Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals met March 8.

By Lhalie Castillo

May 1, 2018

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

A meeting of the Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday March 8, 2018, in Room 403 of the Peoria County Courthouse, 324 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Loren Bailliez at 9:00 a.m.

Present: Loren Bailliez, Jim Bateman, Greg Fletcher, Greg Happ, Leonard Unes, Linda O’Brien, Andrew Keyt

Absent: John Harms, Justin Brown

Staff: Corbin Bogle - Planner I

Kerilyn Gallagher – Planner II

Kathi Urban – Director

Alex Kurth – Civil Assistant State’s Attorney

Ellen Hanks - ZBA Administrative Assistant

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the minutes from February 8, 2018 and was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. A vote was taken and the motion was approved; (7-0)

Case No. 008-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Taylor & Jacqelyn Lewis, acting on their own behalf, a Variance from Section 20-5.13.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that an accessory structure shall not be commenced prior to the commencement of the principal structure. The petitioner proposes to convert an existing foundation into a 624 square feet accessory structure prior to construction of a house in the “R-2” Medium Density Zoning District.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 2 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 13, 2018. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Unincorporated Center). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned R-2.

Jacqelyn Lewis of 10004 N. Atlantic St., Peoria, was sworn in. Ms. Lewis stated that she would like to make use of an existing house foundation for a detached garage. Ms. Lewis added that there is no house on the property at this time.

Ms. O’Brien asked if Ms. Lewis was planning to build a house on the property, and Ms. Lewis responded that they planned to in the future. Ms. O’Brien asked if there was a specific time frame for when they would be building the house, and Ms. Lewis responded that there was no time frame at this point. Ms. Lewis explained that there used to be a house on the property, but that it was badly damaged by a fire and was demolished. Ms. O’Brien asked if what was left was the basement of the house, and Ms. Lewis responded that this was correct. Ms. Lewis added that their plan was to put a roof on top of the basement and use it as a garage. Mr. Bailliez confirmed that it would be a basement garage, and Ms. Lewis stated that this was correct. Ms. O’Brien asked what would be stored in the building, and Ms. Lewis responded lawn mowers and other typical items stored in a garage. Ms. Lewis added that they did not necessarily intend to store their vehicles in this garage. Mr. Bailliez asked if the Lewises owned the house before the fire, and Ms. Lewis responded that they did own the home before the fire. Mr. Bailliez asked if they were living in the house at the time, and Ms. Lewis responded that it had been vacant for over 10 years. Ms. Lewis added that it was their goal to make the property more appealing.

Mr. Bailliez stated that he noticed there was a lot of excavating happening on the property, and Ms. Lewis responded that this was to help gain access to the basement garage. Ms. O’Brien asked if the existing shed would be removed, and Ms. Lewis stated that they planned to remove it eventually. Mr. Fletcher asked where the Lewises lived currently, and Ms. Lewis responded that they lived in the house on the property directly to the west of the subject property. Mr. Bailliez asked if the proposed garage would have a flat or peaked roof, and Ms. Lewis responded that it would be peaked and constructed with standard trusses. Mr. Bailliez asked how large the property was, and Ms. Lewis stated that it was a little over an acre in size.

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Mr. Fletcher pointed out that any objectors or consenters needed a chance to speak. Mr. Fletcher made a motion to reopen the testimony and was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. A vote was taken and the motion passed: (7-0).

James Hanley of 3328 Alta Lane, Peoria, was sworn in. Mr. Hanley stated that he was not there to speak for or against the variance; however, he did have concerns about the large amounts of dirt being moved on the property. Mr. Hanley explained that his property is on a well and he is concerned about the run off from the excavation going into the storm drains. Mr. Hanley stated that he was also concerned with the height of the piles of dirt next to the utility poles. Mr. Hanley stated that he just wanted to voice these concerns and make sure that the county was aware of the situation.

Ms. Urban stated that she could address some of Mr. Hanley’s concerns. Ms. Urban explained that there was a current open violation on the property for erosion control and storm water issues. Ms. Urban added that the owner had been working with the Department of Planning and Zoning to correct these issues. Ms. Urban added that in regards to the berm located on the property, Peoria County had been discussing the issue with the City of Peoria’s Engineer and they had no problem with the location of the berm at this time.

A motion to close and deliberate was made by Mr. Fletcher and seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Mr. Fletcher asked about the current code violations, and Ms. Urban stated that there was a violation, but it was ongoing. Mr. Fletcher asked if the existing foundation met setback requirements, and Ms. Urban responded that it did not; however, it was an existing structure and therefore was not required to meet current setbacks.

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

The findings of the ZBA or the Zoning Administrator shall be based on data submitted pertaining to each standard in this Subsection as it relates to the development. A variance shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates:

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• Section 20-5.13.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that an accessory building shall not be built prior to the building of the principal structure. The petitioner proposes to convert an existing foundation into a 624 square foot accessory building prior to construction of a house.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• This is the location of a house destroyed by fire and the petitioner is going to build a new house at this location. The character will be improved when the new house is constructed.

3. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;

• Replacing house destroyed by fire with a new house and having a building to store necessary tools etc. and using the old foundation is making use of what is available.

4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;

• See #1.

5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, or otherwise be inconsistent with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;

• See #3.

6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;

• Replacing the old house will not change the lighting, air, public streets, fire, or safety or change property values within the neighborhood.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• See #1 and 2.

8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.

• The condition of this variance is making what is left from a house fire to be used to start new construction.

Ms. O’Brien made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Case No. 009-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Keith Mcclellan Foster, acting on behalf of himself and Amber M. Foster (owners), a Variance request from 20-6.3.2.1.d.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a road setback of 40 feet for a principal structure in the “A-2” Agriculture Zoning District. The petitioner proposes to construct a garage addition at a distance of 8 feet from the right of way, resulting in a variance request of 32 feet.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 2 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 13, 2018 and the Weekly Post on February 15, 2018. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Environmental Corridor & Agriculture). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned A-2.

Keith McClellan Foster of 12910 N. Kelstadt Rd., Brimfield, was sworn in. Mr. Foster stated that he and his wife had moved from the Galesburg area and purchased this property approximately 1.5 years prior. Mr. Foster stated that they just recently had their third child and would like more room in the house to accommodate his growing family. Mr. Foster stated that the plan was to convert the existing garage into living space and add on a new garage to the front of the house toward the road. Mr. Foster added that behind the house there is a substantial drop off of approximately 80-100 feet, so the front of the home is the most ideal place to build the addition.

Ms. O’Brien asked if the garage addition would be three stalls in size, and Mr. Foster responded that this was correct. Mr. Fletcher asked if the existing driveway would still be used, and Mr. Foster responded that it would not. Mr. Foster added that the Road Commissioner, Tom Heinz, was in attendance to speak about the driveway if the board wanted to know more about that. Mr. Foster stated that the existing driveway would be removed and a new driveway would be installed. Mr. Foster then pointed out the proposed location of the new driveway on the aerial view. Mr. Foster explained that the new garage doors would face south. Mr. Bailliez asked where the septic field was located, and Mr. Foster responded that it was on the south east side of the property. Mr. Foster stated that there were two wells on the north side of the property. Mr. Foster added that one of these wells was an emergency well that had never been hooked up to the house. Mr. Bailliez asked when Mr. Foster intended on starting the project, and Mr. Foster responded that they hoped to start as soon as possible, if approved.

Tom Heinz, Jubilee Township Road Commissioner, of 11606 Fussner Rd., Brimfield, was sworn in. Mr. Heinz stated that Mr. Foster had come to him to discuss the garage addition. Mr. Heinz stated he had suggested moving the driveway to keep the cars as far away from the road as possible. Mr. Heinz stated that, from a maintenance perspective, he did not see any major impact. Mr. Heinz stated that he had no objection to the request as long as the neighbors had no objections.

A motion to close and deliberate was made by Mr. Fletcher and seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• Section 20-6.3.2.1.d.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a road setback of 40 feet for a principal structure in an A-2 Agriculture Zoning District. The petitioner proposes to construct a new garage in front of the current garage, which will require a 32 foot variance.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• This parcel is 10 acres and is mostly wooded. This addition will not change the character of the area.

• There is a deep wooded ravine with 80-100 feet of elevation drop behind the house, wells located on the left side of the house and a septic field on the right side of the house.

4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;

• See #1, 2 and 3.

• There will be no change to the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, nor will the request be injurious to other property.

• This should not change.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• The request will leave room to park cars in front of the garage, and allows for expanding the living area to accommodate for an expanding family.

8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.

• The topographical condition of this property only allows expanding as requested is justified for this variance.

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Happ. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Ms. O’Brien made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Unes. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Case No. 010-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Jason Strahm, acting on behalf of Norma Hanley (owner), a Variance request from Section 20-6.9.2.1.a.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a road setback of 160 feet from the center of the right of way for a principle structure in the “C-2” General Commercial Zoning District. The petitioner proposes to construct a building at a distance of 100 feet from the center of the right of way, which would result in a variance request of 60 feet.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 13, 2018 and the Weekly Post on February 15, 2018. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture & Unincorporated Center). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned C-2.

Steve Kerr of 5901 N. Prospect, Suite 6B, Peoria, was sworn in. Mr. Kerr stated that he was representing the potential buyer of the property, Jason Strahm, who was hoping to locate an Agriculture/finance consulting business on the property. Mr. Kerr stated that because the property had two road setbacks to contend with, it would be very difficult to build a decent sized building on the property and meet all the required setbacks. Mr. Kerr stated that the request was for a 61 foot setback from Route 150. The parking lot would be located in the front of the building toward Route 150. Mr. Kerr added that based on the soil analysis, the septic system would be located behind the building because it would need to be a raised bed system. Mr. Kerr added that the other buildings along the north side of Route 150 in Kickapoo were all much closer to the right of way than this proposed building.

Mr. Happ asked if Mr. Kerr had contacted IDOT, and Mr. Kerr stated that they did not have a problem with the request. Mr. Kerr added that he had also spoken with the township road commissioner, who also had no objection to the request. Mr. Kerr stated that they would be working with IDOT to get an entrance permit off of Route 150. Mr. Fletcher asked why the building could not be moved further back from Route 150, and Mr. Kerr stated that they would be installing a raised bed septic system behind the building, which limited the buildable room on the property. Mr. Happ pointed out that the property had been used as a gas station at one time. Mr. Fletcher asked how large the raised bed septic system would be, and Mr. Kerr stated that he was unsure at this time. Mr. Fletcher asked if all the gas tanks had been removed from the property, and Mr. Kerr responded that he believed the owner had a letter stating that the site had been cleared of all such materials. Mr. Kerr stated that he believed that the property currently had special use approval to be operated as a construction yard. Mr. Bogle searched the records and confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Bogle added that the proposed use of the property for the agriculture consulting business was permitted in the current zoning district and that the request was for building setback only.

Mr. Bailliez asked what the proposed dimensions of the building would be, and Mr. Kerr responded that they would be approximately 62’ x 31’. Mr. Kerr added that it was a one-story building with no basement that HomeAway Homes would be constructing. Mr. Happ asked if the business would operate normal business hours Monday-Friday, and Mr. Kerr responded that he believed that was correct.

A motion to close and deliberate was made by Mr. Fletcher and seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• Section 20-6.9.2.1.a.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance requires a setback of 75 feet from the right of way or 100 feet from the center of the right of way, whichever distance is greater. The petitioner is requesting a 60 foot variance from the center of the right of way to build a building and have parking spaces. The septic system will be behind the building.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• Residences to the West and South are setback 11 feet and 17 feet respectively. All other buildings that front the North side of Route 150 through Kickapoo vary from 0 feet to approximately 50 foot setbacks.

• The lot curves in the front to parallel with the highway. The lot depth is 148.5 on one side and 181.5 on the other side. This will only leave room for a 28.5 wide foot building. See #1.

4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;

• See #1, 2 and 3.

• No change

• This will be a small office building used for agricultural sales and consulting.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• See #3, 4, 5 and 6.

8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.

• The size of the lot will limit its usage.

Ms. O’Brien made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Happ. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Mr. Bateman made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Case No. 011-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Michael P. & Patricia A. Zerbonia, acting on their own behalf, a Variance request from Section 20-7.15.2.2.c of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that the location of a swimming pool shall be located ten (10) feet from principle or accessory structures, excluding decks. The petitioner proposes to construct an above ground pool in the “A-2” Agriculture Zoning District at a distance of 4’ from the house, which would result in a variance request of 6 feet.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 2 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 13, 2018 and the Limestone Independent News on February 14, 2018. The Limestone Township Planning Commission recommended approval. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture Preservation). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned A-2.

Mike Zerbonia of 105 S. Cameron Lane, Peoria, was sworn in. Mr. Zerbonia stated that he was requesting to position his swimming pool 4 feet away from the house instead of the required 10 feet in order to take advantage of an existing deck. Mr. Zerbonia added that the ground also slopes up toward the back of the property, which would require more excavating to place the pool there. Mr. Zerbonia added that there had been a pool in the backyard since 1988 in the same general location, which was 30 inches from the house. Mr. Zerbonia added that the old pool was aging and needed to be replaced. Mr. Zerbonia stated that the new pool would be in almost the same location as the old pool, but it would be moved further from the house. Mr. Zerbonia added that the pool would be 52” tall with another 3 feet of fencing around the top and access from the deck.

Mr. Bateman asked staff what the reasoning was for the 10 foot distance of separation for a pool and a building, and Ms. Urban responded that it was for safety reasons. Ms. Urban added that the intent was to help prevent people from standing on buildings and jumping into the pool. Mr. Happ asked if the existing excavation was where the old pool was located, and Mr. Zerbonia responded that this was correct. Mr. Zerbonia added that there was no way to access the roof without a ladder and that there were only four houses in the immediate area. Mr. Bailliez asked if the existing deck would still access the pool, and Mr. Zerbonia responded that it would. Mr. Zerbonia also stated that he did not want to move the pool out much further because of the location of a large maple tree in the backyard.

A motion to close and deliberate was made by Mr. Keyt and seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• Section 20-7.15.2.2.c of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that the location of a swimming pool shall be located 10 feet from a principal or accessory structure, excluding decks. The petitioner is requesting to replace a permitted pool that was 30 inches from the house with an above ground pool 4 foot from the house. To go 10 feet from the house will put the pool close to a shade tree and change some topographical on the back yard. Also a large deck was constructed for the other pool to be used for this pool.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• Will not change. See #1.

• Explained in #1.

4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;

• See #1. For safety reasons 10 foot is recommended.

• No change.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• See #1.

8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.

• Keeping an above ground pool should not change the condition of the values.

Ms. O’Brien made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Happ. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Mr. Unes made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Case No. 012-18-V at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Jess & Sharon Burns, acting on their own behalf, a Variance from Section 20- 3.2.14 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that there shall be a maximum of 2 permits issued for the same construction project for a single structure. The petitioner proposes a 5th building permit to complete the remodeling of a single family home in the “R-2” Medium Density Residential Zoning District.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 13, 2018. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Urban & Environmental Corridor). The site plan and five videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned R-R.

Jess Burns of 1118 E. London Ave., Peoria, was sworn in. Mr. Burns stated that he was looking for a variance for a 5th permit in order to finish work on the house located at 6009 Sunflower Drive.

Ms. O’Brien asked Mr. Burns if he had financing available to finish the project, and Mr. Burns responded that he did. Ms. O’Brien then asked if the machinery in the video was to be used to finish the house or if it was being stored there, and Mr. Burns stated that he would be using it to work on the house. Mr. Bailliez asked if it was Mr. Burns’s personal equipment, and he responded that it was. Ms. O’Brien asked if Mr. Burns would be able to finish the house with this permit, and he responded that he would. Ms. O’Brien asked who the financing was through, and Mr. Burns responded that he had arranged some personal financing to fund the project. Mr. Fletcher asked if anything had been done to the property since the last time Mr. Burns had been before the board, and Mr. Bailliez stated that Mr. Burns had been denied an additional permit at the last hearing. Mr. Burns responded that he was denied due to lack of financing. Mr. Fletcher asked if the financing was now guaranteed, and Mr. Burns stated that it was.

Ms. O’Brien asked if the house would be finished and he would be able to move in within the time frame of the permit, and Mr. Burns stated that he estimated the maximum amount of time it would take to finish the project would be 18 months. Mr. Bateman asked if Mr. Burns would be doing the work himself or hire a contractor, and Mr. Burns responded that he had hired a contractor, as well as an architect, to help with the project. Mr. Fletcher asked if the contractor was licensed, and Mr. Burns responded that he was. Ms. O’Brien asked who the contractor was, and Mr. Burns responded that it was John Sutherland of Certified Builders, located in Pekin. Ms. O’Brien asked if Mr. Burns had hired this company in the past, and Mr. Burns stated that he had, but he had worked out a deal to restart a contract with the builder.

Mr. Unes asked if the equipment on the property was being used to work on the home or if it was being stored there, and Mr. Burns responded that he needed an excavator for finishing his septic system and the skid steer for landscaping work. Mr. Bailliez asked if Mr. Burns could give a specific outline of what still needed to be completed, and Mr. Burns outlined what items had been removed from the project to save cost – removing the geothermal system, granite countertops, and stone on the outside of the house. Mr. Bailliez asked if the inside was mostly finished, and Mr. Burns stated that except for the mother in law suite at one end of the house, the inside of the house was finished. Mr. Bailliez asked if staff was given adequate information to assure his finances, and Mr. Burns stated that he was not asked to produce that. Mr. Burns added that he had made changes to the scope of the project in order to afford finishing the project. Ms. O’Brien asked staff how long the permit would be good for, if granted, and Ms. Urban responded that it would be good for two years. Ms. O’Brien asked if there was a recommendation from staff on the case, and Ms. Urban responded that staff did not make recommendations on variances.

Mr. Bailliez stated that landscaping, the septic system, and the stucco needed to be finished, and Mr. Burns responded that this was correct. Mr. Bailliez asked if the driveway would be paved, and Mr. Burns stated that this was another item that had been removed from the project to save cost. Ms. O’Brien asked if there was an HOA that Mr. Burns would have to comply with, and Mr. Burns responded that there was. Ms. O’Brien asked if Mr. Burns was absolutely certain that he would be in compliance with those rules and standards once finished with the project, and Mr. Burns stated that he was sure he would be in compliance.

Mr. Keyt asked Mr. Burns for an estimate on how much it would cost to complete the project, and Mr. Burns responded that it would be approximately $80,000 to complete. Mr. Keyt asked how much the financing was for, and Mr. Burns stated that he had $100,000. Mr. Keyt asked if Mr. Burns had any written estimates to help prove the estimated cost to finish the project, and Mr. Burns responded that he did not have them with him. Mr. Burns stated that the only estimates he had were for what he was taking out of the project in order to make the project more affordable. Mr. Happ asked when this project started, and Mr. Burns responded that the project began in 2008. Mr. Burns added that there was a long delay due to a contractor walking off the job and tying up the case in court for approximately 5 years.

Travis Wall of 6025 Sunflower Dr., Peoria, was sworn in. Mr. Wall stated that he was there to educate himself about the project. Ms. O’Brien stated that she knew Mr. Wall, but that it would not affect her decision in the case.

Mr. Wall stated that he had lived in the area for approximately 7 years and wanted to see what the progress and plan for the project was. Ms. O’Brien asked Mr. Wall if he would like to see the project completed, and Mr. Wall responded that he would so that it would add value to the neighborhood. Mr. Fletcher stated that last time there were several neighbors in attendance who were concerned about the lack of progress on the house. Mr. Wall stated that he had the same concerns and wanted to learn more about what was going on at the property. Mr. Bailliez asked if Mr. Wall was part of the HOA, and Mr. Wall responded that he did know that there were specific rules that had to be followed, but he was unsure of what exactly they were.

A motion to close and deliberate was made by Mr. Bateman and seconded by Ms. O’Brien. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Mr. Unes asked if staff would check on the progress of the house periodically, and Ms. Urban stated that with building permits, inspections are scheduled at the request of the applicant. Ms. Urban stated that applicants are notified when their permits are about to expire, and if the work remains unfinished after the expiration, the owner is given a violation for a permit that expired without final inspection. Ms. Urban stated that, in this case, there were some outstanding items that were required from the owner in order to obtain the 5th permit, including engineered plans. Ms. O’Brien asked if the permit required estimates of cost, and Ms. Urban stated that the application for the permit would require an estimate for the project cost and a list of subcontractors. Mr. Fletcher stated that engineered plans had been requested in the past for the project, but never produced. Mr. Fletcher asked if engineered plans still had not been produced, and Ms. Urban stated that they had not; however, Ms. Urban also explained that because the petitioner was denied for a 5th permit at the previous hearing, staff would not have expected the petitioner to submit anything to staff. Ms. Urban stated that Mr. Burns had met with staff and his architect to discuss the project before filing for the current variance. Mr. Happ asked what the difference was between the petitioner’s request last time and the current time, and Ms. Urban explained that the findings of fact for denial indicated that lack of finances were the main point of concern.

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• Section 20-3.2.14 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that there shall be a maximum of 2 permits issued for the same construction project for a single structure. The petitioner proposes a 5th building permit to complete the construction of a single family home in the R-2 Medium Density Residential Zoning District. The delay was caused finance, family illness and inflation costs.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• The exterior needs finished, landscaping has to be done, and driveway and sidewalks completed. When this is compiled the site will enhance the neighborhood.

• See #1 & 2.

4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;

• Maximum of 2 building permits is normal.

• Completing this project should bring the property to the value of surrounding properties.

• See #1, 2, and 5.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• See #1.

8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.

• This project was denied a building permit at a previous Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals staff and board are helping this project to completion by granting the 5th building permit.

Mr. Keyt made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0). Mr. Happ made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Miscellaneous:

Ms. Urban explained that because of the volume and subject matter of the petitions filed for April, two hearings were being proposed for April’s Zoning Board of Appeals. These dates were April 11th and April 12th, with both hearings beginning at 9:00 am. Of the 12 petitions filed for the April hearing date, 8 were for community solar farms. Ms. Urban advised that each hearing would most likely last for the majority of the day. Ms. Urban added that Andrew Braun had attended a solar farm hearing in Marshall County to get an idea of how the proceedings would go. Mr. Keyt requested that the newly adopted solar ordinance be sent to everyone for review, and Ms. Urban responded that it could be emailed. Ms. Urban added that all 6 cases at the Wednesday hearing would be coming from the same company. Mr. Bateman stated that he had previously stated he would be available for April 11th, but had just discovered that he had a conflict that day. Mr. Fletcher stated that he would probably have to leave around 2:30 p.m. on the 12th.

Mr. Fletcher asked if the findings of fact pages could be condensed into one page in order to save paper. Ms. Urban pointed out that the findings for each case type were in the front of their member folders. Mr. Bailliez asked how many people on the board used the sheets to take notes, and some members stated they used them during the hearing to take notes. Mr. Bailliez stated that if not many people were using them, then maybe they were not needed at all. Ms. O’Brien and Mr. Fletcher both agreed that they would still like to have something, but that one page with space for notes would be sufficient. Mr. Happ asked if he needed to save anything from previous hearings, and Ms. Urban stated that old petitions could be recycled, but if he would like to keep any personal notes about any cases, that was up to him.

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0).

Meeting adjourned 10:52 a.m.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03082018-490

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

Peoria County

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.

Donate

Peoria Standard