Peoria Standard

Peoria County Land Use and Infrastructure Committee met January 23.

Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:

Members Present: James Dillon - Chairperson, Brian Elsasser (via teleconference), Rachael Parker, Brad Harding, Barry Robinson, Sharon Williams

Members Absent: Paul Rosenbohm, Thomas O'neill

Others Present: Benedict Ciravolo - State's Attorney's Office; Scott Sorrel, Mark Rothert - County Administration; Matt Wahl, Andrew Braun, Kerilyn Gallagher - Planning & Zoning; Dan O'Connell - Facilities; Eric Dubrowski - Finance; Mark Little - IT; Jack Teplitz - attorney representing case petitioner

Call to Order:

Mr. Dillon called the meeting to order at 3:38 p.m.

Ms. Williams made a motion for Mr. Elsasser to attend via teleconference and was seconded by Mr. Harding. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (5-0).

Approval of Minutes:

A motion to approve the Land Use & Infrastructure Committee minutes from the December 19, 2016 meeting was made by Ms. Parker and seconded by Ms. Williams. A vote was taken on the motion and carried. (6-0)

Reports/ Other Minutes/Updates:

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Minutes: No questions or comments.

Unsafe Structures: No questions or comments.

Mr. Dillon made a motion to receive and file the reports.

Zoning Cases:

005-17-U, Petition of Marshall Bailey:

Mr. Harding made motion to approve the special use request and was seconded by Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Wahl summarized the request. A special use request as required in Section 20-5.2.2.1.b of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use for a Major Home Occupation in the "A-2" Agriculture Zoning District, when the lot is less than 5 acres in size and/or is located within a platted subdivision. The petitioner would like to operate a trucking business, from this 3.1 acre parcel, for hauling debris and other items connected with environmental disasters and major clearance projects.

Also, a Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that the home occupation may involve the use or indoor storage of heavy equipment, and that the equipment may only be stored in the dedicated accessory structure. Only 1 vehicle and only 2 trailers or pieces of equipment may be permitted.

The petitioner is proposing to allow 2 commercial vehicles and 4 trailers. He proposes to store these vehicles outside.

Also, a Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that Landscaping shall be required to screen off-street parking areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas and outdoor work areas from the view of adjacent landowners, according to the provisions set forth in Section 7.6 ("Landscaping and Bufferyards"). The petitioner will not meet the landscaping points requirements on the north and east property lines, and will not meet the tree/shrub ratio on the north, east, south and west property lines.

Mr. Wahl stated that the Department of Planning and Zoning recommended denial, and that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denial as well. The property is located at 3314 S. Walters School Road.

Mr. Dillon introduced Jack Tepltiz, attorney representing the petitioner, Marshall Bailey. Mr. Dillon stated that Mr. Teplitz was aware that he could not present any new information that was not presented during the Zoning Board hearing. Mr. Teplitz stated that he was appreciative of working with the Planning and Zoning staff; however, he did have an issue with the staff report. Mr. Teplitz stated he did not believe that the nature of Mr. Bailey's operation required a Special Use for a Home Occupation because Mr. Bailey would not have an office, customers, or employees at the site. Mr. Teplitz stated that all Mr. Bailey would be doing is storing trucks and trailers on the property. Mr. Teplitz added that most of Mr. Bailey's work takes place out of state, and that he primarily deals with environmental disaster clean up. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey hauls debris and does clean up after these disasters. Mr. Teplitz stated that 90% of the business is related to this work. Mr. Teplitz added that Mr. Bailey would only be storing the vehicles on the property, and that no other business related items would be stored on the property. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey testified that he took an average of 2.5 trips per month over the past year.

Mr. Teplitz stated that A-2 zoning districts allowed for the storage of 1 tractor and 2 trailers on site for agriculture use. Mr. Teplitz stated that there is a property to the south of Rose Estates subdivision that has two horse trailers and a tractor stored on the property with no screening. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey's operation is no different than the agricultural use that is permitted on an A-2 property. Mr. Teplitz stated that he felt Mr. Bailey's request had less impact on the area than an agriculture operation because his trucks would be screened. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey's property is not just used for truck storage, but is also used for farming. Additionally, the farmer who owns the property to the south uses a pathway through Mr. Bailey's property to access his crops, which accounts for an open spot in the landscaping plan. Mr. Teplitz added that the trucks would also be parked behind the barn to minimize visual impacts.

Mr. Teplitz stated that the staff report stated that Mr. Bailey's southern property line was 70 feet away from the closest property line in Rose Estates. Mr. Teplitz stated that the operations would not be taking place near the property line, and the trucks would be parked over 260 feet away from the nearest house. Mr. Teplitz stated that the fence was proposed as part of the screening plan because a portion of Mr. Bailey's property was covered in thick asphalt, which would make landscaping difficult to plant.

Mr. Teplitz stated that he submitted an affidavit during the Zoning Board hearing that a former owner had signed stating that the parcel had been previously used for trucking by the owner before him. Mr. Teplitz stated that this property had already been used for trucking, and so it would not be out of character for it to be used as such again. Mr. Teplitz stated that both the staff report and the Zoning Board's findings both referenced the county's comprehensive plans. Mr. Teplitz stated that these plans are not absolutes like the ordinance, they are only guides. Mr. Teplitz added that the Limestone Road Commissioner had expressed concerns about trucks utilizing the road and causing further deterioration. Mr. Teplitz added that he had produced photographs of many trucks using Walters School Road, including a Peoria County Highway truck. Mr. Teplitz submitted that Mr. Bailey's proposed use had no more impact on the area than a permitted agricultural use.

Mr. Teplitz stated that he would recommend that the Land Use Committee either send the case back to the Zoning Board with the request to look into whether or not the usage would be more intensive than an agricultural use or that the Land Use Committee and County Board would make a finding stating that the use was not more intensive.

Ms. Parker asked if the request was initially brought to Planning and Zoning's attention by the petitioner or if it was initiated via complaint, and Mr. Wahl responded that Mr. Bailey approached the Planning and Zoning Department. Ms. Williams asked how long Mr. Bailey had been operating at this location, and Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey came to the Planning and Zoning Department a year prior. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey hired him much later in the process, which caused further continuations of the case. Mr. Teplitz stated that for various reasons, the case had been delayed longer than usual and that enforcement was not taken on Mr. Bailey during this time. Mr. Teplitz added that Mr. Bailey was operating during this time. Mr. Braun stated that Mr. Bailey's original application was filed on March 2, 2016. Mr. Dillon stated that this case should have been completed last year, if everything had gone as planned, but there were unforeseen events that caused the case to be continued multiple times. Ms. Williams asked if there were ever complaints from the neighbors, and Mr. Wahl responded that after the property was posted with a hearing notice, the department did receive complaints. Ms. Williams asked what these complaints were, and Mr. Wahl responded that neighbors were concerned with noise and traffic.

Mr. Harding asked if there would be a different outcome in the department's recommendation if there was no Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and Mr. Wahl responded that he did not believe so. Mr. Wahl stated that the staff report is written considering many other factors besides the Land Use Plan. Mr. Harding asked in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was the main reason for objection, and Mr. Wahl responded that it was one component that the Planning and Zoning Department uses in addition to many other factors. Mr. Braun clarified that staff is also looking at economic impacts, transportation impacts, environmental impacts, consistency with the surrounding character of the area, and consistency with the surrounding zoning. Mr. Braun stated that staff concluded there was an overwhelming amount of negative aspects to the request based on these criteria. Mr. Braun stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan supports some of these findings, but is not the determining factor.

Mr. Harding asked if staff was comfortable defending this if the case were litigated, and Mr. Dillon responded that he felt there was plenty of evidence to support the denial including the planner's reports, the denial from the Limestone Township Planning Commission, and the denial from the Zoning Board. Mr. Dillon explained that the Land Use Committee would need to come up with its own fact findings if they were in agreement to overturn the Zoning Board's decision. Mr. Dillon added that whether or not the committee approved or denied the request, the case would move to the County Board for a final decision. Mr. Dillon stated that he felt comfortable taking the recommendations from the staff and the Zoning Board.

Ms. Williams asked if Mr. Teplitz presented information to Limestone Township, and Mr. Teplitz stated that he had conversations with the Limestone Road Commissioners attorney. Mr. Teplitz stated that the Road Commissioner wanted a bond or letter of credit for the roadway, and Mr. Teplitz felt that this was unfair as Mr. Bailey was not the only person utilizing this road. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey would sign an agreement covering any damages to the location where the driveway met the roadway, but Mr. Teplitz stated that this was not agreeable to the road commissioner. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey's trucks range from 20,000-40,000 pounds, and that they unposted roadway assumed a state statute limit of 80,000 pounds.

Mr. Elsasser asked for clarification on whether or not the complaints mentioned earlier were complaints against the property or objections to the case, and Mr. Braun stated that the Department received both objections to the case and also complaints about operation on the property.

Mr. Harding asked how close this property was in relationship to a property that stored trucks and rides for carnivals, and Mr. Braun pulled the aerial view of the property up on GIS and measured from Mr. Bailey's property to the property Mr. Harding had referenced. Mr. Braun stated that this property was approximately 4000 feet away from Mr. Bailey's property. Mr. Braun also pointed out that the property in question was zoned commercial, and had gone through a rezoning in 1987. Mr. Braun stated that he did not have the history on this property, but that he could research more if the committee wished. Mr. Braun also pointed out that this property was rezoned well before Rose Estates subdivision was developed.

Ms. Williams asked about the driveway, and Mr. Teplitz stated that this property used to be one large piece, but was approved by the County Board to be split into three lots a few years prior. Mr. Teplitz added that there is a common driveway that all property owners use, but that each property also has a portion of frontage that meets Walters School Road. Mr. Teplitz stated that all owners had an easement for the driveway, and that the driveway cut across all three properties. Ms. Parker asked if the two adjacent parcels were developed, and Mr. Braun responded that they were not. Ms. Williams asked if Mr. Bailey was planning to put his trucks near the existing outbuildings, and Mr. Teplitz responded that this was correct. Mr. Teplitz then pointed out the site plan to the committee.

Mr. Harding stated that a unanimous vote of denial by the zoning board would be difficult to produce findings against, and that the township planning commission also voted against the request. Mr. Harding stated that he wanted to commend the petitioner for coming forth to the Planning and Zoning Department. Mr. Harding asked if "who was there first" was something that should also be considered. Mr. Braun confirmed that the Limestone Planning Commission's vote was also unanimous, with all four members voting for denial on December 27, 2016. Mr. Braun also stated that the Planning and Zoning Department had no record of prior uses of the property before Mr. Bailey purchased it. Mr. Braun stated that he was aware that there was an affidavit submitted as a part of the petitioner's testimony stating that the parcel had previously been used for a trucking business by a prior owner; however, there were no permits, complaints or other Peoria County documentation affirming this fact.

Ms. Parker asked if the committee could send the case back to the Zoning Board because she felt as though a compromise could be reached in order for the case to be approved. Ms. Parker asked if the Zoning Board or County Board could place a restriction on the case that would make it mandatory for the case to come back before the board if the other two adjacent parcels were even developed. Mr. Wahl stated that the State's Attorney's Office would have to research this and find out if it was permissible by statute. Mr. Harding asked if the committee had the option of deferring the case, and Mr. Dillon stated that he thought it would be up to the petitioner to make that request. Mr. Sorrel responded that, historically, it would be up to the petitioner to decide whether or not they wanted to agree to a deferral. Mr. Sorrel made it clear that if the case were deferred, only the information currently in the record could be considered when making a decision. If new information was what the board was seeking, Mr. Sorrel suggested that they must send the case back to the Zoning Board with specific instructions on what additional information was needed.

Mr. Teplitz stated that he and the petitioner would have no objection to the deferral. Mr. Teplitz stated that he presented photographs and other information to the Zoning Board that was not presented to the committee. Mr. Braun stated that, as a point of clarification, the staff report is generated before the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing and would contain no additional testimony or information given during that time. Mr. Teplitz stated that he had submitted many pictures that were not included in the committee packet and were not mentioned in the Zoning Board's findings. Ms. Parker clarified that she was not criticizing staff on the information presented, and that she only wanted to work with the petitioner to find a solution. Mr. Wahl stated that the Planning and Zoning Department could distribute the contents of the entire file to the committee in order to help them make their decision, and Mr. Teplitz agreed to this suggestion. Mr. Teplitz stated that he had no intention of objecting to a deferral for one month.

Mr. Dillon stated that he was fine with the request for the board to see the entire case file; however, he also reminded the board that they would need to come up with findings to support approving the case in the event that they choose to do so. Mr. Wahl stated that these findings were contained within the Unified Development Ordinance and were standard for each case type. Mr. Dillon restated that the committee would have to find factual evidence to place in the findings to prove that the decision should be overturned.

Ms. Williams made a motion to defer the case for one month in order to review more information associated with the case file and was seconded by Ms. Parker. Mr. Dillon confirmed with Mr. Teplitz that he would be agreeable to a continuance, and Mr. Teplitz stated that he was. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0) (Mr. Elsasser voted via teleconference.)

Discussion: Authorize grant application for Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) Abandoned Property Program: Mr. Dillon explained that the Planning and Zoning Department was looking for direction from the committee as to whether or not they should proceed further with a grant application. Mr. Wahl explained that this grant was for demolition funding for abandoned property, more specifically, properties located within Limestone Township sections 12, 24, & 13. No date has been released by the state at this time as to when funding will be available; however, the department would like to be able to apply for the grant. Mr. Wahl stated that the department will need to make a neighborhood revitalization plan to address the issues that occur in the area in regards to housing rehabilitation. Once the money is released for funding, it will be used to reimburse demolition costs.

Ms. Williams asked if some of these target properties had already been demolished, and Mr. Braun responded that this was correct. Mr. Braun added that one of the reasons this area was chosen was because, as part of the grant, the department can receive reimbursement for previous demolitions up to a currently undetermined past date. Mr. Braun stated that the included map identified approximately 8 or 9 properties that had been demolished since 2006. Mr. Braun added that this neighborhood was a strong candidate for this grant funding.

Mr. Harding asked how much money was available, and Mr. Braun responded that it was not yet known how much would be available for Peoria County, but that the minimum to apply for was $20,000 and the maximum was $75,000. Mr. Braun stated that staff would be attempting to identify properties available for reimbursement, and then take a look at the unsafe structures list to see what other properties could qualify. Mr. Harding asked if the county had ever received this funding before, and Mr. Braun stated that he was not aware of the county receiving it in the past. Mr. Harding asked if this grant was new for the state, and Mr. Braun responded that it was not new to the state, but that staff had discovered it in the fall and began to investigate the criteria. Mr. Braun explained that every time a home was foreclosed upon in Illinois, a small portion of the cost goes into this fund to help pay for future demolitions. Mr. Wahl pointed out that Ms. Williams found this grant opportunity and brought it to staffs' attention.

Mr. Robison asked if any city properties would be eligible for this funding, and Mr. Braun explained that Peoria County and the City of Peoria operate completely separate zoning offices and have jurisdiction over different properties within Peoria County. Mr. Braun added that the City of Peoria was privy to different pools of money unavailable to Peoria County. Mr. Braun also added that Peoria County Planning and Zoning only has jurisdiction over unincorporated portions of Peoria County.

Mr. Dillon stated that the direction from the committee would be to proceed with the grant application.

Miscellaneous:

Adjournment: Mr. Dillon adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/download?path=%2Fcountyboard%2FCommittee_Agenda_and_Minutes%2F2017%2FJanuary%2F23+-+Land+Use%2F012317minutes.pdf