PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS McHenry County Government Center Administration Building 667 Ware Road Woodstock IL 60098

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS McHenry County Government Center Administration Building 667 Ware Road Woodstock IL MINUTES OF Wednesday, June 12, 2013 Chairman Joseph Gottemoller called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. The following Committee members were present: Chairman Gottemoller, Nick Chirikos, Michael Skala, Mary McCann, Ersel Schuster, and Sue Draffkorn (arrived at 1:14 pm). (Carolyn Schofield was absent.) The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Richard Kelly, Linnea Kooistra, Charles Eldredge, Elizabeth Scherer, Edward Haerter, and Tom Harding. (John Rosene, David Stone, and Vicki Gartner were absent.) Also in attendance: Kimberly Scharlow, Zoning Coordinator; Darrell Moore, Principal Planner; Dennis Sandquist, Director of Planning and Development; Cory Horton, Chief Stormwater Engineer; Matt Hansel, Code Enforcement Officer; Conor Brown; Patricia Kennedy; Brandy Quance, Assistant State s Attorney; Tom Zanck; Patricia Nomm, Director of Environmental Health (arrived at 1:11 pm); Steven Byers; Nancy Williamson; Ed Ellinghausen; Bernie Duddleston; Georgiann Faso; Kathy Duddleston; Robert Beltran; Trudi Baer; Bonnie Sheehan; Bill Sheehan; Cliff Leegard; Jessica Dexter; and Dave Brandt. P&D ZBA Joseph Gottemoller, Chairman Richard Kelly Jr. Chairman Michael Skala Carolyn Schofield David Stone Linnea Kooistra Nick Chirikos Mary McCann Vicki Gartner Charles Eldredge Ersel Schuster Sue Draffkorn Elizabeth Scherer Edward Haerter John Rosene (Alt.) Thomas Harding (Alt.) MINUTES APPROVAL None PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Byers, from the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission, distributed a document regarding Class III Special Groundwater Classification, regarding identification and protection of areas that are sensitive to changes in groundwater resources. He stated that he believes Section 13.4 of the UDO is well written and he appreciates the work, but there are some areas that merit further clarification. He offered specific recommendations. He noted that letter C - onsite verification - should be the responsibility of IEPA, and the UDO creates ambiguity of responsibility for that verification. He recommended striking letter C completely. He also felt that, pertaining to letter D prohibited uses there should be language added that allows for exceptions. Patricia Kennedy offered several suggestions for changes to the UDO in a document she distributed to the group. She noted that a definition for adjacent should be added to Article 2, as it comes up frequently in ZBA hearings. She also explained that she felt the side yard setbacks for the O and I districts, listed on Table 12-1, should be increased to match the rear yard setbacks. Ms. Kennedy also suggested adding the wording and to protect the aquifers from pollution to the end of the Purpose statement in 13.3.A.

2 Ed Ellinghausen, a member of the Environmental Defenders of McHenry County, distributed comments from the Defenders regarding the Overlay District. He stated that the UDO needs to provide clear guidance as to when a property does or does not meet the characteristics of a sensitive aquifer recharge area. He pointed out that they believe the Zoning Enforcement Officer should approve the groundwater monitoring plan in consultation with the Water Resources Manager or Chief Stormwater Engineer. They also believe that dry wells should only be used in combination with a pre-treatment system. Mr. Ellinghausen stated that they would like to see the maximum impervious surface overage in SARA areas reduced from the proposed 50% to 25%. He also noted that on-site verification of Class III areas must be designated by the IEPA and cannot be altered by the County or an individual. Mr. Ellinghausen also indicated that they would like to see salt storage facilities listed under prohibited uses in Class III areas. Conor Brown, Hartland Realtor Association, would like to see overlay districts focused on. He stressed the need to be honest with citizens of the County that these restrictions are going to supersede other regulations in unincorporated McHenry County, which may end up pushing development into municipalities. Tom Zanck, Legislative Affairs Chairman for Economic Development, stated that he was worried about the consequences of overlay districts, specifically pertaining to housing for seniors and low income housing. He noted that some of these decisions may foreclose development in rural areas. Mr. Zanck suggested eliminating the overlay districts and that these issues could be managed properly through engineering. He also expressed concern over how these districts may affect asphalt plants. He explained that it may be impossible to have an asphalt plant in a SARA area, no matter how it is engineered. He believes an overlay district would prevent people from building. Dave Brandt stated that his main concern is about water. A 1995 geologic study showed that 70% of McHenry County is within 100 feet of an aquifer, and those areas need to be protected. He suggested that, if any portion of a site is in a SARA area, the entire site should be evaluated because the lines are not completely accurate. He also noted that he is especially concerned with industrial uses and rapid permeabilities. Robert Beltran, President of the Pistakee Bay Road Improvement Association, stated that setback and lot sizes outlined in Section 13.5 are critical to whether roads are able to be improved. If the roads are not wide enough to be accepted by the township, they would need to be widened, which would change the setbacks for houses and lot sizes would be smaller. Ultimately, he stated, if this section of the UDO goes through, there would be no way to widen some roads in the future. Jessica Dexter, Attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, stated that the UDO is a good opportunity to set a course for water supply in the County. She believes the two overlay districts should be retained in the final draft. She also suggested that impervious surface in SARA areas be reduced from 50% to 20%, which would allow approximately 21% of precipitation to reach the soil. Ms. Dexter suggested adding things like animal manure storage, road salt storage, storage tanks, asphalt batch plants, and chemicals to the list of prohibited uses, as it would not be worth risking contamination.

3 REVIEW OF DRAFT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Chairman Gottemoller began the discussion with Article 12 Office and Industrial Districts. Dennis Sandquist explained that staff would be reviewing these projects through the site plan review committee. Nick Chirikos stated that he did not like to see certain materials prohibited. He suggested changing Office Design Standards to Suggested Office Design Standards, which would then be subject to review. Tom Harding pointed out that there are many pre-manufactured steel buildings that we would not want to prohibit. Michael Skala noted that someone may want to come in with a green industrial building design, and we should welcome that, even if they don t meet the standards in this Section. MOTION: directing staff to review Section 12.4 Office Design Standards with further input to have more comprehensive information. MADE BY: Chirikos. SECONDED BY: Eldredge. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. Linnea Kooistra referenced Table 12-1 Office and Industrial Districts Bulk and Setback Regulations. She asked why there is a side yard setback of 10 feet when the rear yard setback is 20 feet. Darrell Moore pointed out that it is consistent with the current Ordinance. Chairman Gottemoller also noted that the transitional or buffer yard is not included on this chart. In those instances, an increased setback would apply. Referencing Section 12.1.C Purpose of the I-2 Heavy Industrial District, Ms. Kooistra stated that she felt that heavy industrial uses should be adjacent to municipalities. Mr. Sandquist pointed out that this section is only the purpose statement, so the wording generally located leaves it open. If there are specific rezoning standards, they would need to be discussed under a different Section of the UDO. Charles Eldredge was concerned that if heavy industrial is prohibited away from municipalities, McHenry County would not be a location where corporate headquarters would want to locate to. He noted that manufacturing creates jobs and tax revenue. He believes it would do great harm to the economy if prohibited. Ersel Schuster explained that she would be concerned with self-contained waste treatment facilities. She is concerned that, if heavy industrial is located out in the middle of open land, away from municipalities, they would not be near to corporate areas where they have appropriate facilities. Chairman Gottemoller pointed out that the future land use plan designates industrial down Route 23 toward I-90, south of Marengo, which is not contiguous to a municipality. MOTION: to add the wording and municipalities to the end of Section 12.1.C. MADE BY: Kooistra. SECONDED BY: Skala. RESULT: All aye, except Harding. Motion carried. After a break, the group reconvened to discuss Article 13 Overlay Districts. Chairman Gottemoller pointed out that there are square miles of SARA area, both incorporated and unincorporated, out of 611 square miles in the County, which constitutes 58% of the County. 250 square miles of that falls within the unincorporated area. Referencing prohibited uses in SARA areas, Mr. Eldredge pointed out that all existing asphalt/concrete batch plants are located in SARA areas and near gravel pits. If they are prohibited from being located near gravel pits, we would be increasing the cost of building roads and all development in general. It also would eliminate jobs associated with them, as people would have to travel more miles to get to the site. Chairman Gottemoller suggested that, rather than prohibiting them, he would rather see them allowed if they are in

4 conjunction with a gravel pit and have well monitoring, and the County would be looking into any potential hazards. Cory Horton noted that there could be specific performance standards required of asphalt/concrete batch plants if they are not prohibited. If they are prohibited, he explained that there would be more traffic and fuel burning, which would still have negative contamination effects. MOTION: to delete Section 13.3.D.1.e (Asphalt/concrete batch plants as a prohibited use) MADE BY: Eldredge. SECONDED BY: Haerter. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. MOTION: to add a statement that asphalt/concrete batch plants are prohibited uses, unless they are adjacent to or in a mining operation and with best management practices/certain standards as determined by staff. MADE BY: Kooistra. SECONDED BY: Skala. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. Ms. Kooistra felt that salt storage should also not be allowed in SARA areas. Mr. Horton pointed out that it wouldn t make sense to prohibit it because it is already being dumped on roads in SARA areas. Mr. Sandquist stated that it could be stated in the UDO that the prohibition would exempt people that are regulated by the EPA. MOTION: to include salt storage under prohibited uses, exempting people that are regulated by the EPA. MADE BY: Kooistra. SECONDED BY: Schuster. RESULT: All nay, except Kooistra and Schuster. Motion failed. The group decided to discuss standards for salt storage further under Article 14. MOTION: to prohibit facilities that store large volumes of hazardous chemical waste/fertilizers in SARA areas, specifically manufacturing and warehousing facilities. MADE BY: Kelly. SECONDED BY: Skala. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. Mr. Sandquist suggested making the same changes to the Class III section of the UDO, as the structure is the same as the section on SARA areas. MOTION: to mirror the changes made to the regulations for SARA area, in the Class III area. MADE BY: Skala. SECONDED BY: Kelly. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. Mr. Horton discussed the language in the UDO pertaining to Class V injection wells. He noted that it should be changed and standards applied that would need to be met prior to injection of water. Chairman Gottemoller asked that staff work on this section (13.4.D.3) and report back to the group. Mr. Horton pointed out that, if a drywell is needed for a detention basin, there are standards, but if people want to get a permit for a drywell independent of detention, no standards would apply. Mr. Sandquist noted that the language for Legacy Waterfront Neighborhood Overlay Districts is all new since the first draft of the UDO. He noted that people located in these areas designated on the map would have the option of complying with the underlying base zoning district, or they could opt to use the standards laid out in Section This would allow increased flexibility for those located on small waterfront development. Darrell Moore explained that these regulations would allow vacant parcels currently unable to have a residence due to setback requirements to be developed, and would also allow

5 for existing structures to be improved or rebuilt. He also noted that many improvements on waterfront property are built up to the water, and the UDO would allow for a 0-foot rear yard setback, provided they meet stormwater requirements. Ed Haerter was concerned that the regulations listed under Section 13.5.G Vacant Lots or Parcels could be difficult to manage. Chairman Gottemoller also pointed out that he was not in favor of allowing homes to be built wall to wall. He felt that it may not be beneficial to grant the proposed standards in this section to someone where there is no existing structure. Mr. Sandquist pointed out that, if someone has more than one lot, they would not be allowed to develop each one individually. He also suggested that in 13.5.G.1, the wording does not control could be changed to did not control adjacent lots at the time of adoption of this ordinance. MOTION: to change the wording in Section 13.5.G.1 from does not control to did not control adjacent lots at the time of adoption of this ordinance. MADE BY: Kooistra. SECONDED BY: McCann. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. MOTION: to eliminate lots that are currently vacant without residential structures from being regulated under the Legacy standards, and add a paragraph under 13.5.G, specifically regarding vacant lots not qualifying. MADE BY: McCann. SECONDED BY: Haerter. RESULT: All aye, motion carried. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: to adjourn. MADE BY: Skala. SECONDED BY: Haerter. RESULT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m.