Loading...
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 . �