Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:00 PM February 25, 2009

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:00 PM February 25, 2009"

Austen Copeland
6 years ago
Views:

1 Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:00 PM February 25, 2009 Call to Order: William Tonne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Present: Planning Commission: Melvin Gratton Susie Davis William Tonne Nick Tranel Dave Jansen Karl Lawfer (Alternate) Staff & County Board Members: Steve Keeffer, Highway Engineer Sandra Nolan, JDC Health Dept. Terry Kurt, State s Attorney Linda Delvaux, Building & Zoning Ron Mapes, JDC Board Member Marvin Schultz, JDC Board Chair Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Susie Davis to accept the December 30, 2008 minutes. Seconded by Dave Jansen Susie Davis Aye Dave Jansen Aye William Tonne Aye William Tonne swore in all who might want to testify on any request this evening. New Business Sandra Spence, Trustee, owner, requesting a variance from the required setbacks and Parking dimensions off of the right-of-way as established by the Jo Daviess County Ordinance for Guest Accommodations to allow for the use of Guest Accommodations in an existing structure. Current Zoning: RP Planned Residential Common Location: 3 Greenview Lane, Galena IL Staff Report Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan does not address Variances, but does recognize the importance of tourism and the use of the homes for rental is a direct result of tourism. Wastewater treatment: This home is served by central water and central sewer so there are no septic system concerns for this variance request. Access Considerations: There are two existing parking areas at this property. They are currently configured as a drive in and back out entrance capable of holding 4 vehicles. Vehicles parked in the southern parking area will encroach on the township right of way. Vehicles in the northern parking area may not encroach on the right of way depending on the size of the vehicle and how it is parked. This type of parking arrangement appears to be quite common along Greenview Lane. 1

2 Other Considerations: This is one of the earlier homes constructed in the Territory. The following are existing rentals in the area: 4 Greenview Lane ER 14 Lot 4 Ron Leinen, lawyer representing petitioner In regards to the front setback, this is an older home in the Galena Territory and when it was built there were issues at that time with the setback, according to Dave Oldenburg, Galena Territory Architectural Review. The builder is the one that encroached upon the setback at the time of construction. This was in no way Sandra Spence that created this setback. I do not believe this would change the character of the neighborhood or the locality in anyway. In respect to the parking, she had the one drive in and took the initiative to put in the second drive and thinking it was meeting the standards, turns out that the driveway is not quite long enough. This would not change the character of the neighborhood or the locality of the area. This parking arrangement is common in this part of the territory. Davis asks how many bedrooms are in the home. Delvaux states three bedrooms Tonne states that we are looking at two requests for variance and we will split them into two different motions. Tonne asks if she has been the only owner since the house was built. Ron Leinen states that he is not sure. Tonne asks is there a hardship to why she cannot extend the driveway Ron Leinen states that she had gone to the time and expense to have the work done and to have someone go in again would be a hardship, because she was thinking that it would meet the requirements. It could be extended. Public Testimony None Public Testimony Closed Jansen states that there are only six houses on this cul-de-sac. I don t believe this is a problem. This road does not generate large amounts of traffic. It seems to me that the requests for variances are reasonable. Tonne states that the parking issue is real, and we have concern with parking on the rightof-way for rental properties and quite consistent that the parking is off the right-of-way. The rental on that street is right next to this request. Davis asks if the other houses were built early when this was developed. Delvaux states that they were built not long after the development of the territory. Davis states that we should not continue on with the non-conforming things such as the parking requirements especially if it is possible to be corrected. This is a quiet area, but if 2

3 we grant this how many more would be requesting this same issue. Sorry she did not really realizing that she was building where she should have been. Parking seemed tight on the driveways, backing out will be difficult. Jansen states that you can see that the road was not centered between its boundaries, and other areas in the territory that may be similar are Lookout Trace. A motion was made by Dave Jansen to approve the request for a variance on the front setback stating the following: foot variance to 19.1 feet from the front setback 2. This is an isolated area 3. Only 6 houses on this cul-de-sac 4. Central water and sewer Seconded by Susie Davis Jansen asks if anyone can think of a case where we have not approved a request that is similar to this. Steve Keeffer states that I cannot recall any request. Normally we get requests for can I build something closer to the road, unlike this where it is existing. Tonne states that we have granted variances for setbacks, but a 33% variance perhaps not, but I do not have very little complaints about this request. The buildable area is not too much to the rear. Jansen states that adjacent to the golf course you have larger rear setbacks for the owner. Standards for variation were reviewed and met. Dave Jansen Aye William Tonne Aye Susie Davis Aye Tonne states that I have a problem with safety with granting a variance for people to be able to park on the right-of-way. It may take some fill and maybe a rock wall, but it will increase the safety for the renters. Delvaux states that an application is submitted with a site plan; that is reviewed in accordance with the standards. We are here tonight because the request did not meet two of the requirements, the front setback and the parking. If you are not inclined to grant the variance for parking then the applicants only other option would be to comply with the rules and regulations in order to get the Guest Accommodations License. Davis asks if she has enough room to meet the requirements. Delvaux states from site review, in my opinion it looked tough, but with enough money anything can be done. Elevation at the site might require that petitioner install a fence at the end of the parking area. Anything 3

4 greater than a 4 foot drop, a fence for safety would be required. Keeffer states that extending driveway number 1 versus number 2 because of existing features, might work better. It looks as though you may have to do some type of retaining wall to get the parking off the right-of-way closest to the house, the other parking area should be easier because they have more area to work with. A motion was made by Bill Tonne to approve the request for a variance on parking dimensions stating the following: 1. Setting a precedent if we were to grant the request in regards to variation standard number 5 and 6. Motion never received a second. Motion died A motion was made by Bill Tonne to deny the request for a variance on parking dimensions stating the following: 1. Setting a precedent if we were to grant the request in regards to variation standard number 5 and 6. Seconded by Susie Davis Bill Tonne - Aye Susie Davis Aye Dave Jansen Nay Louis Timp, owner, and Christopher and Courtney Timp, petitioners, requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for the continued operation of a rock quarry. Current Zoning: Ag-1 General Agricultural District Common Location: 3414 North Mammoser Road Staff Report Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan does not address quarries. Access Considerations: The quarry has an existing entrance with adequate sight distance. Site Considerations: There are two homes within the 1000 foot setback. One which is owned by the owner/petitioner and the other is across the road. Applicant will be required to procure a written letter from the owner and occupants of the affected property stating they have no opposition to the placement of the quarry. Quarries are allowed by Special Use only in an Agricultural area. This request sits in an agricultural area that had been previously quarried. Other Considerations: This quarry had a Special Use issued to it in 1999, which had been voided and a current Special Use Permit was issued in April of 2007 with the following conditions being applied: 1. Legal survey of site approved by the County Board 2. Groundwater protection at the site by accepted good construction methods of berming and silt fencing. NPDES Permit required. 4

5 3. A 4 ½ foot fence, surrounding the quarry 4. No fuel storage on the site. 5. No asphalt batch plants or concrete allowed. 6. Change in ownership or any kind of new lease will terminate the Special Use Permit. 7. Reclamation is required upon discontinuance of use or upon expiration of the permit. (Removal of less than 300 cubic yards of material per year for three years constitutes discontinuance of the use). 8. Upon reclamation a minimum of 2 to 1 slope would be required for the sidewalls, with cover and seed as with topsoil and vegetated growth. 9. Dust control measures if needed to be taken on the affected roads in agreement with the Township Road Commissioner or County Highway Engineer. 10. Bonding for the reclamation of the quarry with a minimum of $25, No materials stored off site 12. Operation hours limited Monday thru Saturday, daylight hours Since the quarry is changing ownership, condition #6 terminates the existing Special Use Permit. There are no changes to this quarry request from the 2007 request except for the change in ownership. Paul Brashaw, surveyor representing petitioner Christopher and Courtney Timp are buying the 76 acres with the quarry. The neighbor to the north is out of town and has indicated that when he returned he will sign that he has no opposition to the placement of the quarry. We are requesting that the application be extended 5 years from the date of county board approval; this was not attached to the previous special use. The petitioners are requesting as well to truck stone in to do there decorative stone work. Will comply with all of the special use standards. Tonne asks about the conditions and if they would agree to those standards. Paul Brashaw states they are acceptable. Delvaux asks the Zoning Board to clarify the standard no materials stored off site. Tonne asks if you are stipulating that you will stay on the 18 acres for the special use. Paul Brashaw states we will stay on the 18 acres for the special use. Tonne asks about blasting and not exceed ½ of the State maximum. Would you agree to that? Robert Hahn states why you are limiting the State requirement on this quarry that does not have a populated area around it. We have never had a complaint on this request. Delvaux states that I compiled this list of standards you are looking at from all previous quarries and each standard may not be applicable to every quarries. Paul Brashaw would request no blasting limitations. Robert Hahn states that 6 major blasts would be a maximum. Discussion on minor and major blasting. Public Testimony 5

6 Joe Nack, Attorney with petitioner The petitioner is actually Stockton Stone, Inc. I don t believe that this quarry has the 5 year limitation, because if the area is used then however long that takes would determine the time. Delvaux states that on this previous request they did go to the legally surveyed site instead of the year limitation. Carl Plath, Nora Township Road Commission Lived in the area for 50 years and the quarry has always been there and has not been a problem. I have been the road commission for only about 6 months. Couple of times I was notified, but went out and cleaned up the issue. I have other roads that are worse than this road. Talked to the Mayor of Nora and they get rock out of this quarry and other contractors in the area. Tonne asks if to your knowledge there have been any issues in regards to this quarry Carl Plath states he has no knowledge of any issues Davis asks what issues did you have to go out and clean up. Carl Plath states it may be a bump in the road, they are in all my roads, because they are gravel roads. Public Testimony Closed Tonne asks about the sign off letter from the adjoining property owner. Paul Brashaw states he will be signing that when he returns. Delvaux states that she confirms he is out of town and had no issues except for the dust control and has talked with petitioner on that issue. Jansen asks about the house to the south. Robert Hahn states there is not a house at that location. Tonne asks about hauling in material and are you anticipating an increase in traffic from what is now. Chris Timp states that unless there is some huge highway project we do not see an increase, especially with the economy it may be less. Davis asks about the blasting and how much. Robert Hahn states that we did three major blasts last year. Jansen asks if that is an average over the years. Robert Hahn states that last year was an exceptional year. I would not like to see a maximum number because if we need to do more than we would like to be able to do more. We have not had a problem here so why limit it. A motion was made by Dave Jansen to recommend approval of the Special use Permit to Stockton Stone Inc., (Chris & Courtney Timp) with the following conditions: 1. Legal survey of site approved by the County Board 2. Groundwater protection at the site by accepted good construction methods of berming and silt fencing. NPDES Permit required. 3. A 4 ½ foot fence, surrounding the quarry 6

7 Seconded by Susie Davis 4. No fuel storage on the site. 5. No asphalt batch plants or concrete allowed. 6. Change in ownership or any kind of new lease will terminate the Special Use Permit. 7. Reclamation is required upon discontinuance of use or upon expiration of the permit. (Removal of less than 300 cubic yards of material per year for three years constitutes discontinuance of the use). 8. Upon reclamation a minimum of 2 to 1 slope would be required for the sidewalls, with cover and seed as with topsoil and vegetated growth. 9. Dust control measures if needed to be taken on the affected roads in agreement with the Township Road Commissioner or County Highway Engineer. 10. Bonding for the reclamation of the quarry with a minimum of $25, No materials stored off the acre special use site 12. Operation hours limited Monday thru Saturday, daylight hours 13. When major blasting is to be done, notification to adjoining landowners when requested. 14. Letter of no objection from landowners and occupants closer than 1000 feet to the quarry operation. Standards for special use were reviewed and met. Susie Davis - Aye Dave Jansen - Aye Bill Tonne - Aye Reports and Comments: Steve McIntyre asked about the special meeting date and found that it was not on the calendar. Susie Davis made a motion to adjourn at 8:05 PM. Dave Jansen seconded. Voice Vote: All Ayes 7

Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:00 PM January 24, 2018

Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:00 PM January 24, 2018 Call to Order: Mel Gratton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call