Peoria Standard

Peoria Standard

Friday, November 22, 2019

Woodford County Zoning Board of Appeals met September 24

By Kristine Gonzales-Abella | Nov 8, 2019

Meetingroom05

Woodford County Zoning Board of Appeals met Sept. 24.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

 Call to Order:

Ms. Gauger called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm

 Roll Call: Teresa Gauger, Jerry Lay, Kim Holmes, Dean Backer, and Marty Clinch were present. Ms. Gauger declared a quorum present and asked for a nomination for acting Chairman.

Mr. Lay made the nomination of Ms. Holmes, seconded by Ms. Gauger. Motion Carried. Others present: Erik Gibson

 Approval of minutes for August 27, 2019.

Motion to approve August minutes made by Gauger, seconded by Backer. Motion Carried with Clinch abstaining.

 Swearing in and/or affirmation- completed for each petition.

 Petitions Submitted for Review: 

2019-26-S Worth Township filed by Michael & Gina Feld for a special use for a Special Use to operate 4 Hom inc. a Custom Countertop business in the Residential District (R-1), Lot 6 3rd Addn. to Far Hills, section 30, T27N – R3W of the 3rd P.M. Woodford County, Illinois and more commonly described as 244 East Far Hills Drive, East Peoria, Illinois.

 Swearing in and/or Affirmation: was completed for petition 2019-26-S

Mr. Feld was sworn in. Mr. Feld explained that he has had some product stored out side and has been informed that he would need to have a type 2 Home Occupation. He noted that he has brought the property into compliance with a type 1 Home Occupation at this time since he does operate a small business where he has approximately 12 customers come to his home, although he typically goes to the customers’ homes, he would like to get the Home Occupation type 2 to be in compliance. Mr. Clinch asked how many vehicles were on the property. Mr. Feld noted there are three at this time, he just purchased a new vehicle for the business, the old business vehicle will be leaving shortly. Mr. Lay asked how many parking spaces were available. Mr. Feld noted that due to the size of the driveway he felt as many as six. He noted that he felt street parking is not practical. Mr. Lay asked about the outdoor storage of materials. Mr. Feld noted that he does not currently have any products stored outside. Mr. Lay asked about storing product inside the garage. Mr. Feld noted that at this time the garage is filled with remodeling materials for the home. He discussed that he does plan to erect a shed in the future to store the vehicle and materials. Mr. Feld noted that he had discussed with his rear neighbors (Otten’s) the agreement to install a vegetative barrier between the shed and the neighboring property when the shed is constructed to protect their rear yard view. He noted they are a good 12 months out from that process starting. Mr. Lay asked about the sign. Mr. Feld noted that he would like a sign as stated in the type 2 home use request and the reason for the request is that the covenants restrictions covers signs. He noted the request is for what the board will allow. Mr. Feld noted the covenant restrictions says no signs. He noted that the covenants say anything that supersedes this or takes jurisdiction and doesn’t violate any other area of the covenants, it’s a specific request since type 2 allows it but the covenants do not he wants to see if it is allowable. Ms. Jording noted that the county cannot waive the covenants and have no authority over them. Ms. Holmes noted that even if they say he can have a sign the covenants say you can’t, they are a private agreement with the other owners in the subdivision. Ms. Holmes noted that he would have to address that with a homeowners association and the ZBA has no authority over them. Mr. Feld noted they were aware there were previously Special Uses in the neighborhood. Ms. Jording noted that she searched by township and section and did not find any Special uses in the immediate area. Mr. Feld stated that there had been but they were expired. Ms. Jording clarified that there may have been special uses in the area but they may have been for trailers or second dwellings, she noted she did not specifically search by businesses.

Mr. Gibson asked if there was a covenant on the property that barred him from having a home occupation. Mr. Gibson noted that if the covenant bars them from doing this regardless of what the board says. Mr. Lay asked if that prevents the board from acting on this. Mr. Gibson noted it does not but it may render the decision moot. Ms. Holmes noted that the ZBA cannot override the covenants. Mr. Gibson noted that they have a petition in front of them they can render a decision. Mr. Clinch asked if he would be using the garage would be used for production. Mr. Feld clarified the garage would be used for his van and boat and to store a few kitchens of laminate waiting to be disposed of. Mr. Clinch noted he is trying to consider the point of view of a neighbor. Mr. Clinch asked if there was any opposition here. It was noted there were interested parties filed. Mr. Lay asked what materials were going to be seen. Mr. Feld noted that once the home renovation was completed it could go inside, his current plan was to place it around the back of the garage. He noted it is no more than two to three kitchens at a time before its shipped out. Mr. Lay noted its just a temporary staging site before it goes to a landfill. Mr. Lay asked how long it is there. Mr. Feld noted about two weeks. Mr. Feld explained the timeline of his materials pick-up. Mr. Feld noted if need be he could take the materials directly to the landfill as an accommodation he was willing to make to appease his neighbors. Mr. Feld noted that he was a licensed practicing appraiser and can speak to that. He noted the neighborhood is under revitalization and there is a lot of traffic in and out of the neighborhood. He noted that his property is part of that and is not very attractive to look at in the middle of the process. Mr. Feld provided his appraisers license and photos of the commercial traffic frequenting the neighborhood in front of his house. He noted that his business will not increase the amount of traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Gauger asked if the materials were delivered to his home. Mr. Feld explained that he picks them up in his van and takes it to the job site. Ms. Gauger asked what the van looked like. Mr. Feld noted the old van is an E350 cargo van the new van is an E350 transit van and has the high roof. Mr. Feld showed photos of the vehicle of the vehicles on his phone. He noted that this will allows him to use the trailer less. Mr. Clinch noted that the appraiser’s license is expired. Mr. Feld noted he was an appraiser for one year so he has the experience to speak on that. Ms. Gauger asked if anything was stored on the property currently. Mr. Feld noted that everything is loaded on the trailer ready to go to the land fill. Mr. Terry Tate was sworn. Mr. Tate explained he lives across the street and has for 32 years. He noted the neighborhood is primarily single family dwellings. He noted that the driveway has materials, a van and trailer and now two vans. He noted the increase in traffic through the years. He stated he is concerned about the materials stored in the driveway for months will affect property values. Mr. Tate also discussed his concerns over the grading of the lot and his concerns over the environmental impact to the ravines and the runoff and watershed. Mr. Tate noted that there are covenants and restrictions for the subdivision and people comply with them. Ms. Holmes noted that the ZBA has already addressed that and they cannot remove them or enforce them. Mr. Tate noted he felt it was important that they know the restrictions exist. Mr. Tate read the specific directives. Which states “All lots of said subdivision shall be used for one single family residential purpose only and no lot or portion of a thereof shall be used for commercial or business purposes” he noted that was in paragraph 1. Ms. Holmes asked if this was a covenant that was for where Mr. Feld lives. Mr. Tate noted Mr. Feld had indicated there may be a newer version he does not have. Mr. Tate noted paragraph 3 states “ No lot shall be used for the storage of junk, disabled automobiles, trucks or other vehicles, machinery, lumber, or other used materials, giving an unsightly appearance, and each lot shall at all times be maintained in a reasonably neat and attractive condition.” Ms. Holmes noted that Mr. Tate had conveyed his concerns. Mr. Tate stated that they also have concerns about a sign, the covenants also has language restricting signage.

Mr. Feld noted that the grading that was completed was in part due to a new septic system installation and geothermal in the froth yard. He noted that they identified an issue with the road drainage washing over the yard so when the final grading was completed he created a trough that would allow the water to run cleanly towards the back and to run the street water to the culvert instead of down the driveway. Mr. Feld noted he has worked with the neighbors to correct other erosion and drainage issues and has created a green space that has stopped the erosion issues. He noted the previous owner installed an illegal septic system across the neighbor’s property and that has been removed and corrected. He noted that the landscaping and shaping has been to correct erosion and give his children a back yard. Mr. Clinch asked Mr. Tate if there are any businesses to his knowledge in Far Hills. Mr. Tate noted there were none to his knowledge in 32 years, they are all single family residences. Mr. Feld noted that there are some signs in front yards that may indicate a business but it is purely speculative. Ms. Gauger asked how long he had been operating out of his home. Mr. Feld indicated since he moved to this dwelling in June 2018.

During the findings of fact the board discussed the need for stipulations on exterior storage and vegetative buffer.

Findings by the Zoning Board of Appeals for Petition 2019-26-S:

A. Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; (Affirmative) No health issues, issues of safety or welfare.

B. Will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted. The applicant need not demonstrate complete compatibility, but the applicant shall demonstrate reasonable efforts to minimize incompatibility; (Affirmative)

With stipulations

C. Will not be injurious to the district in which it shall be located; (Affirmative)

D. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the districts; (Affirmative)

Nothing in the evidence given that it would impede.

E. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided; (Affirmative)

The dirt moved and graded has not impeded the flow of water, the utilities are sufficient and no access roads are needed.

F. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public roads;

(Negative) This has the potential to cause congestion due to the intersection of two roads coming together.

(Affirmative) This is a public street with adequate parking and the testimony that no more than 12 customers are expected

G. Is consistent with the Woodford County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (Affirmative)

Stipulations

- There will be no exterior storage of materials, laminates, etc. beyond 7 days

- There will be vegetative screening between the future garage of the applicant and his neighbor’s property installed one year from the date the application is approved.

The Board discussed the timeline of the installation of the vegetative fence and its relation to the construction of the future garage. Mr. Feld clarified that the vegetation is between the future garage and their property.

Motion to approve petition 2019-26-S for a special use to operate a custom countertop business as shown in the application. With the following stipulations:

- There will be no exterior storage of materials, laminates, etc. beyond 7 days

- There will be vegetative screening between the future garage of the applicant and his neighbor’s property installed one year from the date the application is approved.

Roll call vote: Kim Holmes – Yes, Teresa Gauger – Yes, Dean Backer – Yes, Jerry Lay – Yes, Marty Clinch – No. Motion Carried.

Ms. Holmes noted they didn’t address the sign. Ms. Tate asked what that meant. Ms. Holmes stated it wasn’t included in the motion, so it’s not been recommended for approval.

2019-29-V Montgomery Township, filed by Dustin Musick for a Variance in lot coverage and rear yard setback, on a.53 acre parcel in the Agricultural (AG) District, NE cor W 1⁄2 , NW 1⁄4, Section 10, T25N-R2W of the 3rd P.M. Woodford County, Illinois, and more commonly described as 399 County Road 1125 E., Deer Creek, Illinois.

 Swearing in and/or Affirmation: was completed for petition 2019-29-V

Mr. Dustin Musick was sworn in. Mr. Musick discussed that he would like to remove the existing shed on the property and build a new on that is one foot shorter and ten feet wider, this will be a 218 ft increase in lot coverage and he noted that the rear yard setback is an issue with that, he will not be moving the building closer to the property line just putting one back where the current shed is at, it was only approximately 5 ft from the property line when it was built and due to the septic system it will have to stay there. Ms. Holmes noted that per the Zoning Administrator this is a Historic lot of record and the building will not be encroaching any further. Ms. Holmes asked about the septic. Mr. Musick noted that the septic will not allow the building to move over. Mr. Lay asked if the driveway would be moved at all. Mr. Musick noted it would not move. Mr. Backer asked if it would be any taller. Mr. Musick noted it would be two foot taller but is still within the regulations. Ms. Gauger asked if he owned the surrounding ground. Mr. Musick noted he did not. Ms. Holmes asked about the setback reduction. Ms. Holmes asked Ms. Jording if the applicant would have been able to build if he had not exceeded coverage. Ms. Jording noted that per the non- conformity section he would have been permitted because he is not further encroaching into the setback. Ms. Holmes noted that the application includes an elevation drawing showing the peak height at 17 ft. and the mean height would be 14.5 ft.

Ms. Holmes asked for the findings

Findings by the Zoning Board of Appeals for Petition 2019-29-V:

A. Non-conforming uses in the same district and permitted uses in other districts shall not be considered grounds for issuance of a Variance (Affirmative)

B. The granting of the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands or structures in the same district. (Affirmative)

C. The ZBA has found that the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the Variance. (Affirmative)

D. The ZBA finds that the granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (Affirmative)

E. The Variance requested is the least amount of Variance required to allow the proposed structure on the existing lot, without regard to aesthetics or personal inconvenience to the property owner. (Affirmative)

Motion to approve petition 2019-29-V

Ms. Gauger made the motion to approve petition 2019-29-V for a lot coverage and rear yard setback on a.53 acre parcel for the property described as 399 County Road 1125 E. Deer Creek. Roll call vote: Teresa Gauger – Yes, Dean Backer – Yes, Jerry Lay – Yes, Marty Clinch – Yes. Kim Holmes – Yes. Motion Carried.

2019-30-V Panola Township, filed by Dylan E. Punke for a Variance in minimum habitable floor area for a Single Family Dwelling, on a 5.03 acre parcel in the Agricultural (AG) District, SE Cor NE 1⁄4, Section 13, T27N-R2E of the 3rd P.M. Woodford County, Illinois, and more commonly described as 1451 County Road 3200 E., El Paso, Illinois.

 Swearing in and/or Affirmation: was completed for petition 2019-30-V

Mr. Dylan Punke was sworn in. Mr. Punke explained that he purchased the property that his family formerly owned and has cleaned up and all the structures have been demolished. He would like to use the one footing that is still in good condition and he would like a variance in minimum square footage to build a single family dwelling to live there. Ms. Holmes clarified that is was a 1.5 story home that is 14’ x 24’, with 460 Sq. Ft. of habitable floor area. Mr. Clinch asked about the age and condition of the existing footer. Mr. Punke noted that his builder has checked them and is comfortable using them, he noted they have probably been there 60 years. Mr. Lay asked about well and septic. Mr. Punke noted there is an existing well and a new septic will be installed but the original septic is still on site. Ms. Holmes asked who the closest neighbor would be. Mr. Punke noted probable 6/10ths of a mile.

Mr. Greg McKinley was sworn in. Mr. McKinley noted that he is a neighboring property owner to Dylan and they commend his efforts cleaning the property up and they have no issues with the proposal. Mr. Clinch asked if Mr. Punke would have a basement. Mr. Punke stated he would not but intended to have some sort of storm shelter.

Ms. Holmes asked for the findings.

Findings by the Zoning Board of Appeals for Petition 2019-30-V:

A. Non-conforming uses in the same district and permitted uses in other districts shall not be considered grounds for issuance of a Variance. (Affirmative)

B. The granting of the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands or structures in the same district. (Affirmative)

C. The ZBA has found that the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting oftheVariance. (Affirmative)

D. The ZBA finds that the granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (Affirmative)

E. The Variance requested is the least amount of Variance required to allow the proposed structure on the existing lot, without regard to aesthetics or personal inconvenience to the property owner. (Affirmative)

Motion to approve petition 2019-30-V for a variance in minimum habitable floor area by Dylan Punke made by Mr. Backer, seconded by Mr. Lay

Roll call vote: Dean Backer – Yes, Jerry Lay – Yes, Marty Clinch – Yes, Kim Holmes – Yes, Teresa Gauger – Yes. Motion Carried.

 Other Business to Come Before the Board:

 Update on previous months petition/s

All the petitions submitted to the County Board were approved.

 Update on next month petition/s

There will be three petitions one will be for the Cannabis text amendment.

 IACZO Seminar discussion: None

 ZBA By-Law discussion - (if necessary) None

 Executive Session – None

 Adjournment

Ms. Gauger made the motion to adjourn at 7:30, 2nd by Mr. Lay. Motion Carried.

https://www.woodford-county.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_09242019-980

Want to get notified whenever we write about Woodford County ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Woodford County, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Woodford County