HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/23/1998 - Zoning Board of Appeals � ZON I NG BOARD OF APPEALS
� FEBRUARY 23, 1998
CITY OF MCHENRY
� IN THE 'v1ATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-443
MEYER MATERIAL COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS ) Chicago Title & Trust
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND CHICAGO ) Meyer Material
TITLE & TRUST COMPANY, NOT INDIVIDUALLY ) Map Amendment
BUT AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ) Conditional Use
A TRUST AGREEMENT DATED JULY 17, 1968, ) Variance
AND Kf�OWN AS TRUST NO 53278, FOR MAP )
AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, )
AND FOR VARIATION UNDER THE ZONING )
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, )
MCHENKY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on February 23, 1998. Chairman
Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Chuck Lovett,
Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Randy Christensen.
�
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer.
4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio.
5. Director of Community Development: )oseph Napolitano.
6. Petitioners: Meyer Material, represented by Allen Miller, 580 Wolf Road, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60017; Smith Engineering represented by Donald Palmer, 4500 West Prime
Parkway, McHenry, IL 60050.
7. Attorney for Petitioner: Campion, Curran, Rausch, Gummerson, & Dunlop represented
by Thomas Rausch, 8600 Route 14, Suite 201, Crystal Lake, Illinois 60012.
8. City Council Members: Alderman Glab, Alderman McClatchey, Alderman Murgatroyd.
9. Court Reporter: None.
10. Registered Observers/Objectors:
1. Carole Johnson, 1319 N. Ridge Road, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
� 2. Joseph and Sharon Dusek, 6614 Chickaloon Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
3. Robert and Diane Farina, 7817 Burr Oak Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
4. Robert and Barbara LaFever, 1807 Bull Ridge Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
Page 2
ZBA-Meyer
2/23/98
5 Randy Patterson, 5322 Chickaloon Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
�, 6 Pamela Horgan, 6428 Chickaloon Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
7 Curt Langille, 6200 Katmai Trail, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
8. Jeff Shanlay, 7504 Burning Tree Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
9. Richard Reese, 7404 Burning Tree Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 2, 1998.
Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's
Office. Notices were mailed to all owners of record of abutting properties and the subject
property was posted as required by City ordinance. An Affidavit of Service is on file with the
City Clerk.
LOCATI ON
The subject property is located southeast of the intersection of Ridge Road and Route 120.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting the following:
1. Parcel A (117 acres to be annexed into City):
a) Map Amendment - RS1 Single Family Residential Zoning District with an A-M
Agricultural-Mining Overlay District;
b) Conditional Use Permit - to allow gravel mining operation;
c) Variance to extend ten year limitation for conditional use for gravel mining operation
� to Year 2018;
2. Parcel B (existing 409 acres currently being mined and within corporate limits):
a) Variance to extend ten year limitation for conditional use for gravel mining operation
to Year 2018.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioner:
1. Allen Miller, 5900 Tomlinson Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
2. Donald Palmer, Smith Engineering, 4500 W. Prime Parkway, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
Miller noted the mining operation has been ongoing at the present location since 1954. The
current plans are to expand it by adding 117 acres to the immediate west of the existing pit.
There would be no processing equipment located on the 117 acres. All processing which
includes crushing, conveying, and washing, would be done on the existing pit's 409 acre site.
The processing plant is slated to be moved further west on the 409 acres by august 1998 as
specified in the terms of the 1988 Annexation Agreement. The product of the mining on the
117 acre parcel would travel by conveyor to the processing plant for refining.
Miller said the 117 acres is a rectangular parcel of land approximately 1,350 feet X 3900 feet,
and is not currently improved with any buildings. The house located at the southeast corner
of Ridge Road and Route 120 is not included. Miller said 40 test borings have been done on
this property to determine the availability of sand and gravel. He indicated there would be
`,,, no further expansion to the west beyond Ridge Road. Miller noted there would be no
additional points of ingress or egress on Route 120 other than those permitted under the terms
of the 1988 Annexation Agreement. There would be no direct access onto Ridge Road from
the property. The west, north and south boundaries of the property would be bermed and
Page 3
ZBA-Meyer
2/23/98
fenced. The anticipated time of mining the 117 acre parcel is 5-7 years. The 117 acre parcel
� would be mined first, then mining would return to the existing property. An excavation plan
was pro��ided with the Petition. There are eight phases to the plan. Each phase could take
approximately one year. Miller stated the Petitioner will make every effort to minimize the
impact of dust and noise. They will be erecting a state of the art processing plant which will
be in operation by August. It will be a low profile building. Once the processing plant is
operational at the new location, Meyer will eliminate night washing operation.
The proposed hours of operation are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Cadotte asked why the operation needs to be extended to 2018. Miller responded the
complete mining and reclamation of the entire plan would be done by 2018. Cadotte asked
what precautions are being taken around Valley View School to protect the students. Miller
said berms and fencing are being used.
Ekstrom asked if when the Route 120 entrance is in full service, would the Dot Street entrance
still be utilized. Miller said it would be used for the Ready Mix Plant.
Howell asked if there would be an increase in truck traffic. Miller responded there would be
no increase in daily traffic, but the number of years would be extended if the variance is
granted. Howell asked how the Petitioners would control the dust and noise. He expressed
concern regarding the neighborhood. Miller said the noise level is well below EPA daytime
� standards. The EPA monitors both the dust and noise. They inspect unannounced at least
annually, if not more frequently. Howell asked if the vein of gravel extended to the west side
of Ridge Road. Miller said no borings were done west of Ridge Road. He did not know if
there was sand and gravel west of Ridge Road.
Lovett noted he called the EPA and the IEPA. The Petitioners are required to file an
Environmental Impact Study. He asked if this had been done. Miller said he was not aware
an impact study would be required; however, mining permits had already been issued for this
additional 117 acres. Semrow noted that if permits have already been issued, it's highly
unlikely the EPA would demand an impact study at this point in time. Lovett asked what
happens to sediment once the washing plant water has been filtered. Miller responded it goes
back into the reclamation work. All water used in the operation is recycled. Lovett asked how
the wetlands will be dealt with. Miller noted there is approximately one third of an acre along
Ridge Road which is wetlands and it would not be mined. Lovett asked if the existing variance
on Parcel B would be negated should the requested variance before the Board be granted.
Attorney Rausch stated there would be one deadline for the entire operation to cease, and that
wou Id be 2018.
Meyer asked if the proposed berm and landscaping would be similar to that in place adjacent
to Glacier Ridge Subdivision. Miller said that would be correct. The existing berm along
Burning Tree Subdivision is approximately 15 feet high. The berm along Route 120 is 30 feet
high. Miller said there would ultimately be four lakes on the subject property once it has been
� reclaimed. The final slope around the perimeter of the property will be 5/1 . Meyer asked if
there is an existing subdivision in McHenry County which has been reclaimed after having
been used for gravel mining. Miller cited the Tonyan Pit which has been mined and
reclaimed. This subdivision is located near the intersection of Bay Road and Chapel Hill Road.
Page 4
ZBA-Meyer
2/2 3/98
UESTIONS BY OBSERVERS/OBIECTORS
� Bruce Unl, 701 Woodrid�e Trail Deerwood• How often does the EPA monitor the dust and
noise levels? Miller replied once or twice per year. They arrive unannounced and perform
the tests. Uhl asked the location of the testing. Miller said they test wherever they choose,
in various locations. Uhl asked if Meyer Material is provided with the results of the tests; how
do they fare? Miller said results are provided only if they are not satisfactory. To date, no
results have been provided to the Petitioners. Uhl asked the location of the test borings.
Miller st�ited the borings were done in various places on the subject property. Uhl asked if
the overburden would be sold, stored, or what would become of it. Miller said the
overburden, which includes the soil, clay, and dirt on top of the sand and gravel vein in the
earth, would be stored until reclamation on that specific area is being done. At that time, the
overburden would be used as a part of the restoration process. The entire pit area would be
restored by 2018.
Crista Romanowski 1716 Bull Ridge Drive Bull Ridge• Was this property envisioned to be
residential according to the McHenry County Plan? What justification is there for creating an
Agricultural-Mining Overlay so that this property can be used for industrial purposes. Semrow
noted there is a precedence for this situation existing in the City of McHenry adjacent to
Glacier Ridge Subdivision. Romanowski asked what guarantees there are that this proposed
expansion will not affect the water table; what will be the consequences if the water table is
adversely affected? Miller said the mining of the gravel would not adversely affect the water
table. There would be no dewatering. Romanowski asked what plans are in place to improve
the aesthetics along the proposed berm and fence on Ridge Road. Miller said the berm would
�, be constructed 50 feet inside of the property line. Plantings would be placed on it.
Romanowski asked the height of the berm of Route 120. Miller responded it is 30 feet high.
Miller indicated he has spoken to residents adjacent to Ridge Road who did not want to see
a 30 feet high berm constructed along Ridge Road; they did not want to look out their
windows upon a 30 feet high berm. Romanowski stated she would prefer a higher berm than
15 foot along Ridge Road. She asked the decibel level as measured next to the rock crusher.
Miller replied it is 95 DBA. Romanowski asked if the location of the crusher would be
changed. Miller responded it will be moved as a part of the processing plant move which will
be accomplished by August, 1998. This move is a requirement of the 1988 Annexation
Agreement with the City of McHenry. Romanowski asked the proposed location of the crusher.
Miller said it would be approximately 1/3 to 1/2 mile east of Ridge Road, and approximately
2/3 mile north of Burning Tree Subdivision. Romanowski asked what guarantees there would
be that no access would be permitted from the pit onto Ridge Road. Miller responded only
the only one access point was permitted by annexation agreement, in addition to the Dot Street
access point. The gated access point is already delineated along Route 120. There would be
no direct access onto Ridge Road. Romanowski asked the hours of operation of the processing
plant. Miller said the crusher is operated from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on Monday through
Saturday. Washing is a 24 hour/day operation.
Kathv LaRocco, 7501 Timber Trail Deerwood• Are there no environmental impact studies
required by the EPA? The City should consider this before the annexation takes place. Is City
water available in this area? Semrow stated City water does not extend into this area; private
� wells service the residents and businesses in the area. LaRocco asked how dust and noise are
monitored. Miller said the EPA monitors the dust leaving the premises. Sound levels are
measured at the property line.
Page 5
ZBA-Me�✓er
2/23/98
Donald f'almer representing Smith Engineering noted the EPA has certain standards that must
� be met v��ith regard to particulate matter. These standards must be met. LaRocco asked where
inquiries could be made as to the results of these IEPA tests. Palmer indicated the IEPA should
be contacted for results.
Lovett noted he had contacted the IEPA regarding Meyer Material. The IEPA reports there have
been no complaints made to the IEPA regarding Meyer Material since this operation began in
1954. He said the IEPA customarily tests in zones that are of particular interest. Lovett asked
what safety precautions are taken when employees use the crusher. Miller stated the Mining
Safety HE�alth Administration Act (MSHAA) governs the safety of the equipment and use of the
equipment in the pit. Hard hats and ear plugs are required.
Richard Wasilewski, 6304 Chickaloon Drive Glacier Rid� Would the entire processing plant
be movec� to the new location by August? Miller said that is correct.
Allen Stensland. 7115 Burning Tree Drive Burnin Tree• What would be the affect on Meyer
Material if this Conditional Use and Variance were not granted. Miller stated at present there
are only about ten years left for the mining operation at this site. If this zoning action is
granted, it would increase the life of the pit another five to seven years.
Charles Stott, 1417 Ridge Road• Is it correct, there will be no direct access to Ridge Road?
Miller said that is correct. Is it also correct the processing equipment will be moved to a point
within 1/3 of a mile from Route 120 and 1/3 of a mile est of Ridge Road? Miller said that is
`, correct. The plant is being moved in response to conditions placed upon Meyer Material in
the 1988 Annexation Agreement with the City of McHenry. It is important to note the plant
would be moved regardless of whether the proposed annexation takes place or not. Stott
asked what type of fence would be installed along the exterior base of the berm. Miller said
it would be a farm-style fence with barbed wire at the top to prevent people from entering the
pit over the top of the fence.
Carole lohnson, 1319 Ridge Road• Why move the crusher equipment to the new location?
Semrow responded the crusher is presently being moved as a result of concerns being raised
by residents of Glacier Ridge and Wood Creek prior to the execution of the Annexation
Agreement in 1988.
Randv Patterson, 6322 Chickaloon Drive Glacier Ridge• Patterson stated he was a member
of the McHenry City Council when the Annexation Agreement was executed in 1988. To the
best of his recollection the berms were installed as a direct result of the concerns expressed
by the Glacier Ridge and Wood Creek residents. He noted with regard to the noise impact
created by the expansion of the pit, the prevailing wind is westerly and the abutting properties
to the west and south of this property would, for the most part, not be impacted by noise
created in the pit. Patterson asked if the Eppel Woods located in the midst of the original pit
adjacent to Glacier Ridge will be bermed and protected. Miller said the Woods is bermed to
the north and west. The south side will be bermed. Patterson asked if the City has the
capability of ineasuring the decibel levels. Maggio acknowledged the City has a sound meter
� and an inspector qualified to use it. Patterson asked if the phasing plan is currently being
monitored by the City. Miller said City Staff tours the facility annually in the spring. Patterson
asked if the site could be kept watered down to prevent dust blowing. Miller said all hauling
roads would be watered in the pit. Patterson asked if Meyer was planning to move the
Page 6
ZBA-Me�ier Material
2/23/98
corporat�� offices to McHenry. Miller said that is correct. The planned move is within the next
� two years.
Richard Wheelock, 6209 Chickaloon Drive Glacier Rid� Wheelock stated if the wind is
blowing the right way, the noise of the crusher and the washer can be heard on his property.
Wheelock asked if any reclamation has taken place at the Algonquin pit owned by Meyer
Material. Miller said not at this time. Wheelock asked if there are plans to expand to the
southeast onto the Shamrock Farm property. Miller said no.
lack Menaro, 1503 Burr Oak Court Bull Rid� Is it a law that gravel trucks must be covered
when leaving the pit? Semrow said that is correct. On all state highways, gravel trucks are
required to be covered. However, this is one law clearly not enforced on state highways.
Menaro asked if there was anything the City of McHenry could do to assure all trucks are
covered when they leave the pit. Could the Petitioners refuse to sell gravel to a hauler that
does not cover his load? Semrow indicated this is a policing problem and not a zoning issue.
Menaro asked if Valley View School or the parents of students attending Valley View School
have complained regarding dust levels in the school. Miller replied to his knowledge there
have been no complaints.
A general discussion occurred regarding property value depreciation, dust, and noise.
Diane Farina, 7817 Burr Oak Drive Bull Ridge• With regard to the proposed new location
for the crusher, would there be any flexibility - could this be moved to another location?
`, Miller reiterated the location of the crusher is being dictated by the 1988 Annexation
Agreement. Farina asked if the fence could be moved inside the berm. Miller said the
purpose of the fence is to keep people out of the pit. The fence would not perform its function
if it were to be placed inside the berm. Farina asked what type of fence is to be erected.
Miller said it is a six-foot woven wire fence.
Howell asked if a more appealing style fence could be installed. A lengthy discussion ensued
regarding the fencing style, purpose for the fencing and location of the proposed fence.
Carole lohnson, 1319 North Ridge Road• Could trees be planted between the fence and the
road in order to better screen the fence? Semrow noted the discussion was evolving toward
one of discussing issues which might better be discussed between the abutting neighbors and
the Petitioners. Inasmuch as the Petitioners have expressed a willingness to meet with the
neighbors and work out an amenable solution with regard to the fence and berm, this is a
moot point at this time. The Petitioner is not in a position at this time to commit to anything
as specific as fence style, etc., until he has met with those who have expressed concerns.
Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 9:29 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with
all members of the Board still in attendance.
Carole lohnson, 1319 North Ridge Road• Why does McHenry not get Meyer Material to take
better care of its property along Route 120? Community Development Director Napolitano
� indicated the City responds to complaints as they are made. Certainly, if complaints were
made relative to the property maintenance of this property, action would be taken.
Page 7
' ZBA-Me��er
2/23/98
Charles Stott, 1417 Ridge Road• Stott expressed concerns regarding the aesthetics of the
� property. Based on the condition of the berm along Route 120, he said he needs to have some
understariding regarding the quality of the maintenance of the property. Would the Petitioners
consider planting trees or ground cover on the berm. Semrow said this question supposed that
all parties involved could agree on what would be aesthetically pleasing to the eye on this
berm. Semrow said it would be good to combine all of the suggestions and make one
proposal to the Petitioner with regard to landscaping and property maintenance. Stott asked
if Meyer would be amenable to putting in vegetation to make the fence more appealing.
Miller said that could be taken into consideration as discussions regarding landscaping and
screening become more concrete.
Michelle Milach, 715 Silver Glen Deerwood• How many feet from the north Burning Tree
property line is the pit. Maggio noted there is a 100 foot setback required by ordinance.
Bob LaFever, 1807 Bull Rid�e Drive Bull Ridge• Is there a 100 foot setback from the western
boundary as well? Miller said it is 100 feet from the Ridge Road right-of-way.
lack Menaro, 1503 Burr Oak Court Bull Ridge• How many wetlands areas are located in
parcel A which is to be annexed? Donald Palmer noted the wetlands fall under the purview
of the Army Corps of Engineers. There are actually three small wetlands areas on this site.
Any wetland area which is touched in the mining process will require a permit by the Army
Corps. Meyer Material will be required to follow the permit plan provided by the Army Corps.
Menaro asked if the EPA Study has been done? Semrow stated no Environmental Impact Study
�, was required by the EPA prior to issuance of the mining permit for expansion of the pit.
Menaro asked if the Army Corps has issued the wetlands permit yet. Palmer indicated this
permit has not been issued at this time.
Diane Farina, 7817 Burr Oak Drive Bull Rid� The Environmental Study was not done on
the newly purchased property. What about the existing pit. Semrow replied the conditional
use permit for mining is only being requested for Parcel A. Parcel B has been issued the
conditional use permit already.
_Robert Farina, 7817 Burr Oak Drive Bull Ridge• When will this Petition go before the City
Council. Attorney Rausch responded the matter will go before City Council within 60 days
as dictated by City Ordinance. Mr. Farina asked if the Petitioners would be willing to meet
with the abutting property owners before this matter goes to Council. Miller stated he would
be happy to meet with the abutting property owners.
Ekstrom asked if this were not subject to an Annexation Agreement, would this use be
permitted under County Zoning Ordinance. Miller said it would be permitted, however, a
conditional use permit would still be required.
Attorney Rausch went over the Approval Criteria for Conditional Uses as found in Table 31
of the Zoning Ordinance. He then went over the Approval Criteria for Variances as found in
Table 32 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments as
� found on Table 33 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Howell asked when Meyer Material first decided to purchase and add this land to the pit.
Miller responded the negotiations began 4-5 years ago.
Page 8
' ZBA-Me�•er
2/23/98
Lovett said that with regard to the Approval Criteria for Variances in Table 32, it states that
� special circumstances exist...What are your special circumstances? Miller said it would cause
a burden if the extension were not granted, in that additionat hearings before the City Council
and Zoni�ig Board of Appeals would then be required to comlete the currently planned mining.
Addition�il fees would have to be paid. If violations occur, the automatic extension would no
longer bE� valid as stated in the Petition.
STATEMENTS BY OBIECTORS/OBSERVERS
Chairman Semrow swore in the following objectors prior to their statements being given to the
Board:
ack Menaro, 1503 Burr Oak Court Bull Ridge• "Meyer Material has been in business since
1953. W'hen we moved onto Ridge Road, we did not know that Meyer Material was going
to have commercial and agricultural development at this location. I do not want to look out
my front window at a 30 foot berm. The berm should be setback further from the road. The
Petitioners should consider erecting the fence on the inside of the berm rather than on the
outside where it will be an eyesore to look at. An effort should be made to make this berm
and the fencing as attractive as possible. I would ask for some consistency with regard to the
height of the berm. I would hope the City would be willing to work this out with the
Petitioner so that this berm and the fence would be pleasing to the eye and appealing and not
be an eyesore. Miller responded he has an 'open door policy' with regard to his neighbors.
He invited Mr. Menaro to meet with him in order to work out an amenable landscape plan for
�, the berm."
Bruce Uhl, 701 Woodridge Trail Deerwood• "In 1988, Meyer Material purchased the gravel
pit from the Miller Family. Four years ago they decided they needed more land. Meyer
should stick to their guns."
Crista Romanowski, 1716 Bull Rid�e Drive Bull Rid� "I appreciate the offers to cooperate
with the homeowners. I object to the proposal. This is not consistent with development along
Ridge Road. This could happen further down Ridge Road and additional industrial uses could
invade our residential property. This industrial use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and existing residences along Ridge Road. I don't think this is wise or consistent. I am
strongly opposed to it."
Richard Wasilewski, 6304 Chickaloon Drive Glacier Rid� "In the past, in 1987, many
mistakes were made. By not pinning Meyer Material down to specific dates and tieing dates
to the approved Reclamation Plan, they are not made to comply with the agreed upon
schedule. I believe the time frame for completion of the mining of this property should be
shortened and not lengthened. It might be wise to limit to a shorter time frame in order that
the Petitioners would be required to come before this Board to make sure they are on task with
their approved plan."
CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
� Attorney Rausch noted that everyone has concerns. As many of the concerns expressed as
possible v��ill be addressed by the Petitioners prior to presentation of the Petition before City
Council for action. The Petitioners run an exemplary business. Meyer Material stands on its
record. The relocation of the crusher further west on the property is in compliance with the
, Page 9
ZBA-Me��er
2/23/98
1998 Annexation Agreement. It is not a part of the Petition before the Board at this time. The
� Petitioners are requesting the subject property be reclassified from A-1 to RS-1 with an A-M
Overlay, and that a Conditional Use Permit be granted to allow gravel mining on Parcel A.
In addition, they are requesting that a Variance be granted to allow the mining process for 20
years rat{�er than the ten permitted by the Conditional Use. Rausch asked the Board to
consider the requests at this time and to make a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the Petition.
CLOSINC; STATEMENT BY OBIECTORS
Crista Romanowski, 1716 Bull Rid�e Drive Bull Ridge• "We have put much money into our
investment. We also live here. We hope we are at least as important and as equal as the
corporati��n who seeks to have this use granted and that you will listen to us."
Semrow �isked Rausch if any purported violations would be addressed within the text of the
Annexation Agreement. Rausch indicated that is correct. Semrow stated the Annexation
Agreemer�t then becomes an enforcement vehicle.
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Lovett to recommend to the City Council that
1 . The following be granted upon Annexation of Parcel A (117 acres):
a) Map Amendment - RS1 Single Family Residential Zoning District with an A-M
Agricultural-Mining Overlay District;
�, b) Conditional Use Permit - to allow gravel mining operation;
c) Variance to extend ten year limitation for conditional use for gravel mining
operation to Year 2018;
2. The following be granted to Parcel B (existing 409 acres currently being
mined and within corporate limits):
a) Variance to extend ten year limitation for conditional use for gravel mining
operation to Year 2018;
that the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, Table 33 of the Zoning Ordinance, page 401,
have been met; that the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits, Table 31, pages 357-
358, have been met; and that the Approval Criteria for Variances, Table 32 of the Zoning
Ordinance, pages 377-378, have been met.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Cadotte expressed his concern with automatic extension of the 10-year conditional use for an
additional ten years.
Howell stated he empathized with those who expressed concerns over the changes being
contemplated for Ridge Road and the rural atmosphere currently in existence there. At issue
is not whether it will be developed, but how it will be developed, and will it be harmonious
with existing development in place. Howell stated the EPA issues are within purview of the
Zoning Board. Traffic impact is within the Boards area of concern. There is already a negative
� impact by the pit on local traffic. He stated he is not in favor of extending the time frame for
that negative impact. Aesthetics are also in the Board's purview. The Zoning Board is the
guardian of the aesthetics of the community at large. These are legitimate concerns being
expressed. He asked the question - is mining compatible with existing Estate zoning which
Page 10
� ZBA-Meyer
2/23/98
is already in place along this corridor. He stated he is not sure it is. Does McHenry want to
� encourage industrial activity in the Estate District?
Semrow noted that if the RS-1 with an A-M Overlay is granted, it would provide 20 years to
completely mine the property. If this is the final extent of the mining vein, he said he can not
see any purpose in having the Petitioners come back before this Board in 10 years. The city
has the ak�ility to monitor the operation and enforce any violations which would occur. There
are safe �;uards. It would behoove us to let the business run it course. Regarding traffic
concerns, gravel spewing out of the trucks, he stated the Petitioner noted there would be no
increase in output or increase in traffic.
Cadotte asked if this would be merely an inconvenience, not a hardship, if the Petitioners
would be required to come back before the City and this Board again in ten years. Semrow
said he believed it would be a hardship. There would be no reason for them to come back,
but they �vould have an additional expense of zoning filings, attorney fees, etc.
Howell noted that the rate of residential growth in this area is unknown at this time. There
may be many other residences that will be impacted by this use after ten years, and that the
City should be able to look at these issues again.
VOTING ON THE MOTION
Chairman Semrow called for a vote on the question.
Voting Aye: Ekstrom, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow.
� Voting Nay: Cadotte, Howell.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen.
Motion carried 4-2.
ADIOURNMENT
Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Lovett to adjourn the hearing.
Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen.
Motion carried 6-0. This hearing was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S row, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City
� Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy,
Petitioner, Objectors (9), B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman,
Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, File Copy. Z-443