Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 7/18/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JU�Y 18, 1994 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTER f�F THE APPLICATION ) `'' OF HELEN BUSCN, TRUSTEE UNDER THE ) Z-345 PROVISIONS OF A TRUST AGREEMENT ) BUSCH-KNOX DATED FEBRUARY 9, 1977, AND KNOWN ) ZC?NING UPON ANNEXATION AS TRUST NO 10Q, AND MCHENRY STATE ) BANK TRUST NQ 4705 FOR ENTRY INTO ) AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH AND ) AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) CC?UNTY, 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 July 18, 1994. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:35 �.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zaning Bc�ard Members: Randy Christensen,Emil Kleemann, Frank McClatchey,Harry Semrow,John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Richard Adamson. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recordin� Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer. 4. Director af Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. � 5. Petitioners: Represented by Helen Busch, 219 James Road, Spring Grove, Illinois 60081. 6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Thomas Rupp & Associates, represented by Thomas Rupp, P.O. Box 745, McHenry Illinois 60050. 7. City Cnuncil Members: Mayor Cuda, Alderman Bates, Alderman Baird, Alderman Locke, City Clerk Althoff. $. Caurt Reporter: Cheryl Barone. 9. Objectors/Observers: 1. Karen Burns, 706 S Emerald Drive, McHenry. 2. Jerry Yencich, 225 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 3. Kim Yencich, 225 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 4. Mike Moushey, 229 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 5. Kim Moushey, 229 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 6. Steve Lohr, 227 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 7. Kim Lohr, 227 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 8. Kathy Service, 231 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 9. Kolleen Afeld, 232 S Loch Glen, McHenry. 10. Bab Hettermann, 211 S Valley Rd, McHenry. 1 1. Scott Persky, 1 10 Augusta, McHenry. 12. Harry Dukas, 217 S Valley Rd, McHenry. 13. Mark Stuckel, 216 S Valley Rd, McHenry. � 14. Dorothy Bangle, 706 S Broadway, McHenry. Page 2 ZBA-Busch/Knox 7/18/94 15. Harry Diedrich, 403 N Green St, McHenry. 16. John Warner, 212 S Valley Rd, McHenry. �' 17. Edna Mae Johnson, 210 S Green St, McHenry. 18. Dorathea Rodiek, 3500 W Biscayne, McHenry. 19. Karen Nolin, 330 Richmond Lane, Crystal Lake, 6Q014. 20. John Vlcek, 805 S Pearl Ave, McHenry. 21. Randy Patterson, 6322 Chickaloon Dr, McHenry. 22. Vernon Ehredt, 3220 Bull Valley Rd, McHenry. 23. Kathy Reese, 3303 W Bull Valley Rd, McHenry. 24. Frank Ehredt, 2911 W Prairie St, McHenry. 25. Paul Antens, 3321 Bull Valley Rd, McHenry. SWEARING IN OF OBJECTORS/OBSERVERS Chairman Semrow swore in all ObjectorslObservers who intended to speak at these proceedings. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Natification af this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on July 1, 1994. The Publisher's Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Abutting property owners were notified by certified mail of these proceedings. Subject property was posted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. An Affidavit ascertaining all of the above is on file in the office of the City Clerk. LOCATION The subject property is located north of the intersection of Bull Valley Road and Green Street, bath east and west af Green Street. The property is comprised of approximately 68.9 acres and is currently not within the jurisdiction of the corporate limits of the City of McHenry. SUMMARY � The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be zoned as follows upon annexatian to the City of McHenry: RS-2 Single Family Residential 12.5 acres RM-1 Low Density Multi-family 4.8 acres O-1 Local Office District 3.2 acres 0-2 Office Park District 6.0 acres G 1 Convenience Commercial 8.5 acres OS Open space 20.9 acres ROW Bull Valley corridor 1 1.0 acres Total 68.9 acres The open space would be classified in the most restrictive zoning district subject to Chapter III, paragraph D, of the Zoning Ordinance. TESTIMONY Attorney Rupp stated that this Petition was last before the Zoning Board on April 13, 1992. The Petitioners are presenting an amended Petition which reflects changes from the Petition which was presented in 1992. The testimflny presented in 1992 stands for the record. Rupp provided an overview of what was requested in 1992,and the various changes in concept which have occurred since that time. The plan which is before this Board this evening is the Concept Plan, revised 6/22/94. QUESTIQNS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD McClatchey asked if there would be adequate capacity in the waste water treatment plant to suppart this development. Lobaito said that would be a function of the Plan Gommissian, to determine utility capacity, `'' water service origif�ation, etc. Lobaito said these items have not been an issue up to this point. There is a waste water treatment plant upgrade planned to take place within the next three years, however. Page 3 ZBA-Busch/Knax 7/18/94 Tobeck asked thai the City Council consider this issue, and make a determination as to how the City would `' handle the additianal usage of sewer from this development. Swierk said that at the hearing in 1992, there was no definite alignment for the proposed Bull Valley Road extension. Now that the exact location is known, have there been traffic studies done in order to determine how much traffic this project would generate. Rupp said there has been no traffic study. The Petitioners will not actually develop this property. Someone else would purchase and develop this property. Swierk asked if all concerns presented by the Plan Commission at the meetings in 1992 have been addressed by the revised Cancept Plan. Rupp said that without a specific question, he is not certain exactly what concerns of the Plan Commission were being referred to. Because the essence of the proposed plan is in line with the Comprehensive Plan for the City, it would not be necessary that the proposal be re-presented to the Plan Commission at this time. Kleemann asked the distance between the existing Bull Valley Road and the proposed Bull Valley Road extension. Rupp said the average distance would be in the neighborhood of 150-200 feet. The existing Bull Valley Road would remain as is, in order to provide access to existing residents who live adjacent to it. Swierk said the green space between the old and new Bull Valley Road- who would it belong to? Rupp said it would be owned and dedicated to the County. It would become a part of the County Right of Way. Christensen said that originally there were approximately 190 multi-family units proposed for this project. What is the number of multi-family dwelling units being proposed at this time? Rupp said approximately 66- 68 units. Rupp said that the initial proposal for multi-family units was 266 units. That represents a decrease of 200 multi-family units. Lobaita said that with regard to this project going back to the Plan Commission for review, it is consistent `, with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the proposed zoning district boundaries changed considerably. Therefore, the Petitioners were directed to bring this matter to the zoning board far further review and recommendation. McArdle asked that the Petitioners provide the exact legal description for each zoning district prior to the approval by the City Council of this project. Swierk asked if there has been a wetlands study or a soils test of the subject property. Has there been a determination as to how drainage will be managed from and through the site? Swierk said that consideratian should be given to designate the 20 acres of wetlands as Conservancy Overlay District. Swierk asked which of the open space designated areas would belong to the City. Rupp said OS-3 and OS-1 would become City property. The areas indicated as OS-2 and OS-4 would be open, but would not be dedicated to the City; they could be used for off-street parking, etc, but no buildings could be erected upon them. The purpose of the OS-2 and OS-4 areas is to provide a open space viewing corridor of the municipal center. Swierk asked about the area at the northeast corner of Parcel 3 which is designated for wetlands mitigation. Lobaito said that wetlands areas and flood plain areas are required to be shown on the Final Plat prior to final approval by the City. The mitigation area is that which is set aside to replace any wetlands which may be used during construction on the remainder of the property. It would then become wetlands if it is used in mitic�ation. Christensen said that Valley Road which this develapment would exit onto in the east, wauld the developer put that road in and would it extend to the new Bull Valley Road extension? Rupp said the proposed southern extension of Valley Road is not a part of this development. The Petitioners do not own that property. QUESTIONS BY OBJECTORS/OBSERVERS Jerry Yencich: In the area designated as open space, are there springs running through the buildable land? Rupp said he did nnt believe there were springs on the buildable land. Yencich asked if the Petitianers would �' do anything to inc-ease the drainage from the site. Rupp said the Petitioners could not da anything that would increase the drainage from the site. Yencich asked what the elevation would be like of the commercial and/or office buildi igs. Rupp said the Knox family would not be developing the property. That questian can Page 4 ZBA-Busch/Knax 7/18/94 � not be answered at this time. However, the developers would have to adhere to the requirements of the zoning ordinance which provides for specific maximum height. Yencich asked if Valley Raad would be extended to intersect with Bull Valley Road. Rupp said that land is not owned by the Knox family and that matter would be up to the City and the land owner of that parcel to decide. Michael Moushev: Moushey asked the Petitioner to explain how the original concept plan indicated that the northeast corner oF this property showed wetlands mitigation and today's plan shows Lot 1 and Lat 2 Single Family Residential. Rupp said that the proposed wetlands mitigation area does not mean that this area is indeed wetlands. It is an area that could be used to mitigate when wetlands are built upon in other areas of the development. Rupp said that in actuality the mitigation area is not necessary because the commercial portion at the northeast corner of Green and Bull Valley has been deleted from the plan. Moushey asked why the Petitioners would like to change the zoning if there is no immediate intent to build upon this land and there is no developer in sight. Rupp said that the intent is to get the zoning approved so that the property can more easily be sold. Moushey asked why it was necessary to have multi-family zoning; why not go with all single family? Rupp said the land planner for the site suggested that a portion of the project be multi- family. However, the area of multi-family has been greatly reduced from the plan previously submitted to this Board. Christensen asked who determines the wetlands boundary and whether or not a mitigation area is required. Lobaito said the Army Corps of Engineers makes the decision on these matters. Harr�r Dukas: This is a proposed concept plan only. Valley Road is not a part of this development. We are not sure if it will be extended to Bull Valley Road. Isn't it true that use of this land, including the multi-family and single family units on the southeast corner of this parcel, is contingent upon the Bull Valley Road extension being built? Lot 1 and Lot 2 could not be built upon if Valley Road is not extended; they would be landlocked. Semrow said that is correct; if there is no frontage upon a city street, a lot is not considered � buildable. Rupp said that the concept plan before this Board is for purposes of illustration only. John Warner: There was a developer present at the last hearing regarding this project. At the last hea�ing, there was a plan which indicated that Valley Raad would extend to Bull Valley Road. Warner said he had concerns with a proposed straight shot of Valley Road extending to Bull Valley Road. People might be inclined ta use it for a shortcut through Green Valley subdivision. Bob Hettermann: Why does the City of McHenry need multi-family homes in this location? This part of town is single family all of the way from McHenry Shores up to the country club. Semrow said at the zoning hearing in 1992 reference this property, it was explained by the land planner that there is a definite need for multi-family housing in order to make housing accessible in McHenry. Semrow said that originally there were 266 multi-family units proposed and that has been reduced to 66 units. There is a need for multi-family housing in McHenry. The Petitioner has the capacity to ask for multi-family because the City af McHenry has zoning which allows multi-family housing and this proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan far the City. Hettermann asked who decides where the multi-family housing will be built in the city. Hettermann asked what type of use would be permitted in the commercial portion of the plan; could a gas station go in there? Semrow said that any permitted uses in the C-1 district would be allowed on this portion of the development. A gas station would require a conditional use. Paul Antens: If this development is approved, would the city build the Bull Valley Road? McArdle said the City will not build the road; the County would build the road. Scott Perskv: Could the County condemn this property and take it in order to build the road, if this development is not approved as presented? McArdle said the County could condemn the property, but haw the title af the property would transfer is another matter. `'' Kathleen Reese: I` this plan is not approved, will Bull Valley Road stay the way it is? McArdle said the County is banking an the city obtaining the required right of way. This Petitioner is willing to dedicate this right of way to the City who would give it to the County. Reese asked if Bull Valley Road is going to remain Page 5 ZBA-Busch/Knox 7/1$/94 as it is, why? Traffic in this location is terrible. If this annexation does not go through, why won't Bull �'' Valley Road be changed. She asked when are the residents who live along Bull Valley Road going to get an answer so they can have a residential street once again. Reese stated that residents who live along the existing Bull ValleY Road need relief from the traffic and fumes on this roadway. Jerry Ysncich: Did the City of McHenry know what would happen when they built the Bull Valley Bridge? McArdle informed Yencich that the County built the bridge. Yencich asked how easy would it be for the Petitianers to rezone the single family residential to office or commercial district. Semrow said the Petitioners would have to come back to this Board and the City Council in order to accomplish that. Yencich said Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the single family residential district at the northeast corner of the subject property would nat be accessible unless Valley Road is extended to the south to provide frontage far thess two lats. Semrow said that is correct. They would be landlocked and no one could sell them or build upon them unless there is frontage on a city street. Yencich asked how the proposed 66 multi-family units would impact the school system. Rupp said the impact on the schools would be minimal. However, there would be an increase in the tax base from the commercial and office districts included in the plan. This would offset any impact by the residential development being proposed. Lobaito said that both school districts had been advised of this hearing and were aware of the diverse zoning being presented for this development. Kolleen Afeld: Regarding the building of the Bull Valley Road extension, if this proposed annexation does go through, then there would still be no guarantee that the road would go in. The property to the east of this property would be required to provide right of way as well for this roadway extensian. McArdle said the County must secure title to the proposed right of way property east of the subject property before the road could be built. Mayor Cuda: The twenty acres immediately east of the subject property are owned by Edna Mae Jahnson. The City is currently in the process of negotiation for the purchase of this 2p acres. A portion of the 20 � acres would be used for the right of way for the Bull Valley Road extension. A portion would be used for parklands. The rest would be used for expansion of the Sauth Waste Water Treatment Plant. The county knows the city needs to obtain this property east of the Busch/Knox property. As of this date, however, there has been no discussion regarding the possible extension of Valley Road from Green Valley subdivision to Bull Valley Road. Alderman Baird: Baird stated that impact fees and developer donations would be addressed in the annexation agreement. Baird asked if the library property could be rezoned to multi-family. Rupp said he would not anticipate what might happen with the library property. In response to a suggestion by Baird that this may be spot zaning as far as the multi-family is concerned, Rupp stated that this could not be called spot zoning. Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 9:00 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:13 p.m. with all still present. Jerry Yencich: Has the City of McHenry ever proposed purchasing the Busch-Knox property. Rupp said he could not answer that question as it may break client confidentiality. M�Clatchey asked Rupp if the Petitioners would consider removing the multi-family district from the project. Rupp said they would not. The concept plan stands as presented this evening after many years of revising and updating according to requests of City Council and staff. Multi-family district must be included in this proposal. Bob Hettermann: If this project is approved, what would be the effect on the negotiatians with the property owner to the east (Edna Mae Johnson) and the City of McHenry. There was no response. Swierk said that the O-2 zoning district provides for no maximum building height. There are restrictions as far as the Floor Area Ratio is concerned, but there is no maximum building height. Swierk said that with �"' regard ta the area designated for wetland mitigation, this could ultimately bring wetlands right up to the property line of abutting residents to the north of this project in Green Valley subdivision. Rupp said the concept plan is for illustration purposes only. It is not certain at this time whether the mitigation area would Page 6 ZBA-Busch/Knax 7J 18/94 even be used for that purpose. Swierk asked Rupp if he would be willing to amend the concept plan to �'' delete the wetland mitigation area at the nortfieast corner of parcel 3 and to classify it as open space. Rupp said he would concede to that request. However, Lot 1 and Lot 2 in the proposed single family district at that location wou►d be buildable lots and not designated as open space. McArdle said this issue could be addressed in the Annexation Agreement and prohibit mitigation in this area. Tobeck asked if there would be adequate capacity at the Sauth Waste Water Treatment Plant to pravide sanitary sewer to this development. Potentially, there would need to be an upgrade to the sewer system to accommodate this development. It is not certain where water would come from ta serve this development. What is the potential traffic impact on Green Street. Much discussian has come from the traffic problems on Bull Valley Road; how will this development impact traffic on Green Street? What will be the impact on the children from McHenry Shores trying to get to Knox Park an Green Street in light of the propased c4mmercial and office development. Christensen asked Baird to explain how the fees he described would help with the impact of this development on existing services. Baird explained that water and sewer impact fees would be assessed; developer donations would be paid. In addition there would be an operations impact fee which would be payable at time af occupancy permit. McArdle said these fees would be included in the Annexation Agreement, McArdle said that what is difficult to enforce is which properties can be developed first if the Council chaoses ta try to have the developers put in the commercial and/or office development prior to the residential structures. Swierk asked why the open space lands are being donated to the City. Rupp said that the County required that the open space be donated to an ecologically-minded organization. The county did not want the open space privately owned. It is therefore being donated to the City. � STATEMENTS BY OBJECTORS/OBSERVERS Chairman ascertained that all of the following were sworn in prior to making statements before the Board. John Vlcek: "I was present two years ago when this project was presented to this Board. I am a former member of the Plan Commission. I went through the updates and revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan with John Gann. The ZBA has become a conduit this evening to hear the concerns of the public regarding this project. Many of the issues need to be brought before the City Council. This project shauld go back to the Plan Commission to examine the questions that were raised this evening. The City shauld not bypass the Plan Commission. I am concerned for the children of McHenry Shores. This sfiould be brought up before the Plan Commission and the City Council. We have gone from 266 multi-family units to 66 multi-family units. Progress will always continue. I have concerns about the schools; why aren't they represented here this evening? I urge the Zoning Board to put an addendum onto their vote. This project should go back to the Plan Commission for review." Scott Perskv: "In the game plan, there is no real need for multi-family housing in this location. Multi-family hpusing wauld reduce property values by at least S15,000 for existing single family homes in the area. If they are talking about Chesapeake Hills type multi-family development,that's another matter. Regarding the Bull Valley Raad extension, I agree that the bypass may be necessary. However, there would probably be 1Q0 more cars exiting out of the multi-family portian of this development which would cantribute ta an already difficult traffic problem. I believe the sellers are holding the City ransom for the Bull Valley right of way. They are saying give us the multi-family and we will give yo the right of way for the road. There are other multi-family units being proposed, such as in the area across from McDonald's. I am anti-qrowth. Sixty-six multi-family units represents new growth." Michael Moushey: "We need to bring our opinions to the forefront. I did not receive notice of this hearing and I am an abutting property owner. I urge the Petitioner to remove the existing wetland mitigation area; `' compromising thal area is an injustice. There is a tree line approximately 25-30 feet inland in that location. I also abject to Va ley Road extending to Bull Valley Road. I have concerns that it may go through. I have concerns for the rr ulti-family condominium cluster development. I would like to see additional justification Page 7 ZBA-Busch/Knox 7/18/94 to destroy 20 acres of natural habitat. This project should be given additional review before the City moves � forward." Harry Dukas: "I am surprised that the questions brought up before by Donna Tobeck have not been answered. There is no question that there will be concerns regarding McHenry Shores children being able to access Knox Park and the pool once this development goes in. These issues should have been addressed by some group from the City before tonight. Valley Road could become a short cut to Green Street from Bull Valley Road. This is a large multi-family complex;the city should be able to reach some sort of compromise. The city shauld continue with single family homes in this area and maintain some cantinuity. It would be more homogenous to the area." Lobaito said he personally could not answer the questions regarding water and sewer availability for the project; however, other City Staff could answer those questions. These issues have not been previously mentioned with regard to this project. Jerry Yencich: "I did not receive notification of this hearing. Our property values will decrease as a direct result of the develapment of multi-family housing and office buildings in this area. We stand to lose at least 515,000 in property value per lot. I also object to loss of wildlife in the area due to all of this development. I hate to lose the fox, deer and pheasants that we see everyday. That should not go by the wayside for the sake of development. It is distressing to have to see it go." Paul Antens: "Any decision you make should not hinder or delay the construction of the proposed new Bull Valley Road. It is set to begin in 1996, and it needs to happen." Kim Moushev: "I have basically the same objections as my husband who has already spoken with regard to this project. There is a natural setting behind my home. We were told when we purchased our home, that this was a wetlands. This is a wildlife habitat which will go if this land is built upon." � Alderman Gresa Bates: "The city needs to develop the Bull Valley corridor. Traffic fumes and traffic an the existing Bull Valley Road are difficult. My primary concern is not related to traffic for residents in the area, but industrial traffic to and from the Tonyan Industrial Park and McHenry Corporate Center. Industrial traffic needs to get to the east side of the city by way of a southern bypass. There has been no proper engineering with regard to this property. This will cost the City to maintain the wetlands. If there have been no soils tests as yet,they should be done. With regard to the impact on the schools, there would be no great impact created by this development. Any impact could be addressed by fees in the Annexation Agreement, This is not the only development currently before the city. There are more than 2,000 homes which have been approved for construction. This proposed annexation should be accepted or rejected on its own merit and not solely with regard to the Bull Valley Corridor. I ask the Zoning Board to consider this praject on its individual merits and not on the Bull Valley Corridor. The Bull Valley Corridor is a high priority with the County." ' Christensen asked Bates if the city had considered the impact on the people who live on River Road east af the river. Bates said he does not know the answer to that question. Christensen asked if there was a plan to extend Bull Valley Road east to Chapel Hill Road. Bates said he does not know. Persky asked if the corridor does not go through, yet the zoning for this project is approved, how wauld people get ta this subdivision. How would people get into this 66 unit multi-family complex? Rupp said there would be a right af way ar an easement to gain accessibility. Swierk said that with regard to the open space and maintenance of it, has the City set up a special service area ta cover the cost of maintenance. McArdle said it has not. Yencich said that if this is a wetlands area, what maintenance is there to pay for. Bates said there could be costs incurred with regard ta detention, retentian, grass cutting, flooding problems. Moushey said that with regard to the southern bypass for industrial traffic, would that include gravel trucks7 � Bates said industrial traffic would be traffic to and from Tonyan Industrial Park and McHenry Carporate Center to places w thin and outside of the City. Bates said the new Bull Valley Road will not decrease traffic; it will increase traific flow in this area. But, it would be on the new roadway and not on the residential Page 8 ZBA- Busch/Knox portion of it to the south. 7/1 S/94 �-' Alderman Bill Baird: "I have several concerns with this project. The Bull Valley corridor is an important link for pur City. An improved roadway would take vehicles away from the McHenry Shores subdivision, but traffic will increase. There are three live springs in the 5 acre parcel on the hill (Parcel 2 an Plat) which is proposed for RS-2 development. There should be more engineering. This should ga back to the Plan Commission for review. The Zoning Board voted against this project by a vote of Q-fi two years ago. The Plan Commission voted it down 1-4. At the City Council level, we are happy the Petitioner has removed the multi-family from the western portion of Parcel 1. The Pacini Property across from McDonald's is proposing to bring in 10QQ multi-family units. When the Council met with John Gann a couple of months ago, I asked him specifically if multi-family should exit out directly onto Bull Valley Road, which is an arterial roadway. He said it was not a good idea. The reason for denial of this project before was the abundance of multi- family which was a part of it. If there was no multi-family zoning request as a part of this praject, I cauld support it." General discussian followed regarding the fact that there were abutting property owners who perhaps had nat received written notification of this hearing. CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Rupp stated that the concept plan which is before this board has been honed and sharpened with regard to the concerns expressed by the City over the past few years. Engineering and traffic studies wauld be dane prior to the final development and platting of this project. Rupp said that with regard to accessing Knox Park by the children of McHenry Shores, there are plans to install a traffic light at the intersection of Bull Valley Road and Green Street. Rupp asked that the Board consider the Petition at this time and to call far a vote tonight. McArdle said that�roper notification is a matter relative to the City Zoning Ordinance and is not a statutory � requirement. If it were required by State Statute, this Petition would be thrown out. Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before the Board with regard to this matter, the Chair will entertain a motion regarding the Petition unless there is a motion to recess by a member ofi the Board." ADJOURNMENT Motion by Swierk, seconded by Christensen to recess this hearing until determination can be made as ta compliance with the notification requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Voting Aye: Christensen, Kleemann, McClatchey, Swierk, Tobeck. Voting Nay: Semrow. Nat Vating: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Adamson. Motipn carried 5-1. This hearing is recessed until August 8, 1994, 7:30 p.m. in the McHenry Municipal Center, Cauncil Chambers. This Board will reconvene with the same agenda_ This hearing was recessed at 10:31 p.rn. Respect ully su mitted, � E"�4JIG L�� Harry S row, Chairman Zoning Board af Appeals c: Agenda, Zc�ning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Capy, Objectors/Observers (21), Petitioner's Attorney, Building & Zoning Zoning File, Landmark �'' Commission Chairman, Narthwest Herald, City Clerk File. Doc/ZBAMIN.345