HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 9/15/1997 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
CITY OF MCHENRY
�
CITY OF P�ICHENRY PROPOSAL FOR ) Z-437
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
GTY COUNGL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on September 15, 1997. Chairman
Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1 . Zor�ing Board Members: George Cadotte, Randy Christensen, Paula Ekstrom, John
Howell, Chuck Lovett, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: None.
2. Att��rney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer
4. Cit�i Planner: Phillip Maggio.
5. Petitioner: McHenry Landmark Commission represented by Chairman Nancy Fike, 333
South Green Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
�
6. Attorney for Petitioners: None.
7. City Council Members: Alderman Glab.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Objectors: None.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on August 23, 1997. Publisher's
Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's Office. Notice
was posted on the Municipal Bulletin Board.
SUMMARY
Chairman Semrow stated the City of McHenry Landmark Commission is proposing the City
adopt an Historic Preservation Ordinance and has requested the Zoning Board of Appeals
review the proposed Ordinance for input, amendment, modification, etc. The purpose of this
hearing is to obtain input and comment from the Board prior to implementation of such an
ordinance. Semrow asked Ms. Fike to proceed.
�
Page 2
ZBA-Landmark
9/15/97
Fike introduced members of the McHenry Landmark Commission who were in attendance for
� this hearing:
• Carol Jean Smith
• Lori Wilhelm
• Hank Nell
• Greg Lofgren.
Also in attendance was a member of the Crystal Lake Landmark Commission and Donald
Doherty, McHenry County Board. Fike noted the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
was based on the County Ordinance; however, it also implemented portions of the Crystal
Lake and Woodstock ordinance as well.
McHenry County instituted the McHenry County Historic Preservation Ordinance in 1990.
The City of McHenry was one of the first communities to create a Landmark Commission. The
Landmark Commission was created in 1985 as an introduction to the City Sesquicentennial
Celebration in 1986. The existing Landmark Commission is charged with the following:
• Foster historic preservation in the community
• Explore funding alternatives to assist in historic preservation
• Review all city policies and ordinances with regard to landmark issues
• Designate historic landmarks within the City's corporate boundaries.
The Landmark Commission compiled an historic landmark survey, the results of which were
given to the City Council in 1988. The Landmark Commission has previously attempted to get
a demolition ordinance passed, but was not successful in this endeavor. Fike stated the City
� must have balance between newer structures and older, more historical buildings. This offers
an opportunity for variety. The City needs to take the lead as far as preserving the City's
heritage. An historic preservation ordinance would take confrontation out of the issue and
provide for a process whereby historical structures could be saved for posterity. The Landmark
Commission is hopeful the Historic Preservation District would be incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Fike stated we all accept the concept of regulation in some
for or another - Historic Preservation must be regulated.
GENERAL DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND INPUT BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
General discussion regarding the proposed ordinance followed with the resulting points
bringing the greatest input from the Board:
• Concern regarding the flow chart. It would appear that any building nominated
for Landmark status would be granted same. Fike indicated provision has been
made regarding the Council being able to deny a request for landmark status.
• Only 10% of residents or business owners of an area request landmark
consideration and the process begins - very small percentage making request;
does not seem fair to remainder of property owners in area. It seems that one
property owner desiring landmark status for an area could control the property
rights of the other nine property owners in his area.
� • Once a structure has been nominated for landmark status, the owner is required
to comply with ordinance requirements, regardless of whether he would like the
designation or not. This seems like a lot of power over a property owner, and no
designation of landmark status has been granted yet in the process.
Page 3
ZBA-Landmark
9/15/97
• Historic preservation restrictions kick in once the nomination is made - prior to
� the designation of historic landmark being made.
• Certificate of Appropriateness- lot of power given to Landmark Commission at an
early stage in the process. This power should rightly be maintained by the City
Council, which is comprised of elected officials.
� Property owners rights are being violated - their freedom to do building
alterations, repairs, remodeling and maintenance is threatened by the text of this
ordinance. It was the consensus of the Board that a building owner should have
more freedom with regard to his property.
• Who has right to nominate building for landmark status - should this be done
against owners wishes.
• Concern of the Board regarding whether or not a designation of landmark status
against the owners wishes could constitute a taking.
• Landmark Commission would appear to have more power and authority than the
City Council or the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was suggested the Landmark
Commission could be a recommending body with no more power than the ZBA.
It was further suggested that all rule-making text be removed from the ordinance.
� • Everyone would have to comply with the ordinance - there would be no such
thing as a pre-existing non-conformity, as is found in the Zoning Ordinance.
Owners would not have a choice; they would have to comply with the ordinance.
• Determination should be made as to the legality of the ordinance with regard to
a legal taking.
• Historic Preservation is recognized as a legitimate government purpose.
• Clarification of all definitions; inclusion of any/all terms which are used in the
ordinance.
• Clarification between "nomination" and "designation" as landmark.
• Maintain spirit of historic preservation ordinance, but soften as far as regulatory
powers and authority of Landmark Commission.
• No spirit of "fairness" in the ordinance.
• Nomination as landmark should be done by City Council and not Landmark
Commission, especially if property owner is not in favor of such designation.
� • City Council should grant Certificate of Appropriateness and Certificate of
Economic Hardship and not Landmark Commission.
• Ordinance should contain approval criteria for designation as landmark.
Page 4
ZBA-Landmark
9/15/97
• What kind, how much Staff support would be required by the implementation of
� this Ordinance.
• Bifurcation of the process between those property owners who want the landmark
designation and those who may contest the designation and the consequences.
• Slight shift in balance so that the City Council would be the final authority.
• Enforcement difficulties - who would enforce the ordinance.
ADIOURNMENT
Motion by Lovett, seconded by Howell to adjourn.
Voting Aye: Cadotte, Christensen, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried 7-0. This hearing was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�. l
� �
Harry Se ow, Chairman
Zoning B ard of Appeals
c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City
Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy,
Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, Star
Newspaper, City Clerk File Copy.
Z-43 7
�