Peoria Standard

Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 11.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

A meeting of the Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals was held in Room 403 of the Peoria County Courthouse, 324 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linda O’Brien, at 9:00 a.m.

PRESENT: Linda O’Brien – Chairperson, Andrew Keyt – Vice Chairperson, Greg Happ, Jim Bateman, J. Greg Fletcher, Leonard Unes, Robert Asbell

ABSENT: Justin Brown, John Harms

STAFF: Kathi Urban – Director

Taylor Armbruster – Planner I

Jack Weindel – Planner I

Jennie Cordis-Boswell – Chief Civil Assistant State’s Attorney

Sarah Cox – ZBA Administrative Assistant

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 9, 2021 hearing and was seconded by Mr. Happ. A vote was taken, and the motion passed; (7-0)

Case No. ZBA-2021-000028 at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois

Petition of CRAIG A. THOMPSON, acting on behalf of K9CT, LLC, requests an APPEAL under Section 20-3.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Zoning Administrator or other administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning regulations of the UDO. The appellant alleges that based on Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations pertaining to what is called Amateur Radio Service address station antenna structures, the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the building permit application for antenna structures submitted May 5, 2021, does not meet the maximum height restrictions in Section 20-6.2.4 of the Peoria County Code which are the lesser of three stories, or thirty six (36) feet in the “A-1” Agricultural Preservation Zoning District shall not apply to the proposed structure.

Ms. Urban stated that staff received a letter from Mr. William Shay, requesting to withdraw this case.

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

Case No. ZBA-2021-000035 at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of JAMES M. AGNOLETTI, acting on behalf of JORDAN E. BARNES (owner), a SPECIAL USE as required in Section 20.5.2.2.1.a.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use when a proposed land split does not meet the 25 acre minimum lot size nor the 1 dwelling unit per 25 contiguous acres density requirement in the “A-2” Agricultural District. The petitioner proposes to divide 1 acre from an existing 13.95 acre tract.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in The Peoria Journal Star on October 20, 2021. Jack Weindel gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned “A-2”.

Ms. Urban added that staff has recommended approval of this case with the restriction that is standard for this type of “A-2” land split. There is also a variance for this case which will follow.

James M. Agnoletti of 10505 W. Riekena Rd., Mapleton, IL was sworn in. Mr. Agnoletti stated that he would like to split a 1 acre parcel from the 13.95 acre tract so that he can build a house. His granddaughter owns the property.

Mr. Fletcher asked when construction would be started. Mr. Agnoletti stated that he won’t receive approval for the special use until December, and he would like to sell his home before beginning. He would like to start as soon as possible.

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

Case No. ZBA-2021-000038 at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of JAMES M. AGNOLETTI, acting on behalf of JORDAN E. BARNES (owner), a VARIANCE request from Section 20-6.3.1.2.b of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a minimum lot width of two hundred (200) feet at the building line in the “A-2” Agricultural District. The petitioner proposes to create a parcel with a lot width of 94 feet at the building line, resulting in a variance request of 106 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 October 20, 2021. Ms. Urban stated that the videos and site plan would be the same as for the special use request.

James M. Agnoletti of 10505 W. Riekena Rd., Mapleton, IL was sworn in. Mr. Agnoletti stated that he doesn’t meet the frontage requirements for the land split.

Ms. O’Brien asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Ms. O’Brien asked if there was anyone that would like to speak for or against the petitioner. There was no one.

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;

∙ The petitioner, James M. Agnoletti, on behalf of Jordan E. Barnes, is requesting a variance from Section 20-6.3.1.2.b of the Unified Development Ordinance which requires a minimum lot width of 200 feet at the building line in the "A-2" Agricultural District. This variance request is in conjunction with a Special Use permit for a land split that has been approved. The petitioner proposes to create a parcel with a lot width of 94 feet at the building line, resulting in a variance request of 106 feet.

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

∙ If granted this variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The said property is located in a subdivision and there are other lots in the neighborhood that do not meet the 200 foot building line lot width.

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;

∙ The variance request has been filed in conjunction with a special use permit for a land split of a 1 acre lot from a 13.95 acre tract. The petitioner is requesting the variance in order to build a home.

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;

∙ Refer to finding number 3.

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;

∙ Granting of the variance will have no effect on the public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the neighborhood. Nor be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

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;

∙ Granting of the variance 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.

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

∙ The variance request of 106 feet is the minimum adjustment necessary in order for the petitioner to build a home on the said property. Refer to finding number 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.

∙ If the variance were denied, the petitioner would not be able to build a home on his property, therefore depriving him reasonable use of his land.

Mr. Bateman 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 request and was seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken, and the motion passed; (7-0)

Case No. ZBA-2021-000036 at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of BRIAN PAUL, acting on behalf of RABER PACKING COMPANY (A corporation, Henry Courdt – president, 923 Wildwood Ct, Peoria, IL 61604, Julia Courdt – secretary, 1320 N Wood, Peoria, IL 61604) (owner), a SPECIAL USE from Section 20-5.11.2.3.a of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use for a junkyard. The petitioner proposes to junk cars in the “I-2” Heavy Industrial Zoning District.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There is a request to continue the case to the January 13, 2022 hearing. Ms. Urban suggested a time of 9:00 a.m. Staff has requested further information from the petitioner.

Mr. Happ made a motion to continue the case to 9:00 a.m. on January 13, 2022 and was seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken, and the motion passed; (7-0)

A member of the public asked if they could speak regarding case ZBA-2021-000036. Ms. O’Brien explained that the case had already been continued to the January hearing. The gentleman asked if Mr. Paul could continue using the property as a junk yard in the meantime. Ms. O’Brien stated that the case could not be discussed right now. He asked who he would go to, to stop the use for the time being. Ms. Urban stated that he could call the Planning and Zoning office later in the day to discuss the matter.

Case No. ZBA-2021-000037 at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of RENEE ENDRESS, acting on behalf of GRACE CATERING, LLC, (A limited liability company, Renee Endress – manager, 2700 W. 2nd St, Peoria, IL 61615) (owner), a VARIANCE request from Section 20-7.6.7.5.a of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that the number of points that must be achieved through landscaping in a Transitional Buffer Yard (TBY) shall be based on the overall length of the TBY, as measured along the TBY property line. The petitioner proposes to decrease the point requirement along the southern TBY property line from the required 108 points to 18 points, which will result in a variance request of 90 points. Also, a Variance request from Section 20-7.6.7.5.b of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that 1/2 of the points for TBY landscaping must be achieved by utilizing plants from the tree classification and 1/2 of the points must be from the shrub classification. The petitioner proposes 0 points to be achieved from trees along the southern TBY property line.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in The Peoria Journal Star on October 20, 2021. Taylor Armbruster gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, the petitioner’s landscaping plan, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Unincorporated Center). The site plan and three videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned “C-2”.

Renee Endress of 1267 County Road 350 E, Henry, IL 61537 was sworn in. Ms. Endress stated that she is requesting a variance to reduce the number of plantings on the south side of the property. She further stated that she has made significant improvements to the property, it has a vast amount of curb appeal, and the neighbors have all seemed please with the improvements. She has received no comments from anyone about needing more landscaping. There are six giant arborvitae which are currently 7 feet tall now. They grow up to 50-60 feet tall, with a spread of 12-20 feet at maturity. They are being called shrubs, but they seem more like trees because of their size. They chose these trees because the root systems grow straight down rather than spread out like tree roots do, so there would be less interference with the septic system. The raised bed septic system creates a natural berm between the property and the neighbors’ property to the south, and the arborvitae that are planted block the parking lot and the dumpster from the view of the neighbors.

Ms. O’Brien asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. There was no one in the audience to speak for or against the petition.

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

Ms. O’Brien asked if there was any discussion from the Board. Mr. Bateman stated that he felt that this property is the nicest property in that neighborhood. Ms. O’Brien, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Happ all agreed. Mr. Bateman stated that what had been planted will continue to grow and provide coverage, and he doesn’t see a problem with the request. Ms. O’Brien agreed and referenced the letter from the Health Department regarding trees potentially causing damage to the septic system.

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;

∙ The petitioner is requesting to decrease the landscaping point requirement along the southern Transitional Buffer Yard (TBY) from the required 108 points to 18 points, which would result in a variance request of 90 points. The variance request also consists of eliminating trees along the southern TBY property line which would result in 0 points. This is a unique circumstance, in the fact that, the petitioner has stated that the septic system is located on the south side of the property and planting more trees there could possibly cause future damage to the system as the trees mature and the roots enlarge.

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

∙ The property has been greatly improved over the past year with a new building and extensive landscaping, including (6) 7 foot tall arborvitae. The petitioner has stated that the south side of the property is virtually hidden from the public, and therefore additional landscaping would not be beneficial.

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;

∙ The placement of the septic system on the south side of the property changed the topography, in turn making additional planting there difficult. In addition, roots from additional tree planting could possibly have a negative effect on the future of the septic.

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;

∙ Refer to fact number 3.

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;

∙ If granted, the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare, nor injurious to other property in the neighborhood.

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;

∙ The proposed variation will not affect light and air supply to the adjacent property, will cause no congestion in the streets, and will not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety. The improvements that have recently been done to this property have enhanced the neighborhood and could possibly increase property values in the area.

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

∙ The proposed variance is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land. This is further explained in finding number 3.

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.

∙ Without the proposed variance the applicant would be deprived of reasonable use of her land.

Mr. Asbell 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. Bateman made a motion to approve the request and was seconded by Mr. Asbell. A vote was taken, and the motion passed; (7-0)

Ms. Endress asked if she could address the Board with comments she had about starting a business in Peoria County. Ms. O’Brien stated that would be fine. Ms. Endress made a plea that the County try to simplify the process for those that would like to make improvements to property and those trying to open businesses. Too many rules and red tape in the process can seem punitive to the individual trying to make improvements. She further stated that her process started about two years prior and after a series of struggles, 18 months later she was able to finally open with a cost three and a half times higher than her original budget. Ms. Endress stated that her contractors have started to encourage clients to build outside Peoria County, due to the processes that are more difficult than in other counties.

Ms. O’Brien thanked Ms. Endress for her comments. Mr. Fletcher thanked Ms. Endress for driving from Henry, IL to have her business in Peoria, and commended her for the great improvements on her property. Ms. Endress stated that she is honored to have her business in Peoria.

Ms. O’Brien asked if there was any other business to discuss. There was none.

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

Meeting adjourned at 9:36 a.m.

https://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11112021-1063