpose: Petitioner Wants to Operate a Landscaping Business at the Subject Property; Property is Zoned A-1
Chairman Mohr announced that this Petition would be continued until the June hearing. The proposal will be on the June 27, 2022, Zoning Board of Appeals agenda.
The Zoning Board of Appeals completed their review of Petition 22-01 at 7:03 p.m.
The Zoning Board of Appeals started their review of Petition 22-10 at 7:03 p.m.
Petition 22 – 10 – Mark Fecht on Behalf of Fecht Brothers, Inc. (Property Owner) and Jeremy and Samantha Dippold on Behalf of Best Budget Tree, LLC (Contract Purchaser)
Request: Special Use Permit for a Landscaping Business
PINs: 09-15-200-003
Location: North Side of Route 52 Across from 2190 and 2200 Route 52, Minooka in Seward Township
Purpose: Petitioners Want to Operate a Tree Service and Landscaping Business at the Property; Property is Zoned A-1
Mr. Asselmeier summarized the request.
Best Budget Tree, LLC would like to purchase the subject property from Fecht Brothers Inc. in order to operate a tree and landscaping business at the property.
Best Budget Tree, LLC has been in existence for over ten (10) years.
The application materials, site plan, landscaping plan, stormwater plans, and renderings of the proposed building were provided.
The property is on the north side of Route 52 across from 2190 and 2200 Route 52. The property is approximately forty-eight (48) acres in size.
The property is zoned A-1 Agricultural.
The County’s Future Land Use Map calls for the property to be Rural Residential (Max 0.65 Du/Acre). Shorewood’s Future Land Use Map calls for the property to be Residential and Commercial.
Route 52 is a State maintained Arterial road.
Joliet has a trail planned along Route 52, but Joliet does not want a right-of-way dedication at this time; an email to that effect was provided.
There are no floodplains on the property. There is a wetland near the northwest corner of the property. The adjacent land uses are Agricultural and Single-Family Residential.
The adjacent properties are zoned A-1 and R-3.
The County’s Future Land Use Map calls for the area to be Commercial, Rural Residential, and Suburban Residential. Joliet’s Future Land Use Map calls for the area to be Residential. Shorewood’s Future Land Use Map calls for the area to be Residential and Commercial.
The nearby properties are zoned A-1, A-1 SU, and R-1, and R-3.
The A-1 special use permit to the west is for the sale of agricultural products not grown on the premises.
EcoCAT Report was submitted on April 15, 2022, and indicated the following protected resources: Aux Sable Creek INAI Site
Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi)
The Illinois Department of Conservation determined that negative impacts were unlikely and consultation was terminated on April 18, 2022.
The application for NRI was submitted April 21, 2022. The LESA Score was 210 indicating a medium level of protection. The NRI Report was provided.
Petition information was sent to Seward Township on April 25, 2022. The Seward Township Planning Commission reviewed the proposal in May 2022. They expressed concerns about the location of lighting with respect to the adjacent homes. The Seward Township Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. An email to that effect was provided. The Seward Township Board met on May 28, 2022 and recommended denial on a vote of three (3) in favor and one (1) in opposition. The Township Board recommended denial because of concerns related to decreased property values, noise, pollution concerns, the presence of containers for storage, fire issues, the impact of the use on the existing pipelines, and enforcement of conditions by the County. The minutes of the meeting were provided.
Petition information was sent to the Village of Shorewood on April 25, 2022. On May 4, 2022, the Village of Shorewood submitted an email saying they did not want to request a right-of-way dedication for a biking/walking trail. This email was provided.
Petition information was sent to the Minooka Fire Protection District on April 25, 2022. On May 5 and 6, 2022, the Minooka Fire Protection District submitted a letter and email requesting a fire alarm system that meets applicable codes, no smoking signs near the mulch pile, a dry fire hydrant, and signage properly marking the address of the property. The letter and email were provided. The Petitioners were agreeable to this request.
The Kendall County ZPAC reviewed this Petition at their meeting on May 3, 2022. Mr. Klaas asked if the six inch (6”) pipe shown on the plans went to Route 52. John Tebrugge, Petitioners’ Engineer, said the pipe goes almost to Route 52. The Petitioners had not received final access approval from the Illinois Department of Transportation; they will not get final approval until they (the Dippolds) own the property. The Petitioners understood that any buildings constructed on the property would not be eligible for agricultural building permit exemptions. Based on the information provided, the well would not be a non-community well. The Petitioners were advised to design the septic system for maximum load. The Petitioners were advised to identify on the site plan where lights would be placed. The Petitioners had no plans to use the access off of Arbeiter Road. The land comes with building allocations. ZPAC recommended approval of the proposal by a vote of six (6) in favor and zero (0) in opposition with four (4) members absent. The minutes were provided.
The Kendall County Regional Planning Commission reviewed this Petition at their meeting on May 25, 2022.
Chairman Ashton asked if the Minooka Fire Protection District wanted just an alarm system or if the request was to have the building sprinklered. Mr. Asselmeier responded just an alarm system.
Member Wilson asked how the Petitioners were going to manage the mulch pile and if mulch would be sold. Jeremy Dippold, Petitioner, said the mulch would be installed on off-site locations. They would have several small piles. The maximum height of the mulch piles would be twelve feet (12’) because of the company’s equipment.
Member Casey asked where the business was currently located. Mr. Dippold responded Renwick Road and Interstate 55. Mr. Dippold said the proposed location would look better than the existing location because no inside storage exists at their current location.
Member Casey asked about possible expansion. Mr. Asselmeier said, if the Petitioners expanded into the farmland beyond the area identified on the site plan, an amendment to the special use permit would be required.
Discussion occurred regarding the access point off of Arbeiter Road. The access would remain to allow a farmer to get their equipment into the field. Based on the plans, it appeared difficult for a farmer to get equipment to north portion of the property using the access off of Route 52. Equipment could be driven through the parking lot. The current owner would continue to farm the property after the Dippolds acquire the property.
Joe Frescura requested that the proposal be denied for the following reasons:
1. The business has no noise control plan; wood chippers would exceed the noise requirements in the proposed special use permit. He provided pictures of the height of mulch piles at the business’ current location. The trees proposed on the site plan will not reach full height for ten (10) years and will not provide a full noise buffer until that time.
2. The dyed mulch will jeopardize local wells, waterways, and wetlands.
3. Inclusion of access to Arbeiter Road; he would like to see the access point removed. He also discussed burning at other landscaping businesses.
4. There are several containers at the Petitioners’ current operating location. He was concerned about the placement of the containers turning the area into an industrial park and causing a decrease in property values in the area.
5. He noted that five (5) landscaping business have special use permits in Seward Township. These existing special uses are not located near homes like the proposed special use.
6. He expressed concerns regarding the soils to support a septic system.
7. He expressed concerns regarding burning on the property and the possible inter mingling of onsite and offsite generated materials in a burn pile.
8. He noted that the LESA Score was 210. He argued the property should be retained for farming.
Mr. Dippold said chippers would not be used onsite; they would be at customers’ homes. He explained the mulch dyeing process; the dyed mulch is not hazardous. He did not want burning on the property. He has three (3) containers which are used for storage; the containers would be replaced with the building. He was agreeable to a condition not allowing shipping containers on the property. He did not anticipate operating at the site until July 2023. He has no interest in using Arbeiter Road to access the property for the business.
Anne Vickery noted this proposal would be the sixth (6th) landscaping special use in Seward Township. She asked if anyone on the Board would like to live next to this type of use. She also noted that the property was planned to be residential. She asked who would enforce the regulations; she noted burning at another landscaping business.
Robert Delaney said the area was a residential area and should remain a residential area. He questioned the need to have a large amount of acreage used for the proposed use.
Pat Frescura said that she has lived in the area for over fifty (50) years. She noted the time, investment, and pride in her property. She was against having the proposed use near her property. She wanted to keep the land as farmland. She said that she was unaware of the Seward Township Planning Commission’s meeting.
Jim Martin, Seward Township Trustee, said the Seward Township Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation to the Township Board. The Township Board did not vote on this proposal.
Tim O’Brien, Seward Township Supervisor, said the Seward Township Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation to the Township Board.
It was noted that the proposal would preserve agricultural uses on the majority of the property.
Dave Shively asked what A-1 meant. A-1 means agricultural. He discussed the repaving of Arbeiter Road. He asked about enforcement of burning regulations. Mr. Asselmeier explained that burning items brought onto the property was against State law. Mr. Shively favored keeping the property in farming. He favored a housing development instead of the proposed use.
Member Wilson favored having the proposal over houses.
Tony Guzman said that he bought his property because it was a residential area. He would like to see the property become a park. He likes the wildlife in the area. He felt the use was an industrial use.
Mr. Dippold asked if his proposal was any different than a farmer building grain bins with related noise and odors. He also noted that he was pursuing the zoning on the property the correct way.
Kim Larkin said that she did not want to look at this use in her backyard. She said that mulch has an odor. Discussion occurred regarding the smell of mulch. She expressed concerns about diminished property values.
Steve Papaeliou expressed his opposition to the containers on the property.
Mr. O’Brien requested the proposal be tabled proposal and sent back to Seward Township. Member Wilson wanted to know the opinion of the Township Board. Member Nelson noted the Petitioners followed the proper procedures to get to this point. Mr. Dippold opposed tabling the proposal because Mr. Fecht wants to close on the property quickly.
Member Nelson did not see much of a difference between the proposal and farming uses.
Member Wormley noted that a subdivision could be placed on the property at some point in the future, even if the special use permit was approved. He thought the proposal was a good proposal compared to other uses that could go on the property.
The Kendall Regional Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposal with an additional condition stating that no storage containers would be allowed on the subject property by a vote of seven (7) in favor and one (1) in opposition with one (1) member absent. The minutes of the meeting were provided.
Member LeCuyer arrived at this time (7:14 p.m.).
Per Section 7:01.D.30 of the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance, landscaping businesses can be special uses on A-1 zoned property subject to the following conditions:
1. All vehicles, equipment and materials associated with a landscaping business shall be stored entirely within an enclosed structure, unless otherwise permitted under the terms of this Special Use Permit.
2. The business shall be located on, and have direct access to, a State, County or Collector Highway as identified in the County’s LRMP, having an all-weather surface, designed to accommodate loads of at least seventy-three thousand, two hundred eighty pounds (73,280 lbs.), unless otherwise approved in writing by the agency having jurisdiction over said Highway. Such approvals shall establish limitations as to the number of employees and types of vehicles coming to and from the site that are engaged in the operation of the use (including delivery vehicles). These restrictions shall be included as controlling conditions of the Special Use.
3. No landscape waste generated off the property can be burned on this site.
If the County Board approves the outdoor storage of materials, the above conditions have been met.
According to the business plan, the business currently operates two (2) four (4) employee crews in April through October and one (1) four (4) employee crew in November through March. The Petitioners plan to hire four (4) additional employees, if business increases. Employees arrive at the property at approximately 7:30 a.m., go to work sites, and return to the property between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Employees unload equipment and materials and leave between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. The business operates on Monday through Fridays with an occasional Saturday.
Business equipment presently consists of two (2) bucket trucks, two (2) wood chippers, two (2) one (1) ton pickup trucks, two (2) utility trailers, two (2) spare pick-up trucks, and one (1) wheel leader tractor. When not in operation, the Petitioners plan to house vehicles and equipment inside the proposed approximately nine thousand six hundred (9,600) square foot building. Mulch and firewood piles would be placed on the gravel area as shown on the site plan and landscaping plan and would be piled a maximum twelve feet (12’) in height. The Petitioners do not plan to store stone, brick, or rock at the property. Per the site plan, the gravel area is approximately ten point five (10.5) acres in size. If there is a motor vehicle or equipment related leak, the impacted gravel will be removed and replaced with clean gravel.
No retail services will be available at the property and retail customers will not be invited onto the property.
If approved, the Petitioners plan to start operations as quickly as possible.
One (1) approximately nine thousand six hundred (9,600) square foot building is proposed for the site in the location depicted on the site plan and landscaping plan. The building will look substantially like the provided rendering. The walls will be approximately sixteen feet (16’) feet tall and the doors will be fourteen feet (14’) in height. The peak of the building will be a maximum twenty-four feet (24’).
Any structures related to the landscaping business would be required to obtain applicable building permits.
No well or septic system presently exists on the property. No other utilities are located on the property.
One (1) ten foot by ten foot (10’ X 10’) dumpster enclosure was shown on the site plan and landscaping plan east of the vehicle parking area.
The property drains to the south.
There is one (1) wetland located near the northwest corner of the property.
The site plan and landscaping plan show a proposed seventy-three thousand, nine hundred eighty-four (73,984) square foot wet bottom pond. At the deepest point, the pond will be sixteen feet (16’) deep. The stormwater plan information was provided.
WBK Engineering submitted comments on the proposal. This letter was provided. These comments will have to be addressed prior to the issuance of a stormwater management permit.
Per the site plan and landscaping plan, the Petitioners plan to install one (1) thirty foot (30’) wide gravel driveway. The driveway will be approximately forty-eight feet (48’) from the western property line.
According to site plan and landscaping plan, the Petitioners plan to install two (2) parking areas. One (1) parking area is planned south of the building and the other parking area is planned west of the building. The total number of parking spaces is twenty-one (21) including one (1) handicapped accessible parking space.
Three (3) pipeline easements exist on the property.
No existing lighting is located on the property.
At the time of the ZPAC meeting and Seward Township Planning Commission meeting, the Petitioners had not submitted a lighting plan. The lighting plan shows one (1) free standing light near the south parking lot and six (6) lights on the building. Based on the photometrics provided, no light would cross the property lines. The lighting plan was provided.
Per Section 11:02.F.12.e, of the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum height for the freestanding light is twenty feet (20’).
According to the site plan and landscaping plan, one (1) non-illuminated sign is proposed between the gravel driveway and the western property line. No information was provided regarding sign dimensions or height. Per Section 12:08.A. of the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance, the total maximum allowable signage is thirty-two (32) square feet of gross surface area.
No security information was provided.
The landscaping plan shows one hundred fifty (150) white pines along the perimeter of the property. The white pines will be three (3’) feet at the time of planting and will grow to between fifty feet (50’) and eighty feet (80’). Ten (10) deciduous trees are planned along the perimeter of the pond. The trees will be one and one half inches (1.5”) at the time of planting. The landscaping plan also calls for a seed mix of Kentucky blue grass and turf type perennial grass around the pond and along the gravel driveway. Vegetation will be installed after the gravel and pond are installed.
The portion of the property not used for storage, building, driveway, or the pond will remain farmed. Most of the property will be farmed in 2022, which will delay the installation of the landscaping until 2023.
No information was provided regarding noise control.
No new odors are foreseen by the proposed use.
If approved, this would be the nineteenth (19th) special use permit for a landscaping business in unincorporated Kendall County.
The proposed Findings of Fact were as follows:
That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Provided the site is developed in accordance with the submitted site plan and landscaping plan, the operation of the special use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Conditions may be placed in the special use permit ordinance to address hours of operation.
That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The Zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question shall be considered in determining consistency with this standard. The proposed use shall make adequate provisions for appropriate buffers, landscaping, fencing, lighting, building materials, open space and other improvements necessary to insure that the proposed use does not adversely impact adjacent uses and is compatible with the surrounding area and/or the County as a whole. Appropriate restrictions may be placed in the special use permit to regulate the number of employees, hours of operation, site landscaping, lighting, and noise. Therefore, the neighboring property owners should not suffer loss in property values and the use will not negatively impact the adjacent land uses.
That adequate utilities, access roads and points of ingress and egress, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. If a stormwater management permit is issued based on the submitted materials, drainage should not be an issue. If the Illinois Department of Transportation approves the access, ingress and egress should not be an issue. Utilities will need to be extended and/or installed on the property.
That the special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the County Board pursuant to the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is true. No variances are required.
That the special use is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Land Resource Management Plan and other adopted County or municipal plans and policies. True, the proposed use is consistent with an objective found on Page 9-21 of the Kendall County Land Resource Management Plan which calls for “a strong base of agricultural, commercial and industrial uses that provide a broad range of job opportunities, a healthy tax base, and improved quality of services to County residents”. Also, the Kendall County Future Land Use Map and the Village of Shorewood’s Future Land Use Map call for commercial uses near the intersection of Route 52 and Arbeiter Road.
Staff recommended approval of the special use permit for a landscaping business subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted site plan, landscaping plan, and lighting plan (amended after ZPAC).
2. The gravel area shown on the submitted site plan and landscaping plan shall not exceed ten point five (10.5) acres in size. The owners of the business allowed by this special use permit may reduce the amount of acreage covered by gravel.
3. The owners of the businesses allowed by this special use permit shall diligently monitor the property for leaks from equipment and vehicles parked and stored and items stored on the subject property and shall promptly clean up the site if leaks occur.
4. One (1) approximately nine thousand six hundred (9,600) square foot building may be installed on the subject property in substantially the location shown on the site plan. The building shall look substantially like the building depicted in the submitted rendering. The maximum height of the building shall be twenty-four feet (24’).
5. Any new structures constructed or installed related to the business allowed by this special use permit on the property shall not be considered for agricultural purposes and must secure applicable building permits.
6. No business operations may commence at the subject property until an occupancy permit is issued for the building shown on the submitted site plan. No business operations may commence at the subject property until the parking stalls, dumpster enclosure, and wet bottom pond shown on the submitted site plan are installed. Business operations may commence at the subject property prior to the installation of vegetation shown on the submitted landscaping plan.
7. Equipment and vehicles related to the business allowed by the special use permit may be stored outdoors at the subject property during the hours the business is open and shall be stored indoors during non-business hours.
8. None of the vehicles or equipment parked or stored on the subject property related to the business allowed by the special use permit shall be considered agricultural vehicles or agricultural equipment.
9. All of the vehicles and equipment stored on the subject property related to the business allowed by the special use permit shall be maintained in good condition with no deflated tires and shall be licensed if required by law.
10. All landscape related materials shall be stored indoors or on the gravel area depicted on the site plan. The maximum height of the piles of landscaping related material shall be twelve feet (12’) in height, unless otherwise restricted by a stormwater management permit. Stone, brick, and rock shall not be stored outdoors.
11. The size and depth of the wet bottom pond shall be governed by the stormwater management permit issued for the subject property.
12. One (1) two (2) sided non-illuminated sign may be installed on the location depicted on the submitted site plan.
13. At least two (2) no smoking signs shall be installed near the piles of landscaping related materials. (added after ZPAC)
14. One hundred fifty (150) white pines shall be installed in substantially the locations shown on the submitted landscaping plan. The white pines shall be a minimum of three feet (3’) in height at the time of planting. The white pines shall be installed by June 30, 2023. Damaged or dead white pines shall be replaced on a timeframe approved by the Kendall County Planning, Building and Zoning Department. The Kendall County Planning, Building and Zoning Committee may grant an extension to the deadline to install the white pines.
15. Ten (10) deciduous trees shall be installed in substantially the locations shown on the submitted landscaping plan. The deciduous trees shall be a minimum one point five inches (1.5”) in diameter at the time of planting. The deciduous trees shall be installed by June 30, 2023. Damaged or dead deciduous trees shall be replaced on a timeframe approved by the Kendall County Planning, Building and Zoning Department. The Kendall County Planning, Building and Zoning Committee may grant an extension to the deadline to install the deciduous trees.
16. The seed mix called for in the submitted landscaping plan shall be installed by June 30, 2023.
The Kendall County Planning, Building and Zoning Committee may grant an extension to the deadline to install the seed mix.
17. No landscape waste generated off the property can be burned on the subject property.
18. A maximum of twenty (20) employees of the business allowed by this special use permit, including the owners of the business allowed by this special use permit, may report to this site for work. No employees shall engage in the sale of landscaping related materials on the property.
19. No retail customers of the business allowed by this special use permit shall be invited onto the property by anyone associated with the use allowed by this special use permit.
20. The hours of operation of the business allowed by this special use permit shall be Monday through Saturday from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. The owners of the business allowed by this special use permit may reduce these hours of operation.
21. The noise regulations are as follows:
Day Hours: No person shall cause or allow the emission of sound during daytime hours (7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.) from any noise source to any receiving residential land which exceeds sixty five (65) dBA when measured at any point within such receiving residential land, provided; however, that point of measurement shall be on the property line of the complainant.
Night Hours: No person shall cause or allow the emission of sound during nighttime hours (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) from any noise source to any receiving residential land which exceeds fifty five (55) dBA when measured at any point within such receiving residential land provided; however, that point of measurement shall be on the property line of the complainant.
EXEMPTION: Powered Equipment: Powered equipment, such as lawn mowers, small lawn and garden tools, riding tractors, and snow removal equipment which is necessary for the maintenance of property is exempted from the noise regulations between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and ten o'clock (10:00) P.M.
22. At least one (1) functioning fire extinguisher and one (1) first aid kit shall be on the subject property. Applicable signage stating the location of the fire extinguisher and first aid kit shall be placed on the subject property.
23. One dry hydrant shall be placed on the property (added after ZPAC).
24. The maximum height of the light pole shown in the lighting plan shall be twenty feet (20’) (added after ZPAC).
25. No storage/shipping containers are allowed on the subject property (added by the RPC).
26. The owners of the business allowed by this special use permit acknowledge and agree to follow Kendall County’s Right to Farm Clause.
27. The property owner and operator of the business allowed by this special use permit shall follow all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws related to the operation of this type of business.
28. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions or restrictions could result in the amendment or revocation of the special use permit.
29. If one or more of the above conditions is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining conditions shall remain valid.
30. This special use permit shall be treated as a covenant running with the land and is binding on the successors, heirs, and assigns as to the same special use conducted on the property.
Member Fox asked about the powered equipment exemption. Mr. Asselmeier said the powered equipment exemption applies to equipment used to maintain the property and not to equipment related to the landscaping business.
Member Vickery asked if the landscaping business would also be in the snow moving business. Mr. Asselmeier said the Petitioners have not indicating if they will be in the snow removal business. The business would be governed by the hours of operation and maximum number of employee conditions in the special use permit.
Member Vickery asked why the site plan showed twenty-one parking spaces. Mr. Asselmeier responded that the number of parking spaces was dictated by the Zoning Ordinance.
Member Vickery asked if the area used for the business onsite could be expanded. Mr. Asselmeier responded that, if the Petitioners expanded the area used for the business, an amendment to the special use permit would be required.
Chairman Mohr asked about the zoning of the homes in the surrounding area. Mr. Asselmeier said most of the homes were zoned A-1, but two (2) homes were zoned R-3.
Member Vickery asked if the access point off of Arbeiter Road was owned or part of the subject property. Mr. Asselmeier responded yes.
Member Vickery noted that that one (1) municipality called for the area to be residential while another municipality called for the area to be residential and commercial. She questioned why the County would go against the wishes of the municipalities. Mr. Asselmeier said that the subject property was inside Shorewood’s planning area and next to Joliet’s planning area. Shorewood’s plan called for the area to be residential and commercial.
Member Vickery noted that a wetland existed on the property.
Other than landscaping, no trees would be grown on the property.
Chairman Mohr opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Chairman Mohr swore in Boyd Ingemunson, Jeremy Dippold, Joe Frescura, Pat Frescura, Ramiro Guzman, Kim Larkin, Sheila Trost, Tim O’Brien, and Mark Fecht.
Boyd Ingemunson, Attorney for the Petitioners, said the Petitioners have gone above and beyond what is required of them in terms of planning and preparing for the proposal. He said the business is a tree processing company. Trees and chipping occurs offsite. Onsite, they make mulch and cut firewood for customers. No chipping occurs onsite. There are no by-products. No storage of landscaping materials like rock or grass clippings, will occur. He noted that the conditions were more restrictive than other special uses in the A-1 District. The Petitioners agreed to the conditions. He noted the buffer space and screening with trees.
Member Vickery asked if chipping would occur onsite. Mr. Ingemunson said chipping occurs offsite.
Mr. Ingemunson noted the safety guide for the mulch dyeing. He said table salt is more toxic than mulch dyeing.
Mr. Ingemunson said wood splitting would occur onsite with a hydraulic splitter.
Member Vickery asked about containers. Jeremy Dippold, Petitioner, said the reason for the building was to store equipment. No cargo containers would be needed if the building was constructed. He was agreeable to a condition not to have semi-trailers on the premises.
Chairman Mohr asked how long the business had been in existence on Renwick Road. Mr. Dippold responded 2012.
Chairman Mohr asked about the distance to existing residences at the business’ current site. Mr. Dippold responded the current site was thirty-two (32) acres and across the entire frontage there is about a dozen homes. He has not received any complaints.
Chairman Mohr asked if the business will change because of the increased acreage. Mr. Dippold responded that he wanted additional room and have more organization.
Chairman Mohr asked if any employees self-report to sites. Mr. Dippold responded employees come to the business and take work vehicles to sites.
Mr. Dippold explained that he always overdoes in terms of room and space. He noted it was better to have multiple small piles of mulch.
Chairman Mohr said the subject property will eventually turn into houses.
Discussion occurred regarding moving the perimeter trees, with berms and more mature trees, along the boundary of the landscape business area instead of around the perimeter of the entire site. Mr. Dippold described tree growth and that trees root better on flat pieces of land.
Joe Frescura discussed the impact of the proposed use on property values. He said that no noise plan was provided. He discussed the removal of tree waste from the site. He discussed the wheel loader used by the Petitioners. This piece of equipment generates about 125 decibels. He said people purchased property in the area for the peace and quiet. Agricultural equipment is used episodically and not continually on the subject property. The proposed use is different than residential maintenance. He stated that the proposed use is close to residential houses, which is different than other intense agricultural and landscaping uses. Noise would decrease property values. It was noted that no noise study existed for the proposed use. The noise ordinance does not apply to agricultural uses. Mr. Asselmeier explained the enforcement of noise regulations. Mr. Frescura requested a noise study. He also noted that the amount of chemicals impact toxicity. He questioned how much water would be used to dilute chemicals. Loss of water would also negatively impact property values.
Pat Frescura said the property is zoned residential and agricultural and has been used for farming. She had a Realtor look at her property and said that her property would decrease in value by fifteen percent (15%) if the proposed use moved into the area. She said no one would benefit from this use, except the Petitioners. She noted the odors from the mulch, dust from truck traffic, noise, and burning would negatively impact the area. She said that complaints of burning against TZ Landscaping have been made and no enforcement occurs. She did not see a gain to the public from the proposed use. She noted that none of the existing landscaping businesses were close to existing homes. She noted that the Seward Township Board voted against the proposal. She noted the LESA Score was 210 making the land desirable for farming; lower score land should be used for business uses.
Discussion occurred regarding other landscaping businesses located near residences.
Ramiro Guzman said that he was also in the landscaping business, but did not operate out of his house. He loves the agriculture around his property. He did not think a business would locate in the area. He is opposed to the proposal. He discussed the making of chips and mulch. He would like to know the power load of the grinder. The use will create a pile of dead branches; he questioned the height of piles of brush and logs. He was also concerned about the safety of local children because of the pond. He was also concerned about mulch fires. Mr. Dippold described his grinder; he said it makes minimal noise. He said his pond is no different than retention ponds in subdivision. He was not opposed to moving the screen of trees to around the landscaping business area only.
Sheila Trost questioned the public need for the proposed use. Chairman Mohr said there was not a public need and special use permits do not need to meet all of the LaSalle Factors, like zoning changes.
Kim Larkin felt the proposal did not meet the requirements of the LaSalle Factors. The business will not be open to the public and will not bring anything to the community or provide income to the County or Township. She said Kendall County does not come out when complaints are filed; she provided an example involving Animal Control and a dog in the area.
Mr. Frescura asked about buildings not being considered agricultural. Mr. Asselmeier explained that the conditions related to agricultural exempt buildings and agricultural exempt equipment were placed in special use permits to qualify that the use is not agricultural and needs to secure appropriate permits and follow rules for non-agricultural equipment. Mr. Frescura argued that the use is a manufacturing use and not an agricultural use.
Tim O’Brien, Seward Township Supervisor, noted that the Seward Township Board voted this proposal down by a three (3) to one (1) vote.
Mark Fecht, Property Owner and Petitioner, said the wetland is a farmed wetland. He said the soil is not the greatest soil; leaching was not likely. He discussed his hog operations and the property would be ideal for pig space. He felt operating a hog farm would more negatively impact property values than the proposed use. He felt that he might be able to get two thousand four hundred (2,400) hogs on the property. The property was not set up for irrigation.
Discussion occurred regarding the location of the pipelines. The pipelines are near the southern part of the property and are not near the proposed use area.
Chairman Mohr closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m.
Mr. Asselmeier explained which districts landscaping businesses were allowed by special use.
Mr. Asselmeier was unaware if any of the other landscaping businesses manufactured mulch to the degree of the proposed use.
Member Vickery made a motion, seconded by Member Fox, to approve the following Finding:
That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Provided the site is developed in accordance with the submitted site plan and landscaping plan, the operation of the special use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Conditions may be placed in the special use permit ordinance to address hours of operation.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (4): Fox, LeCuyer, Mohr, and Thompson
Nays (1): Vickery
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Cherry and Whitfield
The motion passed.
Member LeCuyer made a motion, seconded by Member Vickery, to approve the following Finding:
That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The Zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question shall be considered in determining consistency with this standard. The proposed use shall make adequate provisions for appropriate buffers, landscaping, fencing, lighting, building materials, open space and other improvements necessary to insure that the proposed use does not adversely impact adjacent uses and is compatible with the surrounding area and/or the County as a whole. Appropriate restrictions may be placed in the special use permit to regulate the number of employees, hours of operation, site landscaping, lighting, and noise. Therefore, the neighboring property owners should not suffer loss in property values and the use will not negatively impact the adjacent land uses.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (3): Fox, LeCuyer, and Thompson
Nays (2): Mohr and Vickery
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Cherry and Whitfield
The motion passed.
Member Thompson made a motion, seconded by Member Fox, to approve the following Finding:
That adequate utilities, access roads and points of ingress and egress, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. If a stormwater management permit is issued based on the submitted materials, drainage should not be an issue. If the Illinois Department of Transportation approves the access, ingress and egress should not be an issue. Utilities will need to be extended and/or installed on the property.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (4): Fox, LeCuyer, Mohr, and Thompson
Nays (1): Vickery
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Cherry and Whitfield
The motion passed.
Member LeCuyer made a motion, seconded by Member Fox, to approve the following Finding:
That the special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the County Board pursuant to the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is true. No variances are required.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (4): Fox, LeCuyer, Mohr, and Thompson
Nays (1): Vickery
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Cherry and Whitfield
The motion passed.
Member Fox made a motion, seconded by Member LeCuyer to approve the following Finding:
That the special use is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Land Resource Management Plan and other adopted County or municipal plans and policies. True, the proposed use is consistent with an objective found on Page 9-21 of the Kendall County Land Resource Management Plan which calls for “a strong base of agricultural, commercial and industrial uses that provide a broad range of job opportunities, a healthy tax base, and improved quality of services to County residents”. Also, the Kendall County Future Land Use Map and the Village of Shorewood’s Future Land Use Map call for commercial uses near the intersection of Route 52 and Arbeiter Road.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (3): Fox, LeCuyer, and Thompson
Nays (2): Mohr and Vickery
Abstain (0): None
Absent (2): Cherry and Whitfield
The motion passed.
Member Vickery requested that condition 25 be amended to include semi-trailers. There was no objection to this requested amendment.
Member Thompson suggested changing the number and location of trees. Mr. Asselmeier said that other conditions required the site and landscaping plan be developed in a certain way; those conditions would also need to be amended if the number and location of trees were changed. The consensus of the Board of was not make these changes.
Member LeCuyer made motion, seconded by Member Fox, to approve conditions for the special use permit with the amendment to condition 25 to not allow semi-trailers to be parked on the subject property.
Member Vickery said the people have spoken and the Board has not listened. She submitted her resignation from the Board. She left the meeting at this time (8:36 p.m.).
Chairman Mohr discussed the storage business on Route 71 that was withdrawn prior to final action because of the proximity of residences to proposed. He felt the proposed use was too close to residences and the use will change the look and feel of the area.
Mr. Asselmeier provided a history of landscaping businesses under the A-1 zoning district. Discussion occurred regarding the differences between landscaping and forestry businesses. The distance of the operations to existing homes was examined.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (4): Fox, LeCuyer, Mohr, and Thompson
Nays (0): None
Abstain (0): None
Absent (3): Cherry, Vickery, and Whitfield
The motion passed.
Member LeCuyer made a motion, seconded by Member Fox, to recommend approval of the special use permit with the conditions proposed by Staff as amended.
The votes were as follows:
Ayes (3): Fox, LeCuyer, and Thompson
Nays (1): Mohr
Abstain (0): None
Absent (3): Cherry, Vickery, and Whitfield
Pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/5-12011, the concurrent vote of four (4) members of a Board consisting of seven (7) members is required to decide in favor of the applicant. Therefore, the recommendation is denial.
Chairman Mohr voted no because of the concerns raised by the neighbors related to the view of area. He was also concerned about loss of property values. He believed the subject property would eventually be houses.
The proposal will go to the Kendall County Planning, Building and Zoning Committee on June 13, 2022. The Zoning Board of Appeals completed their review of Petition 22-10 at 8:45 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS/OLD BUSINESS
Recommendation on a Proposal from Teska Associates, Inc. to Update the Kendall County Land Resource Management Plan in Its Entirety
Mr. Asselmeier presented the proposal.
Mr. Asselmeier noted that the Kendall County Regional Planning Commission and the Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee recommended approval of the proposal.
Discussion occurred about grouping Oswego, Bristol, Kendall, and Na-Au-Say Townships as one (1) area. Mr. Asselmeier said Teska was looking at the project similar to corridor plans.
The Board reviewed the Eldamain Road Corridor in relation to municipal boundaries.
The consensus of the Board was to do the project as presented in the proposal. The Board had no opinion regarding which area of the County to examine first.
Discussion of Oswego Township Junk and Debris Ordinance and Recreational Vehicle and Trailer Parking Ordinance
Mr. Asselmeier presented the ordinances.
REVIEW OF PETITIONS THAT WENT TO THE COUNTY BOARD
Mr. Asselmeier reported that Petition 22-09 was approved by the County Board.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Asselmeier also said that the Illinois Association of County Zoning Officials was having a training session, including a session on zoning hearing procedures, on October 21, 2022, via Zoom. He would email meeting information.
Mr. Asselmeier reported that, for the June 27th hearing, there will be a Petition requesting a special use permit for a government facility; Lisbon Township was building a new building on their property on Route 47. There will also be a text amendment regarding lighting at towers on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Member Thompson made a motion, seconded by Member LeCuyer, to adjourn. With a voice vote of four (4) ayes, the motion carried.
The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
https://www.kendallcountyil.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/24410/637920239168730000
Alerts Sign-up