Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 01/05/2021 - Community Development CommitteeCommunity Development Committee Meeting Minutes January 5, 20201 Page 1 Community Development Committee Meeting January 5, 2021 Call to Order: Alderman Devine called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting was in compliance with the Open Meetings Act per guidelines by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. Roll Call: Deputy Clerk Johnson called the roll. Roll call: Members present: Alderman Devine, Alderman Harding, Alderwoman Miller. Others present: City Planner Cody Sheriff, Community Development Director Ross Polerecky, Economic Development Director Doug Martin, Deputy City Clerk Monte Johnson. Public Comments: No members of the public offered any comment. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Alderwoman Miller and seconded by Alderman Harding to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2019, Community Development Committee meeting. Roll Call: Vote: 3-ayes: Alderwoman Miller, Alderman Harding, Alderman Devine. 0- nays, 0-abstained. Motion carried. Z-974 – Use Variance to allow three horses and four chickens and any other variances required to effectuate the aforementioned request: The petitioners are Doherty JD Tr, Doherty KA Tr of 2150 Richmond Road, McHenry, IL 60050 (“Property Owners”) Director Polerecky reviewed the three options available on page seven of the staff report. Option 3 includes passing a use variance that would be approved based on certain conditions that were explained. Option 2 was to deny the use variance and classify the property as nonconforming. Option 1 is the recommendation by the staff, and would be to deny the use variance and work on drafting an ordinance amortizing the use no later than 3-5 years from the date of annexation. Alderman Devine stated that he would like to rule out Option 2. Alderwoman Miller explained that she would be in favor of Option 1 but would like to see it last more than 3-5 years. She would like a 7-10 year range, and she is also not in favor of Option 2. She does not like Option 3 because it would set precedence for other properties. The City is going to be annexing other properties and does not want these properties looking like an agriculture zoned parcel when they are actually residential properties. Alderman Harding agrees with Alderwoman Miller but would like Option 1 to stay in the 3-5 year range. He is not in favor of 7-10 years due to concerns from the neighbors. Lisa Waggoner spoke as the attorney for Joe Doherty. From the Doherty standpoint, they purchased the property to help a longstanding employee who was unable to buy it himself. They Community Development Committee Meeting Minutes January 5, 20201 Page 2 are hoping to sell the property to that employee in the next few years. A 3-5 year period is too short as time goes by quickly. A 10 year period would be more desirable. With a longer term and opportunity to purchase it with the option to have horses, there is a better chance they treat this property as a home instead of a rental. She also believes that Option 3 should be more desirable for the neighbor to the south as they would have conditions that would need to be met that benefit that neighbor. Option 1 does not have any conditions attached that would help the neighbors. City Planner Sheriff agreed that Option 3 has better conditions for the neighbor to the south, but is worse for the long term because horses would be allowed longer. Option 1 has the shortest time that horses would be allowed. The conditions are helpful for the neighbor in the short term but Option 1 is better for the removal of the horses in the shortest time possible. Director Polerecky also stated that staff would be worried about setting precedence moving forward with future annexations. Alderwoman Miller asked Mr. Doherty what the plan is moving forward. He hopes to sell the property to his tenant in the next 3-4 years, and would like to have horses for 10 years. Alderwoman Miller still stresses her concern for setting precedence. She also is concerned that the two parcels could be sold separately. She would not want any conditions placed on a 1 acre parcel, and would need to see the conditions tied to both parcels. She wants to look at the long- range picture and wants to be reasonable in accommodating all parties, but also wants to have uniformity. Director Polerecky explained that the two parcels could not be sold separately because a septic system was recently installed that ties the two parcels together. Mr. Doherty brought up points that the City annexed in the tree service and extended them out 20 years, and Harms Farm was also extended out a long period of time. He does not believe it is fair to limit him to 3-5 years and making him put money out to satisfy conditions. Lisa Waggoner reiterated that it may be the most fair to go with Option 3 as Mr. Doherty would agree to help the neighbor by blocking to the south with arborvitaes, a berm, and lilacs. She stated that this is what the neighbor wanted from the beginning and what Mr. Doherty offered. Guy Youman was present and represented Ms. Knox, who is the neighbor to the south. He reminded the committee that Mr. Doherty recently purchased the property as an island property. The horses have only been there two years, so it wouldn’t be logical to let them stay any longer. There are health issues with the horse feces. He also doesn’t believe a 15 foot setback is enough. The neighbor to the north also has other issues. There haven’t been horses there for 50 years, and this is a completely different issue from the Harms scenario. He does not like Option 1 as there are no conditions to help the neighbors. City Planner Sheriff and Director Polerecky explained that Option 1 would have the shortest amount of time for nonconformity. Option 3 could allow for horses for up to 10 years. Brian Kilinski was present at the meeting and is the neighbor to the north. He says they have dealt with the dust and smell and have runoff as they are downhill from the property. He Community Development Committee Meeting Minutes January 5, 20201 Page 3 contacted the County regarding the complaints and he said they were supposed to look into the issue. The impacted soil has caused a greater storm water runoff towards them, especially with the trees that have been cut off. He has health concerns with his young children who like to play in the backyard. He would like to have the horses gone in the shortest time possible. Alderman Devine opened the discussion back up to the Committee members. He states that he keeps thinking about the fact that the horses have only been there two years, and the neighbors have been there a lot longer with no horses. Alderwoman Miller explained how the process of forced annexation has brought this forward. She explained that the Council as a whole has decided that it is time to get all of the little pockets of property that are not in the City limits to be a part of the City. She discussed how they are using City services and how it can cause problems by them not being annexed. The City is simply trying to do the right thing and is finally moving forward with the process that has been discussed for many years. Director Polerecky stated that the Committee will need to make a recommendation, and asked if anybody is open to Option 3 with conditions. Alderman Harding would not mind going with Option 3 but does not like the 10 year period. He wants 3-5 years or even less. Alderwoman Miller stated that the neighbor to the north would be happy with a 3 year time period. She asked the neighbor to the north if those conditions would work for him. He stated that none of the conditions in Option 3 would benefit his property, as he is downhill and his issues are different than the neighbor to the south. Alderwoman Miller suggested going with Option 3 with a 7 year time period, but Alderman Devine and Alderman Harding both stated that they do not think it is fair to keep the horses there that long. They are committed to staying with the 3-5 year time period. Mr. Doherty explained that if the time allowed is that short, it does not make sense for him to agree to any conditions that would cause him to spend any money. A motion was made by Alderman Harding and seconded by Alderwoman Miller to recommend approval of Option 1 subject to the terms and conditions outlined within the staff report. By making said motion, I believe that the Approval Criteria for Use Variances have not been met. Roll Call: Vote: 3-ayes: Alderwoman Miller, Alderman Harding, Alderman Devine. 0-nays, 0- abstained. Motion carried. Director Polerecky explained that this item will be placed on the agenda for the City Council at the meeting on January 18, 2021. Adjournment: A motion was made by Alderman Harding and seconded by Alderwoman Miller to adjourn the meeting at 4:24 p.m. Roll Call: Vote: 3-ayes: Alderwoman Miller, Alderman Harding, Alderman Devine. 0-nays, 0-abstained. Motion carried. Community Development Committee Meeting Minutes January 5, 20201 Page 4 Alderman Devine Deputy Clerk Monte Johnson _________________________________ _________________________________