Peoria Standard

The Peoria County Planning and Zoning Department met Sept. 8 to consider permit requests.

Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the department:

--- "Approved 10/13/2016\r\nMINUTES\r\nZoning Board of Appeals\r\nWilliam O'Brien,

Chairman\r\nSeptember 8, 2016\r\nA meeting of the Peoria County Zoning Board of

Appeals was held on Thursday September 8, 2016, in\r\nRoom 403 of the Peoria County

Courthouse, 324 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois. The meeting was called\r\nto order

by Chairperson William O'Brien at 9:00 a.m.\r\nPRESENT: Chairperson - William O'Brien,

Loren Bailliez, Richard Heinz, Linda O'Brien, Greg\r\nFletcher, Jim Bateman, Andrew

Keyt\r\nABSENT: Justin Brown\r\nSTAFF: Kerilyn Gallagher - Planner I\r\nAndrew Braun

- Planner III\r\nKathi Urban - Assistant Director\r\nJennifer Morris - Civil Assistant

State’s Attorney\r\nMindy Mannlein - Civil Assistant State's Attorney\r\nEllen Hanks

- ZBA Administrative Assistant\r\nMr. Bailliez made a motion to approve the regular

and executive session minutes from August 11, 2016,\r\nand Mr. Heinz seconded the

motion. A vote was taken and the motion was approved; (7-0).\r\nCase No. 046-16-V

at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria,

Illinois.\r\nPetition of MARK & LILLIAN JACOBS, acting on their own behalf, A VARIANCE

request from\r\nSection 20-6.2.2.1.d.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which

requires a road setback of 40 feet\r\nfrom the right of way. The petitioner proposes

to construct a garage at a distance of 25 feet from the\r\nright of way, resulting

in a variance request of 15 feet.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents

and 0 objections on file. The case was published in\r\nthe Peoria Journal Star on

August 17, 2016. Andrew Braun gave a brief presentation of the countywide\r\nmap,

aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation\r\n(Environmental

Corridor & Agriculture Preservation). The site plan and one video of the property

were\r\nshown. The property is zoned is A-1.\r\nKevin Safford of 6215 W. Oertley

Rd., Princeville, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Safford stated that the\r\nvariance

was needed in order to easily access the home, especially during the winter. Mr.

Safford also\r\nstated that the position of the garage addition was the only suitable

place to build onto the home with the\r\nway the driveway approaches the house.\r\nMr.

Bailliez asked if the homeowner had mobility issues that would require the garage,

and Mr. Safford\r\nresponded that the homeowners were getting older and they did

not want to use as many stairs to access\r\nthe home. Mr. Bailliez asked if the

garage would be located where the propane tank was located in the\r\nvideo, and

Mr. Safford responded that this was correct. Mr. Bailliez asked if the foundation

of the \r\n2\r\ngarage would be level with the house, and Mr. Safford responded

that there would be one step into the\r\nhouse from the garage. Mr. Fletcher asked

which side the garage door would be on, and Mr. Safford\r\nresponded that it would

be on the side that faced the road.\r\nNo further questions or comments were made.

Mr. Bateman made a motion to close and deliberate and\r\nwas seconded by Ms. O'Brien.

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). A motion was made by\r\nMr. Heinz

to approve the variance request and was seconded by Ms. O'Brien. A vote was taken

and the\r\nmotion passed; (7-0).\r\nFINDINGS OF FACT FOR VARIANCES\r\nSection 20-3.7.3\r\nThe

findings of the ZBA or the Zoning Administrator shall be based on data submitted

pertaining to\r\neach standard in this Subsection as it relates to the development.

A variance shall be granted only if the\r\napplicant demonstrates:\r\n1. That the

plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;\r\n• The plight of the owner

is due to unique circumstances. Petitioner does not currently have a garage on the\r\nproperty

and wants to attach a 24 x 26 foot garage to the home. The topography of the lot

and location of\r\nthe home and septic system prevent placement of the garage on

any other part of the lot. To build in the\r\nnecessary location would require a

variance from the setback requirement. The garage is also sought to\r\nmake accessibility

to the house easier.\r\n2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential

character of the locality;\r\n• If granted, the variance will not alter the essential

character of the locality. The current and\r\nproposed land use is residential.

It is zoned A-1, with A-1 Zoning in all surrounding directions.\r\nThe area is rural.\r\n3.

That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions

of the specific\r\nproperty involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result,

as distinguished from a mere\r\ninconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations

were carried out;\r\n• In addition to the reasons set forth in number one, the Board

notes that the topography of the lot\r\nis fairly hilly and slopes to the North.

Those factors, coupled with the location of the septic\r\nsystem and house also

limit the space appropriate to construct the garage. Therefore, the\r\npetitioner

would suffer a hardship if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.\r\n4.

That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique

to the property for which the\r\nvariance is sought and are not applicable, generally,

to other property;\r\n• For the reasons set forth in Numbers 1 and 3, the conditions

upon which the petition is based are unique\r\nto this property.\r\n5. That the

granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,

comfort, morals and\r\nwelfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in

the neighborhood in which the property is located,\r\nor otherwise be inconsistent

with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;\r\n• As noted previously,

this construction would take place in a rural area used for residential\r\npurposes.

No evidence was presented that the granting of the variance would be detrimental

to\r\nthe public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other

property or improvements in\r\nthe neighborhood in which the property is located,

or otherwise be inconsistent with any officially\r\nadopted County plan or these

regulations. \r\n3\r\n6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate

supply of light and air to adjacent property, or\r\nsubstantially increase the congestion

in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public\r\nsafety,

or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;\r\n•

No evidence was presented that the variance would impair the supply of light and

air to adjacent\r\nproperty, substantially increase the congestion in the public

streets, increase the danger of fire,\r\nendanger the public safety, or substantially

diminish or impair property values within the\r\nneighborhood. This is especially

so given that the new garage is for personal use, and will not\r\nimpair sightlines

on the adjacent right of way.\r\n7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment

necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and\r\n• For the reasons previously

set forth, the variance is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable\r\nuse

of the land.\r\n8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the

strict application of the provisions of this Section\r\nwould deprive the applicant

of reasonable use of his or her land.\r\n• Based on the aforementioned circumstances,

the strict application of the zoning provisions would deprive\r\nthe petitioner

of reasonable use of the land.\r\nIn addition to the foregoing findings, the Board

notes that there are no objections on file with respect to this\r\npetition.\r\n\r\nMr.

Bailliez made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Bateman.

Seven\r\naffirmative votes; (7-0).\r\nCase No. 047-16-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to

be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria, Illinois.\r\nPetition

of BRIAN JANES, acting on his own behalf, A VARIANCE request from Section 20-\r\n5.13.3.4

of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that for lots and parcels in

platted\r\nsubdivisions not created by tract surveys or in residentially zoned districts,

the total floor area of all\r\naccessory buildings, attached or detached, shall

not exceed the footprint of the principal structure or\r\n1300 square feet, whichever

is less, plus 750 square feet for a private garage. The petitioner proposes to\r\nconstruct

a 1,350 square feet accessory structure, which results in a variance request of

140 square feet.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections

on file. The case was published in\r\nthe Peoria Journal Star on August 17, 2016.

Andrew Braun gave a brief presentation of the countywide\r\nmap, aerial view of

the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation\r\n(Environmental

Corridor & Agriculture). The site plan and one video of the property were shown.

The\r\nproperty is zoned is A-2.\r\nBrian Janes of 724 E. Santa Fe Rd., Chillicothe,

was sworn in at this time. Mr. Janes stated that he\r\nwould like to construct a

building to store tractors, ATVs, and other items in. He added that he would\r\nbe

over the maximum square footage requirement by 140 square feet.\r\nMr. Fletcher

asked if the floor would be concrete, and Mr. Janes responded that it would be eventually.\r\nMs.

O'Brien stated that it appeared as though the building was already being constructed,

and Mr. Janes\r\nstated that he had made the decision to start the construction

in parallel with the application for a\r\nvariance, and had since found out that

that was not permitted. Mr. Bailliez asked how far away the \r\n4\r\nbuilding was

from property lines, and Mr. Janes responded that his parcel was 15 acres in size,

so he was\r\nquite far from the property lines. Mr. Janes then submitted a consent

form signed by his neighbors.\r\nMr. Bailliez asked if this lot was in a subdivision,

and Mr. Janes responded that it was, but that all of the\r\nlots were large in size.

Mr. Bailliez then asked if there were any restrictions in the Home Owner's\r\nAssociation

agreement that would prevent Mr. Janes from having this building. Mr. Janes responded\r\nthat

he had already received approval from the Home Owner's Association.\r\nNo further

questions or comments were made. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to close and deliberate

and\r\nwas seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

A motion was made by Mr.\r\nBailliez to approve the variance request and was seconded

by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the\r\nmotion passed; (7-0).\r\nFINDINGS OF

FACT FOR VARIANCES\r\nSection 20-3.7.3\r\nThe findings of the ZBA or the Zoning

Administrator shall be based on data submitted pertaining to\r\neach standard in

this Subsection as it relates to the development. A variance shall be granted only

if the\r\napplicant demonstrates:\r\n1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique

circumstances;\r\n• The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Petitioner

maintains 15 acres of property and\r\nwants to construct a 30 x 45 foot accessory

building to store a tractor, mowers, ATVs, plows and other\r\nequipment, both to

protect those items and to shield them from view. He requests a variance to build

it in\r\nexcess of the square footage allowance.\r\n2. That the variation, if granted,

will not alter the essential character of the locality;\r\n• If granted, the variance

will not alter the essential character of the locality. The current and\r\nproposed

land use is residential. It is zoned A-2, with A-2 Zoning in all surrounding directions.\r\n3.

That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions

of the specific\r\nproperty involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result,

as distinguished from a mere\r\ninconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations

were carried out;\r\n• Due to subdivision of the tract, and for the reasons set

forth in number 1 and 2, the petitioner\r\nwould suffer a hardship if the strict

letter of the regulations were carried out.\r\n4. That the conditions upon which

the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the\r\nvariance

is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;\r\n• For the reasons

previously cited, the conditions upon which the petition is based are unique to

this\r\nproperty.\r\n5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental

to the public health, safety, comfort, morals and\r\nwelfare, or injurious to other

property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located,\r\nor

otherwise be inconsistent with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;\r\n•

No evidence was presented that the granting of the variance would be detrimental

to the public\r\nhealth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other

property or improvements in the\r\nneighborhood in which the property is located,

or otherwise be inconsistent with any officially adopted\r\nCounty plan or these

regulations. \r\n5\r\n6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate

supply of light and air to adjacent property, or\r\nsubstantially increase the congestion

in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public\r\nsafety,

or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;\r\n•

The structure is intended for personal use, and is not near a property line. No

evidence was\r\npresented that the variance would impair the supply of light and

air to adjacent property,\r\nsubstantially increase the congestion in the public

streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger\r\nthe public safety, or substantially

diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.\r\n7. That the variance

granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land;

and\r\n• For the reasons previously set forth, the variance is the minimum adjustment

necessary for the reasonable\r\nuse of the land.\r\n8. That aforesaid circumstances

or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section\r\nwould

deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.\r\n• Based on the aforementioned

circumstances, the strict application of the zoning provisions would deprive\r\nthe

petitioner of reasonable use of the land.\r\nIn addition to the foregoing findings,

the Board notes that there are no objections and the petitioner has submitted\r\nconsents

from nearby homeowners.\r\n\r\nMr. Bailliez made a motion to approve the findings

of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Seven\r\naffirmative votes; (7-0).\r\nCase

No. 048-16-U at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria,

Illinois.\r\nPetition of CHRIS KAPPES, acting on behalf of PETER & PATSY CAHILL,

THE PETER\r\nCAHILL TRUST, & THE PATSY CAHILL TRUST (owners), a SPECIAL USE as required

in\r\nSection 20-6.2.1.1.b of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows

for a special use when\r\na proposed land split does not meet the 40 acre minimum

lot size requirement in the A-1 Agricultural\r\nPreservation District. The petitioner

proposes to divide 5 acres from a 160 acre tract.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case.

There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in\r\nthe

Peoria Journal Star on August 17, 2016 and The Home Shopper on August 16, 2016.

Kerilyn\r\nGallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view

of the property, surrounding\r\nzoning, and future land use plan designation (Environmental

Corridor & Agriculture Preservation). The\r\nsite plan and one video of the property

were shown. The property is zoned is A-1.\r\nChris Kappes of 6310 Grace Lane, Edwards,

was sworn in at this time. Mr. Kappes stated that he was\r\nasking for a Special

Use to split 5 acres off of his in-laws farm in order to build a single family dwelling.\r\nMr.

Fletcher asked if Mr. Kappes would own the 5 acres, and Mr. Kappes responded that

this was\r\ncorrect. Mr. Kappes stated that out of the 5 acres, approximately 2

acres were tillable. Mr. Kappes\r\nadded that he intended to build a home for his

family on the property.\r\nNo further questions or comments were made. Mr. Heinz

made a motion to close and deliberate and\r\nwas seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was

taken and the motion passed; (7-0).\r\n6\r\nAt this time, Ms. Morris suggested that

Case 050-16-U would be heard first, because depending on the\r\nZoning Board's recommendation

for Case 050-16-U, Case 049-16-V may not need to be heard.\r\nMr. Heinz stated that

he knew people associated with both the consents and objections to this case, but\r\nthat

it would not affect his decision regarding this case. Mr. Keyt stated that he was

related to one of the\r\nobjectors and felt it would be best for him to abstain

from voting on this case.\r\nCase No. 050-16-U at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in

room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria, Illinois.\r\nPetition of WILLIAM

& JANET ROSECRANS, acting on their own behalf, a SPECIAL USE as\r\nrequired in Section

20.5.2.2.1.a.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a\r\nspecial

use when a proposed land split does not meet the 25 acre minimum lot size nor the

1 dwelling\r\nunit per 25 contiguous acres density requirement in the A-2 Agricultural

District. The petitioner\r\nproposes to divide 5 acres in the \"A-2\" Agriculture

District into 2 lots of 2.5 acres each.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There are

0 consents and 12 objections on file. The case was published in\r\nthe Peoria Journal

Star on August 17, 2016. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the\r\ncountywide

map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation\r\n(Environmental

Corridor & Agriculture). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown.

The\r\nproperty is zoned is A-2.\r\nWilliam and Janet Rosecrans of 16515 W. Martin

Rd., Brimfield, were sworn in. Mr. Rosecrans stated\r\nthat he and his wife would

like to split their 5 acre parcel into two, 2.5 acre pieces in order to sell the\r\nparcel

with the home and keep the parcel with the detached garage. Mr. Rosecrans added

that they\r\nwould like to keep the property with the detached garage for enjoyment

and recreation. Additionally,\r\nthey would like to keep the property so that they

can someday possibly pass it down to their children.\r\nMs. Rosecrans stated that

the property is located within a desirable school district, so she would like to\r\nkeep

half of it for her grandchildren. Ms. Rosecrans also stated that she and her husband

have lived in\r\nthe area for a long time, and recently built a new home in Kickapoo.

Ms. Rosecrans stated that they\r\nwere surprised by the objections from her neighbors

and that if any of them had come to her for a similar\r\nrequest, she would not

object to it. Ms. Rosecrans also added that a nearby neighbor had split off a\r\npiece

of property for her daughter years ago. Ms. Rosecrans stated that they like the

Brimfield area and\r\nhoped to stay in the area in their retirement. Mr. Rosecrans

stated that he wanted to make it clear that\r\nthey did not want to keep the property

for resale or business, it would only be kept for enjoyment and to\r\nbe passed

on to his children.\r\nMs. O'Brien asked if the Rosecrans planned to sell the home

if the Special Use was approved, and Mr.\r\nRosecrans responded that this was correct.

Ms. O'Brien then clarified that the Rosecrans planned to\r\nkeep the other piece

with the detached building for recreation, and Ms. Rosecrans responded that this\r\nwas

correct. Ms. Rosecrans added that they wanted to keep the other parcel mostly because

they want a\r\nspace for their children to possibly build a home in the Brimfield

School District if they choose to do so.\r\nMr. Fletcher asked if the Rosecrans

lived in the house currently, and Mr. Rosecrans responded that this\r\nwas correct.

Ms. O'Brien asked if the Rosecrans were building a house somewhere, and Mr. Rosecrans\r\nresponded

that this was correct. Ms. Rosecrans added that they are building a house in Kickapoo

in \r\n7\r\norder to be closer to their daughter. Mr. Bailliez clarified that the

house and 2.5 acres would be sold,\r\nwhile the Rosecrans would keep the other 2.5

acres to possibly someday build a home. Mr. Rosecrans\r\nresponded that this was

correct. Ms. Rosecrans stated that they do not plan to sell the lot without the\r\nhouse.

Ms. O'Brien clarified that even though the Rosecrans stated that they did not intend

to sell the lot\r\nnow, they could choose to do so at any time. Mr. Fletcher asked

if the Health Department commented,\r\nand Ms. Rosecrans stated that they had already

done a soil test and put a well in on the parcel. Ms.\r\nUrban added that the Health

Department had no objection.\r\nMs. O'Brien asked if most of the parcels nearby

were 5 acres in size, and Ms. Rosecrans responded that\r\nthe lots nearby varied

in size. Ms. Rosecrans stated that they did not think there would be any objection\r\nto

their request because there have been several land splits approved in the surrounding

area. Ms.\r\nRosecrans stated that they had made a substantial investment in this

request already because they did not\r\nforesee any issues. Mr. Bailliez stated

that one of the issues was that a lot would be created with an\r\naccessory structure

without a principal structure. Ms. Rosecrans asked what the main objection was to\r\nhaving

the accessory structure without a house, and Mr. Bailliez responded that the board

has seen cases\r\nin which the intentions are good, but then something happens and

the lot is not maintained or sold to\r\nsomeone who does not maintain it.\r\nMr.

Heinz asked if the Rosecrans checked with their neighbors about their request or

if they had checked\r\nwith the Planning and Zoning Department about the width of

the lot, and Mr. Rosecrans responded that\r\nthey had spoken with the department

about the width, but they had not spoken to their neighbors about\r\nthe request.

Ms. Rosecrans stated that they did not think their frontage width was a problem

because of\r\nthe narrow frontage across the road that was approved. Ms. O'Brien

stated that the two instances were\r\nunfair to compare because the other land split

across the road was a split from a large piece of farmland.\r\nBill Passie of 16623

Martin Rd., Brimfield, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Passie stated that he and

his\r\nwife live on the adjacent lot to the Rosecrans, and have considered them

neighbors and friends;\r\nhowever, Mr. Passie stated that they did object to the

request for several reasons. Mr. Passie stated that\r\nall the other neighbors on

Martin Road also signed the objection petition for the request, with the\r\nexception

of one neighbor who was out of town. Mr. Passie also stated that George Cluskey,

who\r\noriginally subdivided the land, also objected to the split because it would

change the character of the\r\narea he created. Mr. Passie stated that he and the

other neighbors in the area moved to the area in order\r\nto have a rural, quiet

atmosphere with larger lots.\r\nMr. Passie stated that he felt the Rosecrans did

not have any undue hardships associated with the\r\nrequest, and that dividing their

lot was a choice. Mr. Passie also stated that the Rosecrans never spoke to\r\nthe

neighbors about their proposal, and that they would be moving into a new home away

from the lots\r\nthat they want to create. Additionally, Mr. Passie was concerned

with the lack of public water supply in\r\nthe area and the addition of another

potential home in the area drawing from the aquifer. Furthermore,\r\nMr. Passie

stated that he was worried about the possibility that the lot could be sold, leaving

the use of\r\nthe accessory structure uncertain for the future. Mr. Passie also

added that approving the request would\r\nincrease traffic in the area. Mr. Passie

reiterated that no neighbors in the immediate area consented to\r\nthe request,

and that approving the request would alter the character of the neighborhood that

the\r\nresidents enjoy. \r\n8\r\nMr. O'Brien asked if Mr. Passie had talked to the

Rosecrans personally about the request, and he\r\nresponded that he did not. Mr.

Passie stated that if he would have been approached when the process\r\nstarted,

he would have given the Rosecrans his honest opinion about the request.\r\nDon Hammontree

of 16427 W. Martin Rd., Brimfield, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Hammontree\r\nstated

that he was the adjacent neighbor on the other side of the Rosecrans. He stated

that he was out of\r\ntown when Mr. Passie circulated the objection petition, but

that he was also objecting to the request for\r\nthe previously mentioned reasons.\r\n\r\nNo

further questions or comments were made. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to close and

deliberate and\r\nwas seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion

passed; (6-0).\r\nCase No. 051-16-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403,

of the Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria, Illinois.\r\nPetition of JAMES MEEKS,

acting on his own behalf, a VARIANCE request from Section 20-\r\n5.13.3.4 of the

Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that for lots and parcels in platted\r\nsubdivisions

not created by tract surveys or in residentially zoned districts, the total floor

area of all\r\naccessory buildings, attached or detached, shall not exceed the footprint

of the principal structure or\r\n1300 square feet, whichever is less, plus 750 square

feet for a private garage. The petitioner proposes to\r\nconstruct a 672 square

feet accessory structure. The current cumulative square footage of existing\r\naccessory

structures exceeds the allowable size by 202 square feet. Therefore, the proposal

results in a\r\nvariance request of 874 square feet.\r\nMs. Urban explained that

Mr. Meeks had requested to withdraw the case. Mr. Keyt made a motion to\r\naccept

the request to withdraw and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Seven affirmative votes;

(7-0).\r\nCase No. 052-16-V at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the

Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria, Illinois.\r\nPetition of JERRY & PAULA CALLEAR,

acting on behalf of themselves, a VARIANCE from\r\nSection 20-7.4.6.2, which requires

that no solid fence shall be constructed in a front setback past the\r\nfront building

line. Also, a Variance request from Section 20-7.4.6.3 of Unified Development\r\nOrdinance,

which requires that the height of a fence in the front setback shall not exceed

4 feet. The\r\npetitioner proposes to extend a 6 feet high solid fence in the front

setback by a distance of 32 feet.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents

and 1 objection on file. The case was published in the\r\nPeoria Journal Star on

August 17, 2016 and The Home Shopper on August 16, 2016. Andrew Braun\r\ngave a

brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding

zoning, and\r\nfuture land use plan designation (Urban). The site plan and two videos

of the property were shown. The\r\nproperty is zoned is A-2.\r\nJerry and Paula

Callear of 4315 N. Koerner Rd., Peoria, were sworn in at this time. Ms. Callear

stated\r\nthat she and her husband would like to extend their white vinyl fence

32' feet toward the road. Ms.\r\nCallear stated that her front yard is her neighbor's

side yard, and that her neighbor has a lot of activity in\r\nhis yard that they

would like to have a buffer from. Ms. Callear stated that her neighbor does car

repair\r\nand parks cars close to the property line beyond the existing fence. Ms.

Callear stated that the fence\r\nwould not be seen from the road. \r\n9\r\nAt this

time, Ms. Callear distributed a consent form signed by other adjacent neighbors.

Ms. Callear\r\nthen explained that the neighbor has an ingress/egress easement for

their driveway that the fence would\r\nnot block. Ms. Callear added that Austin

Engineering had surveyed the property and the proposed\r\nlocation of the fence

to be sure that it would not block the easement. Ms. Callear also stated that the\r\nneighbor

does a lot of outdoor entertaining that they would like to block. Ms. Callear then

submitted\r\nsome photographs of the area to be blocked.\r\nMr. O'Brien asked if

Ms. Callear had spoken to the neighbor about the request, and Ms. Callear stated\r\nthat

she had not because they do not have a good relationship. Ms. O'Brien asked for

clarification on the\r\nlocation of the fence, and Ms. Callear pointed out the fence

to be extended on the video. Ms. O'Brien\r\nasked why Ms. Callear did not put up

a longer fence the first time, and Ms. Callear said that she thought\r\nthe current

fence length would have solved prior problems, but it has not. Mr. Bailliez stated

that he did\r\nnot know how the Callears could see anything from their house since

it was set so far back from the\r\nneighbor's house. Ms. Callear responded that

they could still see a lot from their home, especially the\r\nneighbor's truck that

is parked close to the driveway. Ms. Callear added that she spends a lot of time

in\r\nher front yard. Mr. Bailliez stated that the neighbor was not given permission

to have a taller fence, and\r\nMs. Callear responded that she was not aware of the

neighbor applying for a variance to do so. Ms.\r\nCallear added that she would not

object to the request if her neighbor were to apply for a variance for a\r\ntaller

fence.\r\nMr. Heinz asked if Ms. Callear would object to a 4 foot fence in this

location, and Ms. Callear\r\nresponded that she would. Mr. Bailliez asked how often

the neighbor has people over, and Ms. Callear\r\nstated that it varies. Ms. Callear

added that there are many vehicles parked on the property that they\r\nwould like

to buffer from as well as many vehicles coming and going. Mr. O'Brien asked how

much of\r\nthe request was based on screening and how much was based upon the contentious

relationship with the\r\nneighbor, and Ms. Callear responded that she hoped screening

would help alleviate the contention. Mr.\r\nFletcher asked if the Callears would

be cutting off the circle drive, and Ms. Callear responded that they\r\nwould not

and that they had surveyed the property to make sure they were not blocking the

easement.\r\nMs. Callear added that her neighbor has also mentioned that he does

not like seeing the Callears, so Ms.\r\nCallear felt that this would help solve

his problem as well. Mr. Callear explained that they have lived\r\nthere for 40

years and they do not have any problems with anyone else. Ms. Callear added that

they can\r\nsee the trucks from their kitchen window and front yard.\r\nTerry Gavin

4339 of N. Koerner Rd., Peoria, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Gavin stated that

he is the\r\nneighbor the Callears are speaking about. Mr. Gavin stated that he

objects to the fence because he was\r\nnot allowed to have a 6 foot fence. Mr. Gavin

stated that he originally had a 6 foot fence, but he was\r\nrequired to reduce it

to 4 feet in height in order to comply with the regulations. Mr. Gavin stated that

he\r\nput up the tall fence to block his property from the neighbors. Mr. Gavin

added that if the board\r\npermitted the Callears to have a 6 foot fence, he should

also be allowed to have a 6 foot fence. Mr.\r\nGavin stated that he does park his

truck beyond the fence occasionally because they need the space for\r\nparking when

they invite people over. Mr. Gavin stated that Planning & Zoning has told him that

he\r\ncannot park his trailers in front of the home, so he has parked them on the

opposite side of the house\r\nbehind the front setback of the house. \r\n10\r\nMr.

Heinz stated that he did not understand why Mr. Gavin would object to the 6 foot

fence because Mr.\r\nGavin wanted to put up a 6 foot fence himself. Mr. Heinz added

that if the variance was approved, Mr.\r\nGavin would get the 6 foot fence buffer

he wanted and the Callears would be paying to put it up. Mr.\r\nGavin responded

that it was not fair that the Callears were able to do what he could not. Mr. Gavin

said\r\nthat his original 6 foot fence should have been allowed. Ms. O'Brien asked

if Mr. Gavin got a permit for\r\nthe 6 foot fence, and Mr. Gavin stated that he

had. Ms. O'Brien then asked if Mr. Gavin got a variance\r\nfor the fence, and he

stated that he did, but that he was told he needed to take the fence down to 4 feet

in\r\nheight. Ms. Urban stated that she did not believe Mr. Gavin had even applied

for a variance to have a 6\r\nfoot fence and that the Department of Planning and

Zoning was the entity that told him he needed to\r\nhave a 4 foot fence. Mr. Gavin

stated that he had a permit for the fence, and that when the inspector\r\ncame out

to look at the fence, he told Mr. Gavin that it could not be 6 feet in height in

that location. Ms.\r\nUrban clarified that there was no variance applied for. Ms.

O'Brien asked Mr. Gavin if he had applied\r\nfor a variance and he responded that

he had a permit for the fence and that after he built the fence, he\r\nwas told

that he needed to reduce the height. Ms. O'Brien stated that she felt the same as

Mr. Heinz and\r\ndid not understand why Mr. Gavin would object to the fence if he

wanted the 6 foot barrier as well. Mr.\r\nGavin stated that the fence would not

fix all the problems because the Callears look into his yard when\r\nexiting and

entering the driveway.\r\nMs. O'Brien asked what the main reason was for his objection,

and Mr. Gavin responded that the\r\nCallears did not need the fence, and that he

also believed they should not be able to have the 6 foot fence\r\nbecause he could

not have his 6 foot fence. Mr. Fletcher asked if Mr. Gavin had a variance for a

taller\r\nfence, and he responded that he did not. Mr. Gavin stated that the inspector

told him it was too tall for\r\nthe location it was placed in. Mr. Heinz asked who

had put up their fence first, and Mr. Gavin\r\nresponded that he put up his fence

first. Mr. Heinz asked if the Callears had a variance to have a taller\r\nfence,

and Mr. Gavin responded that they did. Mr. Gavin responded that if he was not able

to keep his 6\r\nfoot fence, then they should not be able to have a 6 foot fence

either. Ms. O'Brien explained that the\r\nreason the Callears were able to have

a 6 foot fence is because they had applied for a variance to do so,\r\nand were

approved. Ms. O'Brien further explained that Mr. Gavin could have also applied for

a variance\r\nfor a taller fence, but he had not.\r\nMs. Callear stated that she

did not believe Mr. Gavin had ever applied for a variance, but that if he had,\r\nthey

would not have objected to it. Mr. Callear stated that after he put up his vinyl

fence, Mr. Gavin\r\nextended the height of his fence. Mr. Callear also stated that

other neighbors have problems with the\r\nnoise from Mr. Gavin's property. Mr. Callear

also explained that they own and maintain the circle\r\ndriveway, and that Mr. Gavin

only has an ingress/egress easement to access his house.\r\nRon Haslick of 4339

N. Koerner Rd., Peoria, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Haslick stated that he\r\nobjects

to the fence. Mr. Haslick stated that the Callears take pictures and videos of them

and also stop\r\nin the driveway to look into Mr. Gavin's yard.\r\nMr. Callear stated

that the neighbors also take pictures and videos of them. Mr. Callear stated that

all he\r\nwants is a 32 foot extension on his already existing 6 foot fence in order

to separate themselves from the\r\nneighbors. \r\n11\r\nTodd Gavin of 6406 N. Upland

Terrace, Peoria, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Gavin stated that he is\r\nTerry

Gavin's cousin, and that he helped Terry put up the fence. Mr. Gavin stated that

if Terry was not\r\nallowed to have a tall fence, then the Callears should not be

allowed to have one either.\r\nNo further questions or comments were made. Mr. Keyt

made a motion to close and deliberate and was\r\nseconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote

was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).\r\nMr. Bailliez stated that he remembered

the original request for the Callears to have the first 6 foot fence.\r\nMr. Bailliez

added that he felt the Callears should have to abide by current zoning regulations.

Ms.\r\nO'Brien stated that she felt that, fence or no fence, it would not solve

the issues between the neighbors.\r\nMr. Fletcher stated that the whole point of

applying for a variance is to vary from the rules. He added\r\nthat it was only

5 or 6 more fence panels, and that the Callears were already granted a variance

to have a\r\n6 foot fence in the past.\r\nA motion was made by Mr. Keyt to approve

the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A\r\nvote was taken and the

motion passed; (6-1) (Mr. Bailliez voted no.)\r\nFINDINGS OF FACT FOR VARIANCES\r\nSection

20-3.7.3\r\nThe findings of the ZBA or the Zoning Administrator shall be based on

data submitted pertaining to\r\neach standard in this Subsection as it relates to

the development. A variance shall be granted only if the\r\napplicant demonstrates:\r\n1.

That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;\r\n• Petitioners are

requesting a variance to extend their 6 ft. solid privacy fence an additional 32

feet in front\r\nof their dwelling. The petitioners' home sits back from the road,

and behind their neighbor's home. The\r\nproposed fence would shield the neighbor's

property and parking area from view, provide privacy, and\r\nhelp to alleviate conflicts

between neighboring property owners.\r\n2. That the variation, if granted, will

not alter the essential character of the locality;\r\n• If granted, the variance

will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property is\r\ncurrently

and will continue to be used for residential purposes. It is zoned A-2, with A-2

zoning\r\nto the South and east, with R-R zoning in all other directions. Aesthetically,

the proposed fence\r\nis vinyl and looks the same on both sides. There is already

a fence in place, and it would merely\r\nbe extended toward the road.\r\n3. That

because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions

of the specific\r\nproperty involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result,

as distinguished from a mere\r\ninconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations

were carried out;\r\n• The petitioners' home is on an adjacent parcel that is significantly

set back from Koerner Road.\r\nBecause of the position of the house on the lot in

relation to the position of the house on the\r\nneighboring lot, the neighbor's

yard in the Petitioners' sight line. There have been disputes\r\nbetween the neighbors

as to the neighbor's parking area, so the petitioners need to extend their\r\nfence

to shield the portion of the neighboring property causing the conflict from view.

Thus, the\r\npetitioners would suffer a hardship if the strict letter of the regulations

were carried out.\r\n4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation

are based are unique to the property for which the\r\nvariance is sought and are

not applicable, generally, to other property;\r\n12\r\n• For the reasons previously

noted, the conditions upon which the petition is based are unique to this\r\nproperty.\r\n5.

That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health,

safety, comfort, morals and\r\nwelfare, or injurious to other property or improvements

in the neighborhood in which the property is located,\r\nor otherwise be inconsistent

with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;\r\n• There is no evidence

that the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health,\r\nsafety,

comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the

neighborhood\r\nin which the property is located, or otherwise be inconsistent with

any officially adopted County plan or\r\nthese regulations. Indeed, it will improve

safety, comfort, and welfare to the extent that it will help to\r\nalleviate conflicts

with the neighboring property owners.\r\n6. That the proposed variation will not

impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or\r\nsubstantially

increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or

endanger the public\r\nsafety, or substantially diminish or impair property values

within the neighborhood;\r\n• The proposed fence is not immediately adjacent to

a dwelling, and is significantly set back from\r\nthe right of way. There is no

evidence that the variance would impair the supply of light and air\r\nto adjacent

property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase

the\r\ndanger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or

impair property values\r\nwithin the neighborhood. This is especially so given that

the new garage is for personal use, and\r\nwill not impair sightlines on the adjacent

right of way.\r\n7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary

for the reasonable use of the land; and\r\n• For the reasons previously set forth,

the variance is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable\r\nuse of the

land.\r\n8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict

application of the provisions of this Section\r\nwould deprive the applicant of

reasonable use of his or her land.\r\n• Based on the aforementioned circumstances,

the strict application of the zoning provisions would deprive\r\nthe petitioner

of reasonable use of the land.\r\n\r\nMr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the

findings of fact and was seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Seven\r\naffirmative votes; (7-0).\r\nCase

No. 053-16-U at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County

Courthouse,\r\nPeoria, Illinois.\r\nPetition of CURTIS HAWKINS, acting on behalf

of JAMES KYLE (owner) a SPECIAL USE as\r\nrequired in Section 20-5.2.2.3.e of the

Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a\r\nspecial use for a private

recreational area or facility, provided that any parking lots are landscaped in\r\naccordance

with Section 7.6 (Landscaping & Bufferyards).\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There

are 0 consents and 1 objection on file. The case was published in the\r\nPeoria

Journal Star on August 17, 2016 and The Home Shopper on August 16, 2016. Andrew

Braun\r\ngave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property,

surrounding zoning, and\r\nfuture land use plan designation (Agriculture & Environmental

Corridor). The site plan and three videos\r\nof the property were shown. The property

is zoned is A-2.\r\n13\r\nCurtis Hawkins of 3717 E. Washington St., East Peoria,

was sworn in at this time. Mr. Hawkins stated\r\nthat he is looking for a Special

Use in order to operate an airsoft field at this location.\r\nMr. Keyt asked what

airsoft is, and Mr. Hawkins responded that it is like paintball, but that it uses\r\nairsoft

pellets instead. Mr. Hawkins added that the closest airsoft facilities are located

in the St. Louis\r\nand Chicago areas. Mr. O'Brien asked if there was a market for

this activity in the Peoria area, and Mr.\r\nHawkins responded that he gets requests

for an airsoft field all the time. Mr. Hawkins stated that it will\r\ncost around

$20 per day to participate. Ms. O'Brien asked if the whole 60 acre parcel would

be used,\r\nand Mr. Hawkins responded that they would be using approximately 36

acres. Mr. Bailliez asked if Mr.\r\nHawkins had any experience with airsoft, and

Mr. Hawkins responded that he did. Mr. Hawkins\r\nresponded that his kids have participated

in it in other areas. Mr. Bailliez asked if Mr. Hawkins had\r\ndone an analysis

on how much it would cost to start this business and keep it running, and Mr. Hawkins\r\nresponded

that he had. Mr. O'Brien asked if Mr. Hawkins had a marketing plan, and Mr. Hawkins

stated\r\nthat he did not. Mr. O'Brien stated that he felt the board was concerned

about the economic feasibility\r\nof the plan. Mr. Hawkins stated that he thought

the business would be a success, but that until he could\r\ntry, he would not know.

He stated that it would probably take at least a year to know whether or not it\r\nwould

be successful, but that it was a risk just like starting any other business.\r\nMr.

O'Brien pointed out that staff had recommended approval with restrictions and asked

if Mr.\r\nHawkins was aware of these restrictions. Mr. Hawkins responded that he

was aware of these restrictions\r\nand they would not be a problem. Mr. Hawkins

added that, initially, they would only be operating on\r\nSaturdays and occasionally

on Sundays for special events like birthday parties. Ms. O'Brien asked if\r\nthere

was any noise associated with airsoft, and Mr. Hawkins responded that it makes very

little noise.\r\nMr. Fletcher asked about the parking area, and Mr. Hawkins responded

that they expected a maximum\r\nof approximately 20-30 cars at one time and that

it would be a concrete parking lot. Mr. Fletcher asked\r\nif Mr. Hawkins would need

a building for check-ins, and Mr. Hawkins responded that they would\r\nprobably

use a shelter like a carport for check ins.\r\nClarence Monroe of 4823 W. Pottstown

Rd., Peoria, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Monroe asked for\r\nthe access lane

for the property to be pulled up on the aerial view. Mr. Monroe stated that his

property\r\nis directly next to the access property, but that he did not receive

notice for the case. Mr. Monroe stated\r\nthat Mr. Hawkins had run a trial of the

airsoft field from November of last year since about June of the\r\ncurrent year

until Planning and Zoning notified the owner that the use was not permitted without

a\r\nspecial use. Mr. Monroe stated that during that time, there were many cars

coming and going and an\r\nincrease in trash, dust, and noise. Mr. Monroe added

that the access lane is only 25 yards from his\r\nhome. Mr. Monroe stated that he

has lived in this location for over 40 years and that during that time\r\nthere

have been many different uses on the property, including 3-D archery and a gravel

pit.\r\nMr. Monroe stated that he is also concerned with people shooting at others.

Mr. Monroe stated that he is\r\na veteran of the Marine Corp and that he worked

for the Department of Homeland Security traveling the\r\nworld responding to terrorism.

He added that he does not believe that shooting at each other should be\r\nfun.

He also stated that this is not something needed in Peoria and that he has various

safety concerns\r\nwith having this type of operation next to his home. Mr. Monroe

stated that his other concerns were the\r\nincrease in trash, dust, and noise, which

he had already experienced over the past year.\r\n14\r\nMr. Monroe again pointed

out that he did not receive an adjacent property notice and felt that he should\r\nhave.

Ms. Urban explained that the Department of Planning and Zoning sends notice to adjacent\r\nproperty

owners, and that Mr. Monroe's property was not adjacent to the subject property.

Mr. Monroe\r\nstated that the ingress/egress to the property was directly next to

his property. Mr. Fletcher asked Mr.\r\nBraun to show where the access driveway

to the property was located, and Mr. Braun pointed it out on\r\nthe map. Mr. Braun

then clarified that the parcel associated with the Special Use was separate from

the\r\nproperty with the access drive, and was also separate from the property to

the north that had an approved\r\nSpecial Use for the 3-D archery business. Mr.

Braun added that there were several zoning cases\r\nassociated with the area, but

none that were specific to the subject parcel.\r\nMr. Bateman asked if people who

would be accessing this property would be using this gravel road or if\r\nthey would

use other access. Mr. Hawkins responded that they would use the existing gravel

driveway.\r\nMr. Bateman pointed out that the driveway was not very wide, and Mr.

Hawkins agreed that it was not.\r\nHe added that it was a one lane road. Mr. Hawkins

added that the 3-D archery range also used this\r\ndriveway since 2004, without

any problems. Mr. Bailliez asked if there were any other access roads to\r\nthe

parcel, and Mr. Hawkins stated that there were not. Mr. Heinz asked if the 3-D archery

was still in\r\noperation, and Mr. Hawkins stated that it is not.\r\nMr. Heinz asked

if Mr. Hawkins rented the land, and Mr. Hawkins responded that he did. He also stated\r\nthat

the previous airsoft business was not operated by him. Mr. Fletcher asked if Mr.

Hawkins had any\r\nplan to do a hard surface drive, and Mr. Hawkins stated that

he had spoken with the property manager\r\nabout using a water tank to spray the

driveway during dry times in order to cut down on the dust. Mr.\r\nO'Brien asked

if Mr. Hawkins would need the revenue from the business in order to pay the rent,

and\r\nMr. Hawkins responded that he did not, but it would help. He added that if

the request was not\r\napproved, he would discontinue renting the land. Mr. O'Brien

asked how long Mr. Hawkins had been\r\nrenting the property, and he stated that

he had been renting it for about 4-5 months. Ms. O'Brien asked\r\nif Mr. Hawkins

had anything to do with the 3-D archery Special Use, and Mr. Hawkins replied that

he\r\ndid not. Mr. Hawkins added that he also had nothing to do with running the

previous airsoft business\r\nthat was on this property, although he had attended

to play airsoft.\r\nMr. Heinz asked if the petitioner would be agreeable to using

oil and chip on the driveway to cut down\r\non the dust, and Mr. Hawkins responded

that he had no problem with that request. Mr. Heinz asked Mr.\r\nMonroe if that

would help address some of his concerns, and Mr. Monroe responded that he felt having\r\nthis

kind of business nearby would still be difficult regardless.\r\nPatricia Waldschmidt

of 5312 W. Pottstown Rd., Peoria, was sworn in at this time. Ms. Waldschmidt\r\nstated

that she lives nearby this parcel and also owns the cornfield across the road from

this parcel. Ms.\r\nWaldschmidt stated that she did not think that Peoria County

needed a business of this type and that it is\r\nnot a recreational activity to

shoot at one another. Ms. Waldschmidt stated that she moved to this area\r\nfor

the quiet atmosphere and the safety. Ms. Waldschmidt stated that she felt this business

would not\r\npromote either of these qualities. Ms. Waldschmidt reiterated that

teaching children to shoot one\r\nanother for fun is not a recreational activity

that is acceptable or safe.\r\nEric Hawkins of 119 Cherry Lane, Washington, was

sworn in at this time. Mr. Hawkins stated that he is\r\nthe petitioner's son. Mr.

Hawkins stated that they had already purchased $1 million of insurance\r\ncoverage

through the National Paintball Association for this proposal. Mr. Hawkins stated

that the \r\n15\r\nNational Paintball Associations dictates what kind of safety

gear must be worn on the field, and also\r\nrequires a minimum of two referees at

all times. Mr. Hawkins also explained that during check in, staff\r\nmust check

weapons to make sure that they meet the requirements, and to also make sure that

they are\r\nnot real weapons. Mr. Hawkins also explained that police officers use

airsoft for training purposes.\r\nAdditionally, Mr. Hawkins stated that no child

under 16 was allowed, and that those under the age of 18\r\nrequired a consent form

signed by a parent or guardian. Mr. Hawkins stated that if anything, children in\r\nthe

area need something to do to get them off of the streets.\r\n\r\nNo further questions

or comments were made. Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and\r\nwas

seconded by Mr. Bailliez. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).\r\nCase

No. 054-16-V at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County

Courthouse,\r\nPeoria, Illinois.\r\nPetition of RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (A Corporation,

Neal F. Ragan - President and\r\nDonna J. Ragan - Vice President, both of 272 School

Street, Washington, IL 61571) acting on behalf\r\nof MARTIN & JAYREE PALMER (owners),

a VARIANCE from Section 20-6.3.4.5 of the Unified\r\nDevelopment Ordinance, which

requires a maximum height of 3 stories or 36 feet, whichever is less.\r\nThe petitioner

proposes to construct a monopole of 100 feet in height on the subject parcel, resulting

in a\r\nvariance request of 64 feet.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents

and 0 objections on file. The case was published in\r\nthe Peoria Journal Star on

August 17, 2016 and The Glasford Gazette on August 18, 2016. Kerilyn\r\nGallagher

gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding\r\nzoning,

and future land use plan designation (Agriculture Preservation & Environmental Corridor).

The\r\nsite plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned

is A-2.\r\nNeal Ragan, President of Ragan Communications Inc., of 272 School St.,

Washington, was sworn in at\r\nthis time. Mr. Ragan stated that his business, Ragan

Communications, is located at 2 Ragan Ct.,\r\nWashington, IL. Mr. Ragan explained

that his company provides safety communications for the\r\nTazewell County Sheriff's

Department, along with other public safety agencies in the Tri County area.\r\nMr.

Ragan explained that the Tazewell County Sheriff's office has been experiencing

difficulty with\r\ntheir radio communications in Tazewell County along Bass Road

for many years; however, as more\r\nhomes are built in this area, the problem is

becoming more serious. Officers in this area have lost\r\ncommunication with dispatch

and have had to rely on their cell phones for communication. Mr. Ragan\r\nfurther

explained that placing this monopole in this location would help correct this issue.

Mr. Ragan\r\nstated that the proposed location is at the end of Lightbody Rd., which

is a dead end road. The pole\r\nwould be near the wooded area on the property and

well hidden from others. Mr. Ragan also stated that\r\nthe pole needs to be placed

in this location because of a tall berm on the Tazewell County side of the\r\nriver

that is preventing the radio communications from reaching the nearest towers in

Tazewell County.\r\nMr. Bailliez asked if there were any problems with the radio

waves interfering with the airport nearby,\r\nand Mr. Ragan stated that there were

not any issues. Mr. Ragan added that he had contacted Gene Olson\r\nfrom the Peoria

Airport, and was assured that this pole would not cause any interference with the

Peoria,\r\nPekin, or Manito airports. Mr. Ragan then submitted email correspondence

to confirm this fact. \r\n16\r\nHal Harper of the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office

was sworn in at this time. Mr. Harper explained that\r\nhe oversees radio communications

for the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Harper stated that there are\r\napproximately

800 homes that are located within this area that is experiencing loss in radio\r\ncommunication.

Mr. Harper added that it has been a cause of great frustration and a great safety

concern\r\nfor the department.\r\nMr. Fletcher asked if this tower would serve Tazewell

County only, and Mr. Harper stated that,\r\ncurrently, it would; however, he would

hope that someday in the future they could consolidate dispatch\r\nservices with

other public safety agencies in the area.\r\nMartin Palmer of 11025 S. Lightbody

Rd., Glasford, was sworn in. Mr. Palmer explained that he was\r\nthe owner of the

property. Mr. Palmer stated that he and his wife were happy to do whatever they

could\r\nto help the sheriff's department. Mr. Palmer added that the placement of

the antennae was carefully\r\nconsidered in order to decrease the visual impact,

but still provide good service to the area.\r\nDonnie Davis of 12915 W. Wheeler

Rd., Glasford, was sworn in at this time. Mr. Davis explained that\r\nhe lived down

the hill from Mr. Palmer. Mr. Davis asked if he would be able to see the tower from

his\r\nhouse, and Mr. Ragan stated that because he was unsure of the layout of the

surrounding area, he could\r\nnot say with certainty that Mr. Davis would not see

it. Mr. Davis stated that he had no problems with\r\nthe request.\r\nNo further

questions or comments were made. Mr. Keyt made a motion to close and deliberate

and was\r\nseconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

A motion was made by Mr.\r\nHeinz to approve the variance request and was seconded

by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the\r\nmotion passed; (7-0).\r\nFINDINGS OF

FACT FOR VARIANCES\r\nSection 20-3.7.3\r\nThe findings of the ZBA or the Zoning

Administrator shall be based on data submitted pertaining to\r\neach standard in

this Subsection as it relates to the development. A variance shall be granted only

if the\r\napplicant demonstrates:\r\n1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique

circumstances;\r\n• The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Petitioner

wants to construct a 100 foot long\r\nmonopole and 6 x 8 communications shelter

for the purpose of providing public safety communications\r\nfor the Tazewell County

Sheriff's Department. The area is blocked from radio communications along\r\nBass

Rd. and Spring Lake bottoms due to a levee on the East side of the river. The proposed

pole will\r\nhelp solve the issue, which currently adversely affect officer safety.\r\n2.

That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;\r\n•

If granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.

The current and\r\nproposed land use is residential and is zoned A-2, with A-2 zoning

in all surrounding directions\r\nexcept East, which is A-1. The site of the variance

request is at the end of Lightbody road in a\r\nwooded area. The other land around

the site is farmland.\r\n3. That because of the particular physical surroundings,

shape, or topographical conditions of the specific\r\nproperty involved, a particular

hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere\r\ninconvenience,

if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;\r\n17\r\n• The topography

on the Tazewell side of the river is blocking good radio communications for\r\ntheir

Sheriff's Department. The height of the bluff on the Peoria side of the river and

the close\r\nproximity to the problem would allow for better radio transmission

and provide increased officer\r\nsafety. For that and the reasons set forth in number

1 and 2, the petitioner would suffer a\r\nhardship if the strict letter of the regulations

were carried out.\r\n4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation

are based are unique to the property for which the\r\nvariance is sought and are

not applicable, generally, to other property;\r\n• For the reasons previously cited,

the conditions upon which the petition is based are unique to this\r\nproperty.\r\n5.

That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health,

safety, comfort, morals and\r\nwelfare, or injurious to other property or improvements

in the neighborhood in which the property is located,\r\nor otherwise be inconsistent

with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;\r\n• No evidence was

presented that the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public\r\nhealth,

safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements

in the\r\nneighborhood in which the property is located, or otherwise be inconsistent

with any officially adopted\r\nCounty plan or these regulations.\r\n6. That the

proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent

property, or\r\nsubstantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or

increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public\r\nsafety, or substantially

diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;\r\n• No evidence was

presented that the variance would impair the supply of light and air to adjacent\r\nproperty,

substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger

of fire,\r\nendanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property

values within the\r\nneighborhood.\r\n7. That the variance granted is the minimum

adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and\r\n• The proposed height

is necessary to achieve the communications goals previously discussed. The\r\npetitioners

have conducted studies and the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide

adequate\r\nradio coverage. We note that those radio propagation studies are included

in the record. Accordingly, the\r\nvariance sought is the minimum adjustment necessary.\r\n8.

That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application

of the provisions of this Section\r\nwould deprive the applicant of reasonable use

of his or her land.\r\n• Without the addition of the 100 foot pole, the Tazewell

County Sheriff's Deputies cannot communicate in\r\ncertain areas, which poses a

public and officer safety threat. For that and the aforesaid circumstances, the\r\nstrict

application of the zoning provisions would deprive the petitioners of reasonable

use of the land.\r\n\r\nMr. Heinz made a motion to approve the findings of fact

and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Seven\r\naffirmative votes; (7-0).\r\nCase No.

042-16-A at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse,\r\nPeoria,

Illinois.\r\nAppeal of FLM ENTERPRISES, LLC under Section 20-3.8 of the Unified

Development Ordinance\r\n(UDO), which authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to

hear and decide appeals where it is alleged\r\nthat there is error in any order,

requirement, decision, or determination made by the Zoning\r\nAdministrator or other

administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning regulations of the UDO.\r\nThe

Appellant alleges that on or about May 2, 2016, Non-Conforming Use Certificate #370-A

was \r\n18\r\nimproperly revoked for the abandonment of the non-conforming use to

strip and remove overburden,\r\nmine quarry, extract, process, store, sell, remove

and transport across, stone, sand and gravel in, on,\r\nunder or from the property.

The Appellant also alleges that a Stop Work Order was improperly issued on\r\nor

about May 9, 2016, which cited a violation of PC203.12, General Erosion and Sediment

Control\r\nPermits.\r\nMr. Keyt stated that he had a conflict with this case and

would have to abstain from voting.\r\nMs. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents

and 734 objections on file. The case was published in\r\nthe Peoria Journal Star

on June 16, 2016 and The Chillicothe Times Bulletin on June 22, 2016. Andrew\r\nBraun

gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding

zoning,\r\nand future land use plan designation (Urban). The site plan and one video

of the property were shown.\r\nThe property is zoned is A-2.\r\nChristopher Spanos,

attorney for FLM Enterprises, LLC, spoke at this time. Mr. Spanos stated that he\r\npresented

copies of exhibits in a binder for staff and the Zoning Board. Mr. Spanos then pointed

out\r\nsome of the specific exhibits in the binder for the board, and then pointed

out portions of these exhibits\r\nthat were of heightened interest.\r\nAt this time,

Joe LaHood of 24 LaHood Lane, Washington, was sworn in. Mr. Spanos asked Mr.\r\nLaHood

to explain the real estate agreement that he had signed in 2002 for this property,

and Mr.\r\nLaHood responded that he wanted to purchase the property in order to

use it as a gravel pit. Mr.\r\nLaHood added that he wanted to use this gravel for

his other business. Mr. Spanos asked if Mr. LaHood\r\nwas aware there was a gravel

pit on the property when he purchased it, and Mr. LaHood stated that he\r\nwas aware.

Mr. LaHood explained that the real estate agreement gave him the option to have