Village of Bourbonnais Planning and Zoning Board met Sept. 28.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
1. Call of Order
Procedural: A. Roll Call
The meeting of the Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals was held on September 28, 2023, and was called to order at 5:30 PM by Chairman, Mark Argyelan. Members also present were Paul Cavitt, Jay Grimes, Frank Koehler, and Ed St. Louis. There is a quorum. Also present were Laurie Cyr, Assistant Village Administrator, Paul Hafner, Building Commissioner, and Tyler Goodrich, Community Development Technician.
2. Approval of Minutes
Motion by Jay Grimes, second by Frank Koehler to accept the minutes from July 27, 2023. Aye: Mark Argyelan, Paul Cavitt, Jay Grimes, Frank Koehler, and Ed St. Louis.
Nay: None
3. New Business - Planning Commission
Discussion: A. Case PV23-0003: Variance application at 18 N West Ave to allow an increase in the height of a detached accessory structure, in an R-1 Single-Family Residence, from 14 feet to 17 feet (Sec. 36-7-3d2a of the Village Code)
Applicant: Bernardo Chavez
Ms. Goodrich stated that the adjacent owners were notified, there was a notice in the Daily Journal, and a sign was placed on the property.
Mr. Argyelan swore in Bernardo Chavez to provide their testimony.
Mr. Chavez stated they are requesting an increase in height from 14 feet to 17 feet. They stated in the past they converted their attached garage into a master bedroom, so they lost their storage space. They are currently using a storage facility. They are asking for the variance to increase the attic space for storage.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would be attached to the dwelling.
Mr. Chavez stated no, it will be detached.
Mr. Grimes asked if they had considered making the garage larger instead of taller. Mr. Chavez stated they would not have enough square footage and then they would need a variance for that.
Ms. Goodrich stated they will not be adding plumbing so it does not become inhabitable but there will be electricity.
Mr. Koehler asked where we measured the height of the structure.
Mr. Hafner stated it is measured from grade to the tip of the peak.
Mr. Hayes asked regarding the width of the driveway.
Ms. Goodrich stated that they already had a permit for the driveway, and it is being constructed.
Mr. Argyelan discussed the Findings of Facts that were within the packet from the applicant and staff and moved to have the Planning Commission determine their Findings of Facts. Mr. Argyelan asked if the subject property is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including the presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject property that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Planning Commission replied that there are no unique physical conditions.
Mr. Argyelan asked if the aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or her predecessors in title and existed at the time.
Planning Commission replied that it is not self-created.
Mr. Argyelan asked if carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variation is sought would deprive the owner of the subject property of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Planning Commission concurred with the staff report.
Mr. Argyelan asked if the alleged hardship or difficulty is not merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision.
Planning Commission concurred with the staff report.
Mr. Argyelan asked if the variation would not result in a use or development of the subject property that would not be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this Code and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of The Village of Bourbonnais Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Planning Commission replied yes.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, and development value of property or improvements permitted in the vicinity. Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would materially impair an adequate supply of light and air to the properties and improvements in the vicinity.
Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would substantially increase congestion in the public streets due to traffic or parking.
Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would unduly increase the danger of flood or fire.
Planning Commission replied no.
Chief Keener stated they do not believe this would create any issues.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would unduly tax public utilities and facilities in the area. Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would endanger public health and safety.
Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if there is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the subject property.
Planning Commission concurred with the staff report.
Motion by Frank Koehler, second by Paul Cavitt to approve Variance application at 18 N West Ave to allow an increase in the height of a detached accessory structure, in an R-1 Single-Family Residence, from 14 feet to 17 feet (Sec. 36-7-3d2a of the Village Code)
Aye: Mark Argyelan, Paul Cavitt, Jay Grimes, Frank Koehler, and Ed St. Louis.
Nay: None
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
Discussion: B. Case PV23-0004: Variances (Sec. 36-10-1f Table 10-4), in an R-4 Two-Family Residence, at 867-869 Pheasant Run to allow for a decrease in the front yard setback from 25 feet to 23 feet 7 inches and a decrease in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12 feet 11 inches. Applicant: Hartley Homes
Ms. Goodrich stated that the adjacent owners were notified, there was a notice in the Daily Journal, and a sign was placed on the property.
Mr. Argyelan stated that the rear setback was no longer needed.
Ms. Goodrich stated that was correct.
Mr. Koehler asked if the rear setback was now in compliance.
Ms. Goodrich stated that per the staff report, in the review of this application, it was determined that the applicant no longer needs the variance for a decrease in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12 feet 11 inches. Since it is a corner lot, the requirement for a rear yard setback is 8 feet. Mr. Argyelan swore in Ryan Lillis to provide their testimony.
Mr. Lillis stated that the foundation crew made a mistake and instead of being 25 feet, they are 23 feet 7 inches in one of the areas.
Mr. Lillis stated once the mistake was noticed they began the process with the Village to resolve the issue.
Mr. Grimes asked if it was the vacant lot or the lot with the construction happening. Mr. Argyelan stated that it is the lot that is framed.
Mr. Hafner stated that it is a reverse corner lot which is the reason they do not need the 25-foot setback.
Mr. Argyelan discussed the Findings of Facts that were within the packet from the applicant and staff and moved to have the Planning Commission determine their Findings of Facts. Mr. Argyelan asked if the subject property is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including the presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject property that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Planning Commission replied that there are no unique physical conditions.
Mr. Argyelan asked if the aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or her predecessors in title and existed at the time.
Planning Commission replied that it is not self-created.
Mr. Argyelan asked if carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variation is sought would deprive the owner of the subject property of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Planning Commission concurred with the staff report.
Mr. Argyelan asked if the alleged hardship or difficulty is not merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision.
Planning Commission concurred with the staff report.
Mr. Argyelan asked if the variation would not result in a use or development of the subject property that would not be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this Code and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of The Village of Bourbonnais Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Planning Commission replied yes.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, and development value of property or improvements permitted in the vicinity. Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would materially impair an adequate supply of light and air to the properties and improvements in the vicinity.
Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would substantially increase congestion in the public streets due to traffic or parking.
Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would unduly increase the danger of flood or fire.
Planning Commission replied no.
Chief Keener stated they do not believe this would create any issues.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would unduly tax public utilities and facilities in the area. Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if it would endanger public health and safety.
Planning Commission replied no.
Mr. Argyelan asked if there is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the subject property.
Planning Commission replied that there are no other means.
Mr. Argyelan proceeded to ask for public comment.
Melinda Williamson, property owner at 849 Pheasant Run stated their house was adjacent to the property.
Ms. Williamson stated their concern was the rear setback. Their question was regarding the vacant property and whether they would have the 25-foot setback.
Mr. Hafner stated that since it is also a reverse corner lot it will be an 8-foot setback. Bridget Bouck, property owner at 837 Pheasant Run stated their house was near the property. Ms. Bouck stated that their concern was the rear setback. They stated that there were inspections done on their pool and deck and wondered if inspections were done.
Mr. Lillis stated that during the top of foundation, when this occurred, they noticed there were four points in which they needed the variance.
Mr. Argyelan closed public comment.
Motion by Frank Koehler, second by Ed St. Louis to approve Variances (Sec. 36-10-1f Table 10-4), in an R-4 Two-Family Residence, at 867-869 Pheasant Run to allow for a decrease in the front yard setback from 25 feet to 23 feet 7 inches.
Aye: Mark Argyelan, Paul Cavitt, Jay Grimes, Frank Koehler, and Ed St. Louis.
Nay: None
Final Resolution: Motion Carried
4. Old Business
5. Public Comments - None
6. Adjournment
Action, Procedural: A time of Adjournment at 5:58 PM
Motion by Paul Cavitt, second by Ed St. Louis to adjourn the meeting.
Aye: Mark Argyelan, Paul Cavitt, Jay Grimes, Frank Koehler, and Ed St. Louis.
Nay: None
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vobil/Board.nsf/files/CWZQUM6B053B/$file/2.%20SEPTEMBER%2028%20MINUTES.pdf
Alerts Sign-up