HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/22/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 22, 1993
CITY OF MCHENRY
�
IN THE MATTER �F THE APPLICATION OF )
THE HOME OF THE SPARROW, MCHENRY ) Z-358
COUNTY INTERFAITH SHELTER, FOR AN ) HOME OF THE SPARROW
AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT ) INTERFAITH SHELTER
CLASSIFICATION AND A USE VARIANCE ) 3701 WEST WAUKEGAN ROAD
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY )
OF MCHENRY , MCHENRY COUNTY , ILLINOIS )
REPORT OF TflE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COIINCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on January 25 , 1993 ,
recessed to February 15 , 1993 , and recessed again to this date due to the
late hour . Ch<iirman Semrow called the recessed hearing to order at 7 : 38 p .m.
The following persons were in attendance :
1 . Zoning Board Members : Richard Adamson, Randy Christensen, Wayne Dixon,
Emil Kleemann, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck and John Swierk.
2 . Attorney for the Zoning Board : Bernard V. Narusis .
3 . Recording Secretary : Marci Gera�hty
,L
4 . Director of Building and Zoning: John A. Lobaito .
5 . Petitioner : Home of the Sparrow represented by Phyllis Mueller, P . O . Box
343 , Mchenry , Illinois , 60051 .
6 . Attorney Eor the Petitioner : Scott Nolan, 3614 West John Street ,
McHenry , Illinois , 60050 .
7 . City Counc:il Members : Alderman Randy Patterson and Alderman William
Bolger .
8 . Court Reporter: None
9 . Objectors :
1 . Ruth Fenwick, 3719 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
2 . Tom Fenwick, 3719 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
3 . Ann Miller , 3809 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
4 . Gerhard Rosenberg , 3716 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
5 . Barbara A. Byron, 3811 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
� 6 . Mary E . Dixon, 3511 W. Washington St . , McHenry
7 . Cathie Schultheis , 3803 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
8 . John C ' Leary , 3705 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
9 . Holly Scott , 3619 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
10 . David Scott , 3619 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
11 . Mike Schultheis , 3803 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
�
Page 2
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
�
12 . Richard L . Smith , 3704 W. Main St . , McHenry
13 . Grace Ann Smith , 3704 W. Main St . , McHenry
14 . Kathie Ro: enberg, 3716 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
15 . Daniel PaFrocki , 3702 W. Main St . , McHenry
16 . Ann Beyer/Macey , 3706 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
17 . Thomas Mc�amara, 3804 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
18 . Jinny McNamara, 3804 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
19 . Cathy 0 ' Leary , 3705 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
20 . Debbie Lane , 3715 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
21 . Brent Lane , 3715 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
22 . Charles Macey, 3706 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
23 . Christine Paprocki , 3702 W. Main St . , McHenry
24 . Mary Jo Jcnes , 3706 W. Main St . , McHenry
25 . John Jone" 3706 W. Main St . , McHenry
26 . Catherine Miller , 3710 W. Main St . , McHenry
27 . Elsie Wilcox , 3815 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
28 . Kathleen �usbaum, 3810 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
29 . Marie Larkin, 1105 N . Third St . , McHenry
30 . Spence Byron, 3811 W. Waukegan Rd . , McHenry
31 . Dan Paprocki , 3702 W. Main St . , McHenry
32 . Richard L . Smith , 3704 W. Main St . , McHenry
33 . Ann Smith , 3704 W. Main St . , McHenry
34 . Frank W. Sek , M.D . , 3508 Shepherd Hill , McHenry
35 . L. David Treviranus , 4702 W. Northfox Lane, �65 , McHenry
�
It was noted i-or the record that the Objectors were not represented by
Counsel . There was no spokesperson for the Objectors .
LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
--------------------------------
The subject property is located at 3701 West Waukegan Road , McHenry,
Illinois , 60050 ; it is comprised of approximately 14 ,068 . 5 square feet .
SIIMMARY
The petitioner requests that the subject premises be reclassified from RA-1
to RM-1 to permit no more than three (3) dwelling units in the existing
building on th� premises or, in the alternative , that a use variance be
granted to allow no more than three (3) dwelling units ; that use variance be
granted to permit six rather than seven parking spaces ; that screening
requirements bE. omitted ; and that the front yard setback use variance be
granted to permit an actual front yard setback of 27 . 61 feet rather than 30
feet .
Chairman Semrow recapped the events of the last meeting and then asked the
Objectors if they had any other questions for Petitioner Mueller .
Attorney Nolan asked in lieu of questions he would like to ask Petitioner
Mueller some questions , either now or later in the meeting .
�
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
Chairman Semro�� stated that since we were in the middle of Objectors
questions Atto�-ney Nolan would get his change to re-direct later on in the
� meeting . Chai�•man Semrow again asked if there were any other questions the
Objectors woulcl like to ask.
QIIESTIONS OF T}[E PETITIONER BY THE OBJECTORS
---------------------------------------------
David Scott : Petitioner Mueller, do you consider Home of the Sparrow an
ethical organization? Petitioner Mueller said yes , a religious and moral one
as well . Scott asked her if she knowingly or unknowingly ever participated
in anything unethical . Petitioner Mueller responded no, knowingly or
unknowingly . Scott then said that perhaps Home of the Sparrow would consider
purchasing the home at 3701 W. Waukegan for a one or two unit dwelling only
and maybe one of the tenants could have a roommate . Semrow objected stating
that Mr . Scott ' s question included a statement as well . Attorney Nolan
objected and :;tated that was not why we were here . Scott disagreed .
Chairman Semro�� interrupted and stated that a reclassification of zoning or
use variance is why we were here . Scott then asked if the petition is
denied , would F:ome of the Sparrow still purchase the house . Nolan objected
stating the question was irrelevant . Semrow instructed everyone not to argue
and asked that Mr . Scott direct his questions to Petitioner Mueller .
Scott then asked the Petitioner Mueller if she was aware that the remodeling
was done in an illegal manner . Petitioner Mueller said she was aware of that
now, however, F`.ome of the Sparrow would bring this building up to code . It
is a Landmark huilding and Home of the Sparrow would be elated to have the
chance to restore it back to its original beauty . Scott then asked
Petitioner Muel.ler, how can you reconcile this? Petitioner Mueller stated
�ahe was not responsible nor is Home of the Sparrow for the work that was done
illegally, Scctt then asked , how do you feel about setting a precedence to
get a use variance through illegal means ; you are aiding and abetting . Nolan
objected .
Chairman Semrow told Mr . Scott that his question calls for a conclusion he is
not capable of making . His questions assume responsibility that Petitioner
Mueller cannot control . We all recognize something was done to this
building . We <<re all aware of that fact . Irrespective , the building will
look no differently tonight or any other night . We should not spend time on
fixing respons:'_bility . That is not why we are here . Those events have
already occurrE�d . Mr . Scott asked if he would get the chance to make a
statement . Chairman Semrow said of course .
Mr . Scott asked Petitioner Mueller, knowing how this transpired , how do you
justify becoming part of this? Nolan again objected and said we are beating
the same issue . Chairman Semrow asked Atty . Nolan to please address the
Board . Petiticner Mueller stated , I do take issue with that statement you
just made (referring to Mr . Scott) and consider that an offense to the Home
of the Sparrow and to this community . Chairman Semrow asked that no
\...
Page 4
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
arguments or dialogue take place . He said he understood , however , what
happened two years ago has no bearing on this meeting . Nolan placed an
�objection and Semrow sustained his objection.
John_0 ' Lea�: .� change was made in the petition asking for a u�e variance as
opposed to an amendment . Please look at page 34 of the City of McHenry
Ordinance book snder Public Notice . Has petitioner complied and published a
public notice in the newspaper? Chairman Semrow then asked Mr . 0 ' Leary if he
received his notice . Mr . 0 ' Leary said yes . Semrow also asked Mr . 0 ' Leary if
he knew of anyone who did not received their notice . Mr . 0 ' Leary said no .
Mr. 0 ' Leary stated the reason he asked those questions was to find out why
the petitioner did not have to start the notification process all over again
since they were changing their petition. Chairman Semrow said the use
variance is nothing more than a lesser change from the re-classification
originally requested . Because they are asking for less , and since the change
was made here at a ZBA meeting , there was no reason to re-notify. Mr .
0 'Leary then began to recite from Section F, Public Notice , pg . 34 from the
Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Semrow stated he was convinced the petitioner
complied with t:he regulations of notification and explained the petitioner
was not adding anything to the original petition simply asking for a lesser
change . The Chairman stated that the request is significantly less than
originally asked for . The original notice is adequate , it is a matter of
public record .
Chairman Semrow asked Atty . Narusis to explained to Mr . 0 ' Leary exactly how
the petitioner ' s request was amended . Atty Narusis began to explain that
originally the petitioner was asking for a change or re-classification of
�aoning from RA-1 to RM-1 with a use variance allowing a church office
facility . However, at the last meeting , the petitioner changed the request
to include as an alternative , that a use variance be granted allowing no more
than three (3) dwelling units ; that use variance be granted to permit six
rather than 7 parking spaces ; that screening requirements be omitted ; and
that the front yard setback use variance be granted to permit an actual front
yard setback of 27 . 61 feet rather than 30 feet . And , since this petition was
amended verbally at the last ZBA meeting , there was no reason for
notification again. It is covered in the original petition.
Mr . 0 ' Leary asked Atty . Narusis if the criteria on page 375 of the City
Zoning Ordinance was pertinent and Narusis state no , this is a use variance ,
very different from a variance . Chairman Semrow asked Mr. 0 ' Leary if he
received a copy of last meeting minutes , Mr . 0 ' Leary stated that he did .
Gerhard_Rosenber�: Is the petition asking for RA-1 or RM-1 zoning? Semrow,
I guess that i:; up to the petitioner, they stated they want either . Atty .
Nolan then stated that the petitioner is not going for the RM-1 zoning
change .
Mr . 0 ' Lea�: He asked if the RM-1 request has been withdrawn. Atty . Narusis
replied "yes . Chairman Semrow than recognized Mr . Scott .
�
Page 5
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
David Scott : Tlould this use variance stay with the petitioner only, or would
it transfer to the new owner? Atty . Narusis stated that the specific
� use variance along with its limitations would follow the property .
Holl�_Scott : �=f Home of the Sparrow bought the property in question and then
sold it , would the use change? Atty . Narusis replied , the use variance would
remain with the property . Chairman Semrow replied, my understanding of why
we are here is that they (Home of the Sparrow) want to
offer living quarters for female, single parent familiPs . If they abandon
that use and want to use it as a 3-flat , the only people who could use it
would be per the limitations described in the use variance . Mrs . Scott than
asked , if the use variance goes through and it is sold , would the re-
classification still be the same . Semrow stated , in the restricted sense
only . Holly S �ott than stated they (the objectors) were led to believe that
the use varian�e would cease if the property was sold . Semrow said that was
not the issue . Scott then asked if she bought the building could she use it
in the same way and Semrow said yes . Scott then said again, she was led to
believe diffe��ently . Atty . Nolan then stated if the only problem the
Objectors had �ith this was the fact that the use variance would follow the
property , he Fas sure Home of the Sparrow would agree to a temporary use
variance . Atty . Narusis stated that the board would look into that , they
were not sure if that was an option.
Ruth_ Fenwick: Is this a re-zoning? Narusis stated the zoning will not
change . It wi11 just allow three units where only two are permitted at this
time .
� John_ 0 ' Lear�: Petitioner Mueller , do you live in the City of McHenry?
Petitioner MueLler replied , my mailing address is in the limits of McHenry .
0 ' Leary then asked Petitioner Mueller if the use variance is not granted ,
would she still purchase the subject property. Semrow stated that was not
relevant . 0 ' l�eary then asked Petition Mueller if the use variance was
granted would Home of the Sparrow restore the dwelling to fit the historic
profile of the neighborhood . Atty . Nolan objected . 0 ' Leary stated that
Petitioner MueLler had stated earlier that she would restore the building .
Chairman Semro�a then said he appreciated that fact that Petitioner Mueller
said that , howEver, it has nothing to do with the use variance . The question
is not appropr=.ate . Mr. 0 ' Leary went on to express his concern over the fact
that building permits were not secured for most of the work done to the
premises . He ti�anted to know who had the authority to do anything about this
problem, and who was in charge of issuing certificates of occupancy .
Chairman Semro�� instructed him to contact the City of McHenry Administration
and he would be properly directed . Chairman Semrow stated that he was not an
officer and dii not have authority, nor was he aware of any citations that
were issued . }iowever, this is not relevant to the meeting .
At this time Chairman Semrow asked Atty . Nolan if he wanted to re-direct .
Atty. Nolan declined . Mr . Dixon asked Petitioner Mueller why they felt the
need to have tYiree dwelling units as opposed to two dwelling units and an
'`
Page 6
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
office . Petiti��ner Mueller responded by stating that their request for three
�.welling units �as not out of line for the neighborhood . That indeed there
are many house: which already have many dwelling units inside . They feel
that three units are very important to this project ' s success . The single
women with children who will be inhabiting these units will have no private
transportation and need to be close to the business district . It is very
important to ha,�e three apartments in order to make a greater contribution to
their mission. In other words , that will be one more family they will be
able to help .
Chairman Semrow then stated that the question period is now terminated .
CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
-------------------------------
Atty. Nolan said he wanted to impress the fact that these women who will be
residing in the �e units are homeless people, not violent people . Home of the
Sparrow is helping these people get back into the mainstream of the City of
McHenry througli faith, job training and education thus restoring their
dignity and en�bling them to start their lives over again. However, with
this new start they are finding out that they are no longer eligible for
government programs . They no longer qualify for public aid . Who helps these
people? Petitioner Mueller is trying to help these people . The women will
be graduates of a very rigorous program, not the type of people who need the
police . These are mothers with children learning to be self-sufficient and
on their own. Some of you asked why not two units instead of three . The
answer is simple . The Home of the Sparrow will be paying the mortgage on
this property . Therefore , there will be more income coming in and another
�:amily who is saved . There are no other places in town that offer this
service . Also , the Waukegan residence is near town and shopping areas . It ' s
a perfect location. As for the remodeling issue , Petitioner Mueller had
nothing to do with that , that should not be an issue here .
The petitioner request that the subject premises be reclassified from RA-1 to
RM-1 to permit rio more than three (3) dwelling units in the existing building
on the premises or , in the alternative , that a use variance be granted to
allow no more tlian three (3) dwelling units ; that use variance be granted to
permit six rather than seven parking spaces ; that screening requirements be
omitted ; and that the front yard setback variance be granted to permit an
actual front yard setback of 27 . 61 feet rather than 30 feet .
Mr . Swierk asked if there was an agreement concerning the easement between
r_he two properties . Atty . Nolan stated just for ingress and egress . Mr.
Swierk than asked if the Home of the Sparrow violated the limitations set
forth by the Cot.ncil concerning the use variance , could it be revoked . Atty .
Narusis answere3 by saying that was a shotgun question, but , yes it could be
revoked .
Mr. Christenseit asked about parking stalls : he wanted to know if the
residents would be allowed visitors . Petitioner Mueller stated that the
``,,
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
shelter on Rin;wood Road does not allow visitors , however visitors would be
allowed at the house on Waukegan Road except overnight . Mr . Swierk wanted to
know what thE consequences would be if a resident broke this rule .
_ Petitioner Mue:_ler explained that the women who would be residing on Waukegan
�Road have gone through the Home of the Sparrow program and have succeeded .
They are respolsible adults who will not be breaking the rules and who will
make the chall �nge work.
Mr . Kleemann s :ated that he was in a similar situation in another town as a
neighbor and n�_>ver experienced any problems .
After a brief recess , Chairman Semrow asked for any closing statements by the
Objectors after he swore them in:
STATEMENTS BY OBJECTORS
Spence_Byron: "This property cannot sustain three units . You are opening
the door for m��re units in this neighborhood . "
Ruth_Fenwick: "This is a very difficult situation. We are trying to save
our street and its landmark status . We pay high taxes and expect protection
from the City . We are not against religion, we are just trying to save our
street . "
David_Scott : "I am not concerned with who occupies the units , I am concerned
about the way it was converted . We wrap ourselves in the church and
violations are approved . Anybody can illegally convert anything and then get
a use variance to make it right . Why couldn' t the third woman become a
roommate? Same number of people would get help but only two units would be
allowed . It would not change the existing zoning . I have no problem with
�who occupies thi� . We are setting a precedent here . "
Holl�_ Scott : "I am not against homeless people . When I moved in the
neighborhood I was told that this was an historic community . I 'm just trying
to preserve this residential neighborhood . It is very bad that we are
divided . We feel like we are hated , the whole argument has lost its
credibility . I just hope we all get along . A three flat will never fit in
the neighborhood . My house will always have problems if this goes through. "
John 0 ` Lea�: "This is essentially a zoning issue . We don' t object to Home
of the Sparrow . Mr . 0 ' Leary then proceeded to quote the City of McHenry
Zoning Ordinanc:e from page 376 and page 94 . "
Louisa_Dra�er : "I am not an objector . I just simply want to say that I live
in the neighborhood and converted a single family dwelling into two units .
I came before this board about two years ago for a use variance . Not one
resident objeci:ed . "
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
--------------------------------
Motion by Mr . Christensen, seconded by Mr . Kleemann to recommend to the City
Council to gra�it a use variance to permit the use of the RA-1 premises for
three (3) dwe].ling units to be occupied solely by single women with or
without relatecl children.
�
Page 8
Home of the Sparrow
03-22-93
Voting Aye : Adamson, Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck
� Voting Nay : Dixon, Swierk
Not Voting : None
Abstaining : None
Absent : None
Motion carried 5-2 .
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Swierk asked Chairman Semrow why the ZBA minutes do not go through the
same approval process as the Plan Commission minutes do . Chairman Semrow
explained that there would be as much as a week to one month delay since the
minutes are not approved until the next meeting . He explained that the ZBA
has never operated in that manner and they never have had any problems .
Atty . Narusis then explained that these are not minutes , but actually a
report and rec��mmendation to the City Council so they can get a flavor of
what actually transpires at the ZBA meetings . Mr . Swierk commented that at
one time the rEport was not accurate . Atty . Narusis then explained that no
one is trying °:o editorialize and that sometimes the exact verbiage is not
reflected . HE� then stated that the burden of accuracy lies with the
Chairman. Chairman Semrow told Mr . Swierk that he may call him at anytime if
he has a problEm with any ZBA report . Mr . Swierk said thank you .
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Semrow said , "there being nothing further before this Board with
regard to the Petition, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to
adjournment . "
�
Motion by Dixon, seconded by Christensen to adjourn at 9 : 55 p .m.
Voting Aye : Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck
Voting Nay : None
Not Voting : None
Abstaining : None
Absent : None
Motion carried 7-0
Respectfully submitted ,
,
��— ���
Harry Sem , Chairman
Zoning Bo d of Appeals
c : Agenda, Zc�ning Board of Appeals (7) , Plan Commission (7) , City
Administrat:or , Director of Building and Zoning, Public Works
Administrat:ion, Objectors (24) , City Engineers , Aldermen Reference Copy,
Petitioner , Building and Zoning Zoning File , Landmark Commission
Chairman, Plorthwest Herald , City Clerk File Copy .
�