HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 12/9/1996 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
� DECEMBER 9, 1996
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
NORTHERN I:LLINOIS MEDICAL CENTER,NIMED) Z-422
CORP & HEALTHBRIDGE CORPORATION FOR ) NIMC/NIMED
A TEXT AMENDMENT AND MAP AMENDMENT ) 4201 MEDICAL CENTER DR
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF )
THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY ) TEXT AMENDMENT
ILLINOIS. ) MAP AMENDMENT
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 December 9,
1996 . Crairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7 : 35 p.m.
The follo�ving persons were in attendance :
l . Zoning Board Members : Thomas Burr, Randy Christensen, Frank
McClatchey, Harry Semrow, John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent :
Chuck Lovett .
2 . Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle .
�.
3 . Recording Secretary: Harry Semrow.
4 . Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5 . Petitioner: NIMC/NIMED/Healthbridge represented by James
Redding, CEO and Director Anthony Pintozzi, 5201 Medical
Center Drive McHenry, Il . 60050 .
6 . Attorney for Petitioners : Bell Boyd and Lloyd represented by
D. Scott Hargadon, Three First National Plaza, 70 West Madison
Street Suite 3300, Chicago, Illinois 60602 .
7 . City Council Members : Mayor Cuda, Alderman Locke, Alderman
Baird, City Clerk Althoff, City Administrator Jordan. Also
Present : Plan Commission Chairman Sheppard.
8 . Court Reporter: Cheryl Barone .
9 . Observers :
l . Mary Popastefan, 4302 Shamrock Lane McHenry, IL 60050
2 . Christine Johnson, 4406 W Shamrock Ln ##lA, McHenry, IL.
60050
3 . Donald Long, 4400 W Shamrock Ln #2A, McHenry IL 60050 .
4 . Hilda Austin, 4308 Shamrock Ln #1C, McHenry, IL 60050
�
`..- Page 2
ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
5 . Theresa Schaft, 4308 Shamrock Ln #1C, McHenry IL 60050 .
6 . Edith Winslow, 4308 Shamrock Ln #1C, McHenry IL 60050 .
7 . Tom Curski, P O Box 1690, McHenry, IL 60050 .
8 . Frank Mundt, 4406 W Shamrock Ln, McHenry IL 60050 .
9 . Barbara Figueroa, 4402 W Shamrock Ln #BB, McHenry, IL
60050 .
10 . Nancy May, 4308 W Shamrock Ln ##2D, McHenry, IL 60050
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on
November 21, 1996 . Publisher' s Certificate of Publication is on
file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk' s Office .
Notices were mailed to all abutting property owners and the subject
property was posted with a sign as required by City ordinance .
Affidavit of compliance with regard to notification requirements is
on file in the office of the City Clerk.
LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
The subject property is located at 4201 Medical Center Drive,
McHenry, Illinois, 60050 and is currently zoned 02 , C5 and Al
(pursuant to McHenry County Ordinance) Zoning District . The
� property is comprised of approximately 106 acres .
SLTMMARY
The Petitioner is requesting the following relief from the Zoning
Ordinance :
1) that the City of McHenry create a Hospital Care Zoning
District;
2) that the subject property be reclassified to HC District .
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the
Petitioner:
1) Robert Teska, Teska & Associates, 627 Grove Ave . , Evanston IL
60201 .
2) Gerald Lindgren, KLOA Inc, 9575 West Higgins Rd, Suite 580,
Rosemont IL 60018 .
3) James Redding, NIMED CEO, 4201 Medical Center Drive, McHenry
IL 60050 .
4) Anthony Pintozzi, Director NIMED Board, 4201 Medical Center
Drive, McHenry IL 60050 .
Attorney Hargadon provided an overview and background history for
the Board. He stated that NIMC (Northern Illinois Medical Center) ,
NIMED (Northern Illinois Medical Corporation) and Healthbridge
Corporation are all subsidiaries of Centegra Health Systems . On
December 18, 1995, there was a joint meeting of the Plan Commission
� and Zonina Board of Appeals . At that time, there was much
`.. Page 3
ZBA-NIMC
12/9/96
discussiori about the possible reclassification of the hospital
property from O-2 Office Park to HC Hospital Care District . A
report of that joint meeting was included with packets for this
hearing. Hargadon said that this matter was presented to the Plan
Commission for review on September 19, 1996 . He stated that a copy
of that transcript was included in the packet for review by this
Board. Semrow noted that the summary was included in the packet,
however, the transcript of the Plan Commission meeting was not . He
asked that a copy of the transcript be forwarded to each member of
the Zoning Board. Semrow said that neither the summary nor the
transcript of the Plan Commission meeting corresponds to the
representation on record this evening.
Hargadon said the Petitioners are requesting that the City of
McHenry grant the following:
1) Creat:e a HC Hospital Care Zoning Distrct;
2) Reclassify the entire hospital campus (including the 4 acres
which is being annexed into the City, and the 5 acres which is
currently classified C5 Highway Commercial) to HC Hospital
Care District .
� The hospital is situated on 12 acres . The NIMED property
surrounds the hospital and is comprised of 87 acres .
Healthbridge Corporation holds title to 9 acres; 5 of these
are commercially zoned. The remaining four are not in the city.
The entire property totals 108 acres . Petitioner presented their
first exhibit consisting of an aerial view of the property as it is
presently developed.
Hargadon said the hospital is currently zoned as a conditional
use in the O-2 District as defined by City Zoning Ordinance .
Petitioners are asking to include certain uses that are conditional
under the existing O-2 District as permitted uses in the HC
District they are proposing to reclassify their property under.
Hargadon reminded the ZBA that as presently situated, the
petitioner must request and present evidence at hearings before the
ZBA and City Council prior to building any new buildings, or
significantly expanding any of the existing buildings on their 100+
acres property. The zoning ordinance clearly permits only one
building per lot in any zoning district .
The proposed HC District was derived using the Business Park
District as a guide . The Proposed HC District contemplates the
petitioner being excluded from the requirement of subjection to the
hearings described above when they decide to put in a new
conditional use or construct a new building on their property
�, without regard to the size thereof .
L.• Page 4
ZBA-NIMC
12/9/96
Petitioner' s proposed HC Ordinance defines accessory uses as
those retail uses petitioner has decided to include as such.
Accessory uses are confined to occupy l00 of the total floor space
presently existing. The proposed HC Ordinance contemplates that
floor space available to accessory uses will increase at the rate
of 1/lOth of every additional foot of floor space as the
development expands .
Petitioner contemplates approximately 100, 000 square feet of
commercially oriented medical-type facilities . Petitioner did not
define this term for the ZBA. The term is undefined in the
proposed HC ordinance .
Semrow noted that the Planning Commission Summary indicated
that the Petitioner contemplates an additional 567, 500 sq. ft . of
floor space bringing the total floor space available for the
proposed accessory uses to a total of 80, 000 sq. ft . He felt this
significant amount of floor space must be over abundant for uses
incidental to principal use of the hospital as petitioner' s
testimony had defined.
� The contemplated additional floor space does not include
additional floor space developed in a contemplated 120 bed nursing
home which would add to the available floor space available for
occupancy by accessory uses as petitioner' s proposed ordinance
defined that term.
Hargadon then addressed the HC bulk requirements explaining
that they are similar to, but more restrictive than, the bulk
limitations of the O-2 District .
Hargadon stated that because the petitioners do not want to
subdivide their property, the proposed HC District contemplates
elimination of the "One Building per Lot" regulation of the McHenry
City Zoning Ordinance .
Mr. Hargadon noted that a circulation plan was incorporated
into the petition. (Exhibit "G" , page 8 of the ZBA Petition) He
said that this plan must be approved by the City. The space
available for physical plant development would be defined as
property not devoted to the proposed circulation plan.
If approved, the circulation plan cannot be changed without
City Counr_il approval unless the proposed change is minor. Such
changes can be authorized by the concurrence of the Director of
Public Wox-ks and the Director of Building and Zoning. It is noted
that the Circulation Plan is neither mentioned in the text of the
proposed zoning ordinance nor was the change procedure in any
`. documentation presented to the ZBA. Additionally, the term "minor
change" was not defined for the ZBA.
`-- Page 5
ZBA-NIMC
12/9/96
Robewt Teska testified as an expert . He stated that Highland
Park, Evaiiston, Glenview and Hinsdale are four nearby communities
that have similar HC zoning in place as of the date of the hearing.
Semrow advised that he, on reading the petition and
supplemental information he contacted Hinsdale because he was
unfamiliar with Hinsdale' s Hospitals . He produced the copy of the
Hinsdale HC Ordinance that he' d acquired and noted that the purpose
of the ordinance was to preserve the residential character of the
community that surrounds that hospital and not to create an
opportunity for "at will" physical expansion as petitioners'
proposed ordinance contemplates .
Mr. Teska replied that the health care facilities in all four
communities he mentioned are located in residential areas . Teska
agreed that in each such community the Hospital is basically land
locked. He acknowledged that the purpose of the creation of a HC
district in each of the communities he named was to preserve the
residential character of the neighborhoods surrounding the hospital
facilities . He said that these communities and the community of
Lake Forest can only increase land mass by buying up residences in
� piecemeal fashion and replacing them with hospital facilities .
Teska authored the proposed HC District Ordinance that was
before the ZBA. He said that he modeled it after the McHenry
Business Park District . He then discussed Exhibit "F" where a
quantity of the permitted and conditional uses permitted on the
petitioners' properties as presently zoned are compared with a
sampling of the uses for the proposed HC District . Teska
corroborated Hargadon' s statement concerning density. He said that
the lowered density is a consequence of the trend in the health
care industry reducing the potential for dense development of the
hospital property. The proposed HC District incorporates a . 5
floor area ratio. The 02 District allows a 2 . 5 maximum FAR.
Hargadon stated that the Plan Commission met and was advised
of the Petitioners' proposed HC District on September 9, 1996 .
Minutes of that meeting were included in the printed material
furnished to ZBA members . Hargadon advised that he requested the
transcript of the Planning Commission proceedings be furnished to
the ZBA along with the Petition and exhibits . This was not done .
Hargadon stated that the Planning Commission approved the
proposed rirculation plan at that time . Semrow stated that the
summary didn' t reflect such approval . Planning expressly
disapproved any new access point .
�
`-- Page 6
ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
Harg��don indicated that petitioner was very desirous that
circulation plan be approved by the City. He advised that the
Petitioner_s had acceded to various request and recommendations made
by Staff with regard to the petition; they are :
1) Minimum district size of 100 acres increased from 50
acres;
2) "primary" principal use in HC District must be a hospital
facility;
3) any building with under 625 sq. ft . floor space will not
be visible from any roadway and will otherwise be
screened from all view;
4) Timely construction of all improvements will be assured
by construction guarantee;
5) Circulation Plan requirements (?) will comply with Staff
requests . Any modification will after receipt of City
approval;
� 6) FAR had been reduced to . 5
7) Requests for additional suggested definitions of proposed
HC District terminology have been furnished including
proposed definitions of "Hospital, "Pumping Station" and
"Accessory Structure" .
QUESTIONS POSED BY ZBA MEMBERS
MR. CHRISTENSEN
Asked Petitioner what would distinguish a Hospital as the
primary use on the property if there are more than one principal
use on the site . (i . e . , , all other principal uses thus being
subordinate to it) .
Mr. Lobaito, McHenry Director of Building & Zoning, said that
the first building permit issued in the proposed district should be
for the Hospital facility as defined in this proposed text
amendment . Other uses would then be permitted, but the primary
principal use would be the hospital facility.
�
Page 7
� ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
Chri;�tensen asked how many of the existing hospital
organizat:_ons who have HC District Zoning have the right to build
additiona=_ buildings without going back to the City for pre-
approval c�f some kind?
Teska said for the most part hospitals have that right in most
hospital districts .
Mr. McCLATCHEY
Asked why Petitioners are willing to restrict their property
as far as bulk and area requirements are concerned.
Mr. Teska responded; petitioner is restricting the property to
give itself more freedom with regard to medical accessory uses .
The intent is to develop the site as a planned medical campus .
Asked how the City will benefit by adoption of the proposed
district, Teska stated that the benefit to the City is the
assurance that this property will develop in a more upscale manner
than is minimally required by the O-2 District .
`' Asked if the tax structure would change, Hargadon, who stated
that he is not an expert in such matters, offered that the hospital
and its subsidiaries are not for profit . He stated that portions
of the Medical Office Buildings must pay real estate taxes .
Asked if the proposed roads would be dedicated to the City
would the City be physically and financially responsible for
plowing and maintaining them, Hargadon said that he was not capable
of answering that question at this time .
� Mrs. TOBECK
Inquired as to the zoning in place on the Centegra facility in
woodstock? Mr.Redding responded that the Woodstock property is
zoned M-1 Manufacturing with health care uses permitted. Memorial
Hospital is on 50 acres and is surrounded by an additional 65 acres
owned by Centegra or one of its subsidiaries .
Asked how many of each of the uses contained within the
proposed HC District would placed on the site? Hargadon stated
that there is no limitation on multiple locations implementing the
same use or uses pursuant to the proposed HC District . He
continued that the District only limits the physical dimensions of
buildings within the district .
�
Page 8
� ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
Mrs . Tobeck asked if the petitioner is planning to construct
all futurE� buildings or will land be leased to someone else who
would theri come in and build on the leased site .
Mr. Eargadon said that the petitioner would, in most instances
build and operate the enterprise . He volunteered that in the event
the land, or any part of it, was sold, the site might have to go
through stibdivision process .
Mr. SWIERK
Inquired that, presuming the land were indeed sold to another
entity with the proposed HC District controlling zoning, how would
the City police the parcel regulating which portion thereof would
be covered by accessory uses . Hargadon stated that the Building
Department would track the percentage of the site covered by
accessory uses .
Swierk also asked who would police where building would
appropriately be located under that circumstance and how McHenry
would insure that the circulation plan was followed by another
owner.
`' Mr. Swierk asked if other HC Districts have free standing barber
shops, flower shops or restaurants?
Teska stated that the HC Districts he is familiar with are located
in residential areas and do not have free standing commercial
building. He continued that some do have duplex buildings, nursing
homes, alcohol treatment centers and single family homes within
their HC Districts . He did not specify which locations had these
types of improvements or uses .
Swierk asked petitioner to explain how this proposed text amendment
would be of any benefit to the City of McHenry as opposed to simply
being a significant benefit to petitioner.
Teska responded that the City should trust the petitioner to
develop the site as an upscale campus . He opined that the
resultant upscale campus will be the City' s benefit for
implementing the HC District that petitioner proposes .
Mr. Swierk stated that he did not disfavor accessory uses in the
District provided that each of them was related to medical or
health cax-e . The retail uses were problematical to him. He is
concerned that other retail enterprises in the McHenry area would
be a competitive disadvantage and discouraged from attempt to
�
Page 9
�- ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
establish themselves in this area when they would have to incur the
costs of and follow all formal zoning and administrative processes
while the petitioner and its subsidiaries would be exempt from
these ecoriomic and temporal expenses .
Swierk inquired of landscaping requirements .
Hargadon said that landscaping requirements of equal impact as
provided for in the BP District would be incorporated in the HC
District r.onsistent with petitioners' intent .
Swierk said that he would require that trash receptacles be
screened with materials which are the same as the building' s
architecture . He said that exemption for accessory buildings
should be disallowed and that all buildings on the parcel would
comply wit:h the architectural standards of the District .
Mr. Swierk asked petitioner what the plan would be for storm water
management?
Mr. Hargadon said that compliance with all applicable storm water
detention/retention regulations is required of petitioner.
� Mr. Lobaito stated that the Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding
storm water management would apply to Petitioner' s property.
Mr. Swierk asked if the existing child care center was subject to
general property taxation.
Mr. Pintozzi said that most of the children cared for in the center
are children of hospital employees and that whatever profits are
made are reinvested in the hospital which serves the community.
Mr. Swierk said private commercial enterprise cannot compete with
the not for profit status of the petitioner.
Fr. TOM BURR
Asked if the retail uses suggested as accessory uses in the
proposed HC District would be the only accessory uses permitted?
Mr. Hargadon said that is correct .
Mr. Semrow
Discussed with petitioners attorney and expert witnesses how
this hospital zoning would prohibit other hospital companies from
� coming int.o McHenry and competing with petitioner for healthcare
dollars .
Page 10
`-- ZBA/NIMIC
12/9/96
Semrow posed a hypothetical question for petitioner.
Recalling McHenry Hospital' s location on Main Street in McHenry,
wouldn' t a potential competitor who, finding that facility for
sale, be disadvantaged in competing with this hospital because they
couldn' t acquire HC zoning due solely to the fact that they didn' t
have 100 or more acres of property, despite the fact that they
could otherwise compete professionally?
The petitioner replied that such an entity could complete but
would have to acquire uses through conditional uses just as the
petitioner must do under the present zoning.
Mr. L�obaito stated that the Petitioner would not be allowed to
reduce the District below 100 acres . He said that the City does
not recogriize any of NIMC parcels as lots . The property has not
been subdivided and is recognized as one lot with the exception of
the property which is zoned C-5 and the property which they seek to
annex to the City.
Semrow stated that the HC District Ordinance petitioner
proposes states that all the uses listed in Table 9 of the McHenry
Zoning Ordinance as permitted or conditional . This table lists all
� uses commercial, industrial and business park uses (See Petition,
Exhibit "E" ) . Semrow observed that Mr. Teska' s testimony suggested
that the proposed HC District would have a much narrower range of
uses than the existing O-2 District . He asked for an explanation
of this inconsistency.
Semrow stated that the comparison between O-2 and proposed HC
District uses (see exhibit "F" ) did not include all the uses in the
O-2 and HC Districts for comparison. He asked for explanation of
the summarization.
Hargadon said that in the proposed HC District Ordinance
petitioners have set out the uses that would be allowed. He
offered that is the basic building block of any zoning district .
In itemizing a list of proposed uses in the ordinance petitioners
have indicated uses they are proposing be permitted by right in the
HC District .
Attorney McArdle stated that is clear that Petitioners are
requestinq that the uses permitted in Table 9 be permitted in the
proposed �C District .
Semrow read the definition of "Accessory Use" as that terms
defined ir_ the McHenry Zoning Ordinance into the record. He then
stated that some of the uses Petitioner lists as Accessory do not
fit that definition. He said that Petitioners are redefining that
�. term for their own purposes .
Page 11
`.- ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
Mr. :�argadon opined that all accessory uses should not be
required t.o be located in the principal building. A discussion of
accessory uses ensued. This discussion did not result in any
consensus on which uses might fit the ordinance' s definition of
accessory use . There was no concession by an ZBA member that
Petitioner' s revised definition should be adopted to replace or
alternatively be included in the ordinance .
Semrow questioned why the petitioner was of the opinion that
"nursing home" should be permitted use within their property lines
and a conditional use elsewhere?
Teska said that because of the time required to go through the
zoning process, it would be difficult to meet the certificate of
need requirements . This implementation of the HC District would
expedite Petitioners' acquisition of such certification. The
difficulty is synonymous with delay.
Semrow questioned what benefit would inure to City residents
as consumers if potential competitors would be burdened with the
additional economic and temporal expenses this ordinance exempts
petitioners from? He opined that this would be anti-competitive in
� nature and would not prove beneficial to the City as a whole .
He stated that the public interest indeed might be served by
a nursing home located on petitioner property. However, any other
entity intending to bring such a facility into the community would
concomitantly be subjected to the resultant undue burden of going
through the conditional use process .
Semrow asked for an explanation of how the City would have
control over the building activities on petitioners property. He
asked for an explanation of how, in exchange for the latitude that
petitioner wants granted, and the surrender of control by the City,
any benefit would inure to anyone other than petitioner?
Hargadon replied that Petitioners are proposing a very
comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance . They have agreed
to reduce density on the site and there would be no subdivision of
the land under their ownership. The very comprehensive circulation
plan would have to be approved by the City. Hargadon said that the
proposed and conditional uses in the HC District are in compliance
with hospital related uses .
Semrow said that he believed that the City must protect itself
from the potential for abuse that results from the elimination of
the safeguards of the ZBA, Planning Commission and the City
Council . The City will be the apparently willing victim of what
� ever abuse takes place as a result of the passage of such a broad
unenforceable ordinance .
Page 12
�. ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
Semrow said that the idea of a twenty year building out
requiring the flexibility petitioners believe they need is absurd.
This is particularly true where petitioner is not required to
obtain a c�ertificate of Need for a laundry/dry cleaning facility,
restaurant� or other commercial use .
In light of the fact that Pacini is proposing some of the
identical uses for their parcel it would appear that petitioner
would be at a distinct advantage if Pacini had to acquire
conditional uses through normal channels; where on Petitioner' s
parcel the use would be permitted or, they could build first and
get conditional use approved later.
Mr. McArdle advised that Petitioner and Staff had engaged in
similar discussions over the past several weeks . He advised that
the consequence of those discussions is that Petitioner is not
willing to alter the Petition to move uses they desire as permitted
to conditional within their proposed District .
Semrow said that if the HC District was adopted as presented,
Petitioners would be allowed to erect a laundry, a dry cleaning
plant and a nursing home, the back side of which would be facing
� the abutting property owners in Irish Prairie . Abutting property
owners would have no forum in which to voice their grievances .
Mrs. TOBECK
Stated that it is the duty of this Board to serve the public .
The function of the Board is to provide a public forum whereby the
public has an opportunity to be heard, to ask questions and to
express their concerns regarding any given proposed zoning change .
If this HC District is adopted, the rights of the adjacent property
owners will be taken away. The only persons able to be heard or to
express their concerns are those that are present at this hearing.
Abutting property owners would be loosing no only their right
to be heard but quite possible their property values as well . The
Petitioners would be allowed to put in a dry cleaning plant, a
Laundromat, a flower shop and many other retail establishment
within 35 feet of the south property line, abutting residential
property. There will be no opportunity for these residents to
voice their concerns . If these retail uses remain as conditional
uses, the public would at lease have the opportunity to know about
the new use and have an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing
prior to the granting of any conditional use permit .
Mrs . Tobeck expressed her great concern about the precedent
this accommodation would create for other large parcels yet to come
� before the City.
Page 13
\..- ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS
BARBARA FIGUEROA
Are t:here currently plans to put in a laundry facility and a
nursing home?
Mr. Fedding replied that there is not at this time .
Would it be for the good of the community to put in a new
facility when the public has no choice in the matter and is unable
to voice concerns?
DON LONG
Why should the City grant the Petitioners carte blanche such
that they would only be required to come to the City for a building
permit? Not for Profit entities do not pay taxes to the City or
County such as I have to. Some one other than the Petitioners
needs to be in control .
Mr. Redding replied that NIMC is a community medical facility.
� There are 42 directors who are all community people . The hospital
has its heart the best interest of the community' s health care
needs .
FRANK MUNDT
If this district is granted, would the hospital be allowed to
build a laundry or dry cleaning facility 35 feet from my residence?
Semrow said that was correct .
Mr. Mundt said that he did not want any of the permitted uses
35 feet from his back door.
Semrow said that is why the public has a right to be heard and
to voice concerns about any proposed new project .
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY PETITIONERS
Mr. Hargadon asked the Board to deliberate and make a
recommendation at this time .
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY SWORN OBSERVERS
BARBARA FIGUEROA
�
Page 14
L. ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
"I tliank the Board for listening to us and our concerns . I
believe tYiat the Board understands our concerns . We believe that
we should have an opportunity to voice our concerns prior to any
new development adjacent to our property. "
Chair.man Semrow said "there being nothing further before this
Board with regard to the Petition, the Board will consider the
Petition at this time unless there is a motion to recess by a
member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair
will entertain a motion with regard to the petition" .
DELIBER.ATION AND RECOMMENDATION
McClatchey said that NIMC has done a good job in the
community. He said he is not convinced that taking complete
control away from the City with regard to the hospital is a good
thing.
Swierk said evidence was not provided indicating that there is
a need for this HC District . He said that he did not have a
problem with those uses that are medically related being in this
proposed district, but did not agree with the other uses which were
� more general in nature and do not require a certificate of need.
Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Swierk to recommend to the
City Council that the Petitioners' request that
1) the City of McHenry create a Hospital Zoning District;
2) the subject property be reclassified to HC District;
be granted and that Table 33 , the Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met .
Voting Aye : Burr
Voting Nay: Christensen, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck, Swierk
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent : Lovett
Motion failed 1 - 5
L
Page 15
�- ZBA/NIMC
12/9/96
VICKIE SHEPPARD
Askeci if Petitioners are planning to pursue the HC District in
spite of t.he lack of recommendation from this Board?
Hargadon said he would speak with clients prior to declaring
the intent to go forward.
Asked that the Planning Commission be notified of the date
this matter is presented to City Council for action.
Semrc>w asked that the members of the zoning board likewise be
notified of the matter being presented to the City Council for
action. Semrow asked that all ZBA Members be provided with
transcript.s of the Plan Commission meeting of September 19, 1996 and
that this transcript be made apart of the proceedings of this
hearing as well as the transcript of this hearing itself .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Swierk to adjourn this
� hearing.
Voting Aye : Burr, Christensen, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk,
Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent : Lovett
Motion carried 6 - 0
Chairman Semrow said "there being nothing further before this
Board with regard to this petition this hearing is adjourned at
10 : 33 P.M.
pec ul S bmitted
1 cT'.�1b�/
Harry emrow, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7) , Plan Commission
Members (7) , City Administrator, Director of Building and Zoning,
PW Admini;�trator (4) , City Engineers, Alderman Reference Copy,
Petitioner, Observes (10) , B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission
Chairman,Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, City Clerk File Copy.
�
Z-422