[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[4:19] Good evening. And welcome to the Tuesday, September 1st, 2021, zoning board of appeals meeting. We're going to call our meeting to order at 7 p.m. I'll rise for the pledge.
[4:33] America.
[4:34] In particular, public, but which it stands.
[4:45] Thank you for that everyone. First item on our agenda this evening is the approval of our minutes, which there were no minutes attached.
[4:54] We approved them in a prior zoning board meeting, correct?
[4:58] Rookham?
[5:00] Oh, I'm sorry. John, I think we have roll call, please.
[5:03] Mr. Kempanelle? Here. Commissioner Fihim?
[5:06] Yeah.
[5:07] Mr. Heinen? Here.
[5:08] Mr. Nicholson?
[5:10] Mr. Valera?
[5:12] And, uh, except for show, Commissioner Wagner?
[5:17] Yeah.
[5:17] Chairman Minus?
[5:18] Here.
[5:19] Thank you.
[5:24] Okay.
[5:24] All right. Now, the next item on our agenda this evening is the approval of our minutes.
[5:28] But again, we, we don't have any minutes in the packet because those were approved as part of a joint meeting.
[5:32] Is that correct?
[5:34] That's correct.
[5:35] Okay.
[5:36] Thank you.
[5:37] Then we'll move forward to public comments.
[5:40] That's if anyone in the audience this evening has anything they'd like to discuss.
[5:43] That's not one of our cases this evening and not already a public hearing.
[5:47] Now it would be your time to approach the microphone.
[5:51] Seeing that no one stepped forward.
[5:53] We will move on.
[5:54] Do we have a development report?
[5:58] No report tonight.
[5:59] Thank you.
[6:01] Okay.
[6:01] And there's also no old business this evening, so we will move right into our case for
[6:07] new business that is case number 2145-072526.var. This case is a public hearing. So before
[6:19] we get started, I would first look for a motion to open the public hearing. Motion open
[6:24] the public hearing. Second. All right. Motion was made by Commissioner Valera and seconded
[6:29] commissioner for him. We can do this with a voice vote. All in favor with an aye. Aye. Any opposed
[6:35] with a nay? Any abstentions? Okay. So we are now in the public hearing for this case. We have a staff
[6:41] report.
[6:46] Yes, we do. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Good to see you all. Again, my name is Steve
[6:50] Bravo. I'm a planner with the village's village playing field playing apartment. It says we just
[6:56] This is the variance for 15665 South Van Dyke Road.
[7:02] We do have the applicant here along with members of his design team.
[7:07] So they'll come up and speak with you in a few minutes.
[7:09] But first, I'll just give a little bit of background.
[7:13] So here you can see the subject property right here.
[7:17] It's this unique property here at the dead end of South Van Dyke Road.
[7:25] It's a little bit of context here.
[7:27] The property itself is zoned R1, which is the low density
[7:30] single-family residential district.
[7:33] The property is approximately, it's 44,000 square feet
[7:37] approximately.
[7:40] So it's a little bit bigger than a naker, despite its size.
[7:44] And you can see there's a two-story single-family home
[7:48] there kind of positioned here in the north side,
[7:51] northern portion of the property.
[7:53] So, the access to the property here, if you're not familiar, it's right where Van Dyke Road ends,
[8:01] just kind of drively just picks right up and goes up to the front, front of the house.
[8:08] So, the property itself is an interior lot.
[8:11] It's defined as such because it has, this is its front property line right here.
[8:16] That's due to the first fall of the van Dyke address and then this is where this eastern property line is the
[8:24] Is the front property line
[8:26] So
[8:28] So it's a little bit of background on the property
[8:33] Again, it's an interior interior lot
[8:36] We defined it as that in addition because you can see there's there's no additional right of way
[8:43] running on the property. There's a home here. This property is, John can maybe give some history of the property in just a second.
[8:51] This is, I believe it's own language. Then this is owned by, I think, the park district or the township.
[9:00] So we considered interior lot, which I'm explaining right now because that comes into the variance request that I'll get into in just a minute.
[9:09] John, do you want to add anything about this Southern property here?
[9:11] Yeah, I can thank Steve's not a great job working with the applicant on this current
[9:15] experience request for their pool house. The commission may
[9:21] seem that this is familiar. This project was before the Plank Commission for a subdivision
[9:26] plan, I believe last fall, because the personal that Steve mentioned that's adjacent to the railroad
[9:32] right away. It's currently owned by the applicant. It's kind of taken a certain circuitry
[9:37] route to ownership by the applicant, but there are some public utilities in a path that
[9:42] crosses through there that, you know, all parties agree, I'm should be under public ownership
[9:49] the village for a period to pursue and have plans to extend the Vandeck Road through that area.
[9:56] So it was owned by the village for a...
[10:00] A period of time, and that ownership transition to private ownership through kind of clerical issues through the
[10:10] little accounting and the property tax process. So the Plan Commission did recommend approval of a subdivision
[10:17] plan that would create an outlaw for the village utilities and the public path, and the applicant
[10:23] is willing to donate that outlaw to the village, and then just retains ownership of the surplus
[10:29] land that would be added to their existing lot in home.
[10:34] That subdivision plant has not been presented to the village board.
[10:37] We've been working through their ultimate plans for the property.
[10:40] We want to present both this variance request and the subdivision plant
[10:45] concurrently.
[10:47] So hopefully we get a recommendation this evening.
[10:49] We can bring both manners forward to the village board.
[10:54] Thank you, John.
[10:55] So, just moving on a little bit, so here's the, this is the grading plan that the applicant provided and I believe this was in the commission's packet.
[11:06] So, this really shows the existing conditions and the proposed conditions.
[11:13] So, here you can see the existing house a little bit more clearly.
[11:17] Again, it's two stories, I think it's around 3,300 square feet with the driveway.
[11:25] And then down here, you can see, I guess, the nature of the variance.
[11:31] So there's this pool, which is, I believe, around 600 square feet.
[11:35] And then there's, I guess, what we're calling the detached accessory structure, the pool house,
[11:41] which is approximately 2,200 square feet.
[11:46] So if the 2,400 square feet that I have in the staff report is actually 2,700 square feet if you consider the pool and the pool house.
[11:58] Again, it's just the size of the pool house that's requesting the variance, the maximum area of the detached accessory structure and the zoning ordinances 1,000 square feet.
[12:12] So it's a little bit bigger than what's allowed.
[12:19] So they're requesting that variance in that addition to the detached structure.
[12:26] There's also a five-foot fence that is more or less in this area that's five feet tall.
[12:34] It's an open fence, but the height exceeds four feet, so they're just requesting to increase
[12:40] the height by one foot in the front yard.
[12:46] So one last thing, getting into kind of the zoning
[12:51] ordinances, the R1 zoning standards.
[12:56] So I mentioned the front property line here,
[13:00] this eastern property line.
[13:01] So this is the front property line.
[13:03] And then you can see the existing house when it was built.
[13:08] It was built to the R1 zoning standards, so it meets all of the R1, like the front yard set back, the side yard set back.
[13:17] It's just the positioning, I think, when it was built, as you can see the positioning is a little bit unique.
[13:26] So I think that, you know, the, I would say, the village likely worked with the work with the applicant to kind of look at the bulk restrictions in relation to the
[13:38] the lot dimensions which are admittedly pretty unique, the length and the narrowness.
[13:48] So I was considering this to be the front yard setback here.
[13:51] It's 30 feet running parallel here, it's 30 feet and then 7 feet and 7 feet here.
[13:58] So it's meeting the setbacks.
[14:00] Obviously the bulk restrictions, the maximum water area is not being exceeded.
[14:05] And I think existing, it's at 15% and then with all the additional structures down here,
[14:11] it's around 20, 21% is what I calculated.
[14:15] And then you can see the southern property line right here after it's subdivided.
[14:20] This is the property that John just mentioned that's to be subdivided for the easements.
[14:27] So, the accessory structure itself is not in front of this front building line right here.
[14:37] So, the positioning of the actual accessory structures right here, the pool and the pool house are built to the zoning armances standards.
[14:46] So, it's, you know, with all these restrictions and unique, I guess uniqueness,
[14:55] you know, impacting the property,
[14:59] the, the, the home.
[15:00] I would say building everything to code. So these two variants request, so it would say are pretty on point with the zoning ordinance. So in the last thing I'll say is that this kind of going back to the front yard line. So this is, again, the front yard right here. So we were considering this to be the front yard and then this whole area south of south of the house to be the interior.
[15:30] side yard, which is allowed, the nearest point of the house right here is, I think, I think
[15:37] it's like 20 feet right here and then 17 feet if you go diagonal. So it's actually exceeding
[15:44] the yard one side yard setback, which is 7 feet and the accessory structure setback, which would
[15:49] be 3 feet there, which I would say is pretty remarkable. So I think that's really anything,
[15:57] I know that was a lot, I don't know if there are any questions for me or for the applicant.
[16:02] All right.
[16:02] Thank you for that, Stephen.
[16:04] Is there anything the applicant would like to add to that presentation?
[16:08] If so, actually what I'll ask for the both of you real quick, I'm going to swear you both in at the same time.
[16:14] If you come up and answer a question or have any comments, just state your name and the microphone for the recording secretary,
[16:19] but if you could hold up your right hand, do you swear I'll test them on you?
[16:22] Give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
[16:25] Okay, thank you, please go ahead.
[16:28] Yeah, so David Grosskin, the owner of the property.
[16:33] So a little bit of context on what our vision or desired state is.
[16:38] Wonderful father to a four-year-old and a ten-year-old who loved to swim.
[16:42] We thought of a really great idea to have great memories at the home and put in a pool.
[16:51] As well as I work from home quite a few days a week and with the ram bunches 4-year-old
[16:57] and 10-year-old work inside the house sometimes can be hard so the idea was to put a little
[17:02] bit of storage as well as an office that I could work on when the kids are at home.
[17:09] So based on that we want to do a couple of things, pool, storage in the pool house with a
[17:21] privacy. So I think the privacy aspect, I want to introduce and just double down and double
[17:25] tab, which is the location where we want to put this. We want to be as far as the way from
[17:31] neighbors and people. We want to tuck back in the forest, maximum separation between the end
[17:37] of andiq, as well as the path and the trails to the west there and matters woods. So overall,
[17:43] we want to just try to tuck it in, create privacy, as well as the fencing mention we wanted to
[17:54] continue a leverage our existing permanent fence that we have today, which is the black aluminum
[17:59] you can see through and then obviously wrap it around the pool and the accessory structure
[18:05] to protect obviously our own children, deer, coyotes, all wildlife, as well as to match the
[18:14] aesthetics of the existing property, as well as within the pool we're doing auto cover
[18:18] as well for double layer of safety, as safety is obviously very important to us.
[18:24] So that is the idea on the vision and we're welcome to take any questions.
[18:30] Great. Thank you for that. First we'll see if there's any one this evening from the public that has anything they'd like to ask or
[18:40] Anything in regard to this case
[18:42] Okay, if you'd like to approach this microphone up here, please see your left and I'll need to swear you in as well
[18:48] Sure, if you'd raise your right hand you swear any testimony you give this evening will be the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth
[18:53] I do. Okay, I don't give any testimony more questions
[18:57] Please state your name and then go ahead sir
[18:59] Ted 02473, Fairbanks Court, Plainfield, one of the neighbors of Mr. Ruskin.
[19:07] A quick point of order, if I may, I don't mean to get too technical here, but in the paperwork
[19:11] that was sent by the applicant, the case fell sites, 2145072826, and the hearing is on 2145072526.
[19:25] I just want to verify from the staff in the board that there is no petition pertaining to this property with the incorrect number.
[19:34] This was sent wasn't sent by the board. It was sent by the attorney.
[19:37] So I want to verify that there's no other secret plans here anything like that.
[19:41] Jonathan, would you be able to confirm that?
[19:43] I'm in Clayton from our case file.
[19:45] Naming just indicates the date of application was received by the planning department.
[19:50] So maybe a typo in the material that was sent.
[19:52] But this is the subject case that there are no additional applications or plans on related, that are not presented.
[20:00] Okay. And I guess the only other question I have is for the board is if they care to comment, just there are other
[20:08] variances granted similar to the situation. And that's all I have. I'll take my seat if you don't mind.
[20:13] Okay. Thank you. When we get to the commissioners, we'll we'll talk with staff on those things.
[20:19] All right. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening that has any comments?
[20:24] Okay. Thank you for that. Then we will move into our commissioner questioning. We can start off this evening commissioner for him.
[20:34] Well, I wanted to follow up on the question that you raised.
[20:38] To the staff, have there been any other experiences like this in question or given how many so far in particular situation like this?
[20:51] So, we've regulated accessory structures in a variety of ways that rules have evolved.
[20:57] Over the last 20 years, initially there was a limit to the size of an accessory structure,
[21:04] I believe, as 900 square feet, then we adopted our news only code in 2006, there was no longer a square
[21:12] footage.
[21:13] Maximum, we just relied on a lot of coverage standards and setbacks and other things in
[21:18] So for a lot of this size, I don't believe
[21:21] a variance would have been necessary.
[21:24] And then ultimately, we decided to impose
[21:27] a square footage maximum again.
[21:29] I think we could consider doing different tiers or ranges.
[21:34] For larger, lots could have larger accessory structures.
[21:37] You know, lots on the smaller end would have
[21:39] smaller square footage limitations.
[21:42] And now we're again preparing a new zone and code.
[21:44] And we're going to revisit and consider how to treat that.
[21:48] I can say we have approved variances for accessory structures
[21:51] in the past a handful, but this is a very unique situation.
[21:57] I think I can say with confidence,
[21:59] this is the only lot this size and shape with this kind
[22:04] of land you setting at the end of a road in the village.
[22:08] So it's really, I believe, one of a kind and what they're proposing.
[22:13] I think is drifting from your question a little bit,
[22:16] I think it fits the character and the context of the area.
[22:22] Okay, thank you Jonathan.
[22:23] I was reading through the staff report over here and something called my attention.
[22:29] It says, this is an accessory residential usage.
[22:32] So what does that mean?
[22:33] You want to have any kitchen in there, any bathrooms in there?
[22:37] Obviously with an office, you might need a bathroom.
[22:39] But would you have a kitchen bedrooms?
[22:41] What do you mean by accessory residential usage?
[22:44] Yeah, so the idea is, since it's a walk-in business, kitchen sink, microwave, on top, dishwasher,
[22:55] a farm table for the kids to all sit and eat, and then my office, and then essentially,
[23:02] like a single car garage for all the pool equipment and stuff like that.
[23:06] And my tractor that I used to cut the lawn in the wintertime, so that's the just of it.
[23:13] So would you possibly accept a smaller structure that reduces the equestretary, where you answer
[23:20] I mean, from a thousand square feet, that is there currently to go up to like to work 20, 200 square feet or something like that, that's that's huge
[23:29] Thank you, try to jump in please, I'll do a respect to staff. The structure itself is not 2400, there is a structure of
[23:40] condition area and there's a very large porch as one could see overlooking the pool and the
[23:45] storage area that he mentioned could be a garage. Yeah, technically can't. It's currently
[23:49] I believe it's 11 feet by 18 feet. There's a garage around it just so he can bring his
[23:53] motor in there. It is not big enough for a car. Going through the design process, he spoke
[23:59] with David. Okay, this means you can never put a car in there. And he said, yes, that's fine.
[24:03] It's only for storage.
[24:05] So a couple of clarifications on that.
[24:08] The current structure, livable, is about 1,500 square feet
[24:12] per the blueprint.
[24:13] And there is some talk about tweaking that down a little bit.
[24:17] We came in a little over budget.
[24:19] And we were the builder for the original.
[24:21] And then we also came back and finished their basement.
[24:25] So we're very familiar with work release chip.
[24:27] And we shot for the moon.
[24:28] And now work on scaling back a little bit.
[24:30] But the intention is.
[24:31] the 2100 square feet plus 600 square feet for the pool is in correct is that we're just saying it's 1500
[24:37] plus the 600 for the pool so yeah but it would be the technical number yeah and you're going by a lot
[24:46] area coverage correct so the so the the 2400 that I had there I if I didn't mention I think I did but the so the pool is 600 square feet
[24:55] this plan. The the structure, the detached structure is
[25:02] I think I had done was I had just. I think he took the foot print, you know, the bird's eye footprint, which included a rather large covered porch and the storage area. But anyway, again, given the size of the land, it really, if you've driven there, it's not going to make much of an impact. And these guys all live to the east and to the north and really there's no one back there.
[25:28] So it is a variance, but we are working at maybe nippin' it in a little bit.
[25:35] Okay. Thank you.
[25:36] Thank you, I mean a couple of questions I have. Please go ahead.
[25:40] Sorry.
[25:40] No.
[25:42] He was sworn in.
[25:43] I swore them in right before.
[25:46] So thank you.
[25:47] I did swear them both in right before the applicant came forward.
[25:50] So they stayed sworn in for the whole meeting.
[25:52] Okay.
[25:52] Thank you, gentlemen.
[25:53] Thank you, Jonathan, for explaining that.
[25:55] Okay.
[25:56] Thank you.
[25:56] Commissioner for Heam Commissioner Campanella.
[26:01] The property closest to the walking path that can or cannot be developed
[26:09] so that the
[26:10] one that is working to be subdivided, I guess.
[26:14] Yeah, it's not, it's buildable in a sense that if one were to comply with the zone of
[26:21] code setbacks, a lot coverage really isn't an issue because the lot is so large, but yeah,
[26:28] it's buildable. It had been kind of earmarked for Vandeck Road right away in the past that's
[26:35] no longer possible due to the rhythmic road bridge that was constructed over the river there
[26:43] and the height of that and that's covered that previously if I can go revisit that if
[26:49] the commissioner is interested but the village is kind of acknowledged that we don't have the need
[26:54] for the full right of way, we would happily accept ownership of where the utilities in the
[27:01] path are, and the applicant is not interested in having the liability of public path on
[27:07] property that they own. So the surplus property that we're, I think, in agreement on having
[27:13] the current applicant retain ownership of is billable. There's no short cuts or anything
[27:20] that are being requested or necessary to do what they're proposing?
[27:25] Can you put point to make sure I'm seeing a crackling on the screen, where does the applicant
[27:32] own both of those lots?
[27:36] That's correct.
[27:37] And then ownership of the area that you just described was given to the village as part of that.
[27:45] Yeah.
[27:46] It's a long history.
[27:47] In the early 2000s, the bill is pursued, I think, quick take authority to obtain ownership and it went to the Will County Circuit Court in the court determined that the property owner at that time could build two houses on the property and the trap is a way that's on the south end was given to the village for the village acquired.
[28:10] For some reason, a text bill is continued to be issued after those took ownership and investing title.
[28:17] And those, I don't know where those text bills went, but they were not paid and so the current applicant is able to purchase the property through.
[28:27] All right.
[28:27] Legal.
[28:28] Yeah.
[28:29] And then if that were to be developed, how would like ingress an egress to that property happen?
[28:37] How would that, if it wanted to be developed in the single family house, how would they get a driveway in there?
[28:44] Going back to the World County quarter from the early 2000s, I think they had a concept plan for two.
[28:51] Might have given them three loud memories of fading just a little bit on that point,
[28:56] but I think there would either be, you know, multiple driveways or share driveway from the Van Dyke Road.
[29:02] connection there along the Easterly property boundary,
[29:08] but, you know, I believe the applicants,
[29:10] you know, current plans are to do what's presented. They had the legal ability, I think
[29:18] when they purchased the property, it was sort of a large enough lot, they could have subdivided,
[29:22] you know, built a home comparable to the, you know, a general size of home they have,
[29:26] and had a surplus lot to sell, but, and conversations with the applicant, they, you know, really like being
[29:35] And having the privacy and the seclusion that this location provides, and then I understand
[29:40] that we're approving the variances, but what is the process for when the house or
[29:49] pool house gets built?
[29:51] Yeah, how do we know that it doesn't change into a three-bedroom 25th on a square of a house?
[29:56] Well, we'll rely on our own encode in terms of what the definition of us.
[30:00] Local family residences. So we've considered that already. Our building official has seen the preliminary plans, given some guidance on things to look up for, to make sure that it wouldn't be considered dwelling unit.
[30:17] In terms of egress windows and closets and what you can and can't have to constitute it all in units.
[30:25] So we're, I think we're going to work closely with the applicant and rely on their assurance
[30:30] as well that this is not going to be a second dwelling unit that would be rented or, you
[30:35] know, subdivide and sold in the future or something like that.
[30:38] We can certainly invite that testimony here under oath.
[30:42] And then the only access to the proposed pool house would be, I'm probably sure, say it differently.
[30:48] You can't drive a car there to your point.
[30:50] It's just that the tractor or you're walking.
[30:57] Thank you.
[30:58] All good. All right. Thank you for those comments. Commissioner Nicholson.
[31:03] I don't think I have anything additional. Thank you to Commissioner Campanella and Fihim for
[31:08] some of their questions. I understand that you need use of the lot. It is a unique location.
[31:13] So I think I would agree with the staff report.
[31:19] I think I'm going to appreciate the project.
[31:21] It looks pretty cool on the little jealous itself.
[31:25] Well, yeah. We all get like season passes. Right. Commissioner Heinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[31:31] Yeah, I support this application, I think this is definitely a unique property.
[31:38] You know, I know we've had other applications come in front of us, we're they're asking for
[31:43] ancillary structures, you know, behind their house on a quarter of an acre and this is, you know, an acre, right?
[31:49] I mean, they could have survived this and sell this out for, sold this for another, you know, property,
[31:54] but appreciate, you know, the fact that they, you know, want this property for their own,
[32:01] for ancillary structures to make it a really nice property.
[32:06] So that's why I support this application.
[32:08] If this is, like I said, a quarter acre lot, and it was unique, or didn't fit within the subdivision,
[32:17] which we've had some of those applications come in front of us, I would not support it.
[32:21] But this I do so that's all you have. Thank you. Thank you appreciate that commissioner Villarga
[32:28] Right, thank you
[32:31] I guess I just I just had a couple quick comments for questions, but I guess to clarify what was explained earlier
[32:38] When we looked at this case before it was in order to subdivide the two lots into one correct
[32:42] So now it is one singular lot. Yeah, so right now they're kind of two
[32:47] I'll go on polygons trapezoids or whatever
[32:51] The plan will create a smaller area for the path and the utilities that will come to the village.
[32:57] What's left over from that, we'll be smooshed in together with the existing,
[33:01] um, trapezoid to become one larger lot for the current owner.
[33:05] So we didn't.
[33:07] Highly technical answer.
[33:08] Okay.
[33:08] But yes, that the subject, the subject.
[33:10] The previous subdivision would do that.
[33:13] Would create a smaller outlot for just what the public and then combine the surplus
[33:19] of the old village lot with what the applicant currently originally purchased into one larger
[33:27] lot.
[33:28] Got it.
[33:29] Thank you.
[33:30] And with regard to the fence height variance, that's just the eastern edge of the fence.
[33:36] Just, is that considered the front yard if I followed the?
[33:40] Yeah, the area between the eastern side of the pool structure and the eastern
[33:44] lotline, that's where the fence will be five feet.
[33:47] That's where it would be taller, but otherwise it'd be four in the other.
[33:50] Other, otherwise, yeah, please go ahead, yeah.
[33:55] So the black aluminum fence that surrounds a structure today, through the sides, we would match
[34:03] that exact same fence to secure the pool and the accessory structure.
[34:08] So that fence, we went through the permit process and it's the existing fence is five.
[34:13] The existing fence, so you're just doing it to be symmetrical.
[34:16] Oh, a symmetrical color matching, same vendor.
[34:19] Cool.
[34:19] To secure the property.
[34:20] Excellent.
[34:21] And then while you're up here, if I could ask one more question,
[34:22] I know you said, and I was just confirming,
[34:26] but to get to the structure, it's not a drive way.
[34:28] Is it just stepping stones or something?
[34:30] Or is it just walk across the yard to get to it?
[34:33] Yeah, walk across the yard.
[34:35] And then on the north side, we're going to have two gates.
[34:40] One gate that can fit a tractor through.
[34:41] Second, drive the tractor up into the garage for storage.
[34:44] And then a secondary gate on the other side for, you know, if one's blocked, the other one works, so basically two openings.
[34:52] Yeah, you would walk across the lawn to get into it.
[34:57] That's all I have for questions.
[35:00] I agree. I believe this is a very unique circumstance, and that to Commissioner Heinin's comment, given
[35:06] the size of the overall lot, I'm sorry we can't do public comments right now. I apologize.
[35:15] But based on the size of the lot and the relative structure and what the applicant is trying
[35:19] to do, as well as given their efforts to try to benefit the village here with providing some of
[35:29] Are there any other commissioner comments or questions?
[35:34] Well, I do have still some concerns.
[35:38] Okay. Number one, I mean, if it was the genuine hardship,
[35:41] I could consider approving this.
[35:44] What is the genuine hardship over here that you are requesting a variance based on a hardship?
[35:50] What is the hardship?
[35:52] Is that rhetorical?
[35:54] Okay.
[35:54] I said it's a question that I have when I wasn't, I was asking for clarity.
[36:01] Yeah, you know, shape of the property?
[36:05] No, I understand the shape of the property.
[36:06] Please okay.
[36:07] I mean, I've seen that.
[36:08] I know the geometry.
[36:11] But why is it a big structure?
[36:13] I mean, if you just want to have my family gathering, you know,
[36:16] 1,000 square feet should be more than enough.
[36:18] To me, it looks like it's going to be a separate structure
[36:21] that later on down the road, you know, you can rent it out somebody.
[36:26] There's the genuine archival here. That's what I'm trying to write in my mind alone.
[36:30] Are you willing under oath to state that you would not use that as a rental property at any point in the future?
[36:36] Absolutely.
[36:37] Would your homeowner's association is that allowed in your neighborhood?
[36:41] We do not.
[36:42] Yeah, we do.
[36:43] Oh, you do.
[36:44] Oh, okay.
[36:45] I thought it was.
[36:45] You know, like in that respect.
[36:47] But under oath.
[36:48] Correct.
[36:49] Stay.
[36:50] You're not going to rent this out.
[36:52] This will be the family.
[36:54] use. And that's it. Yeah, I still don't see a shell out there by the pool though.
[37:04] So this is the diversification that I've been talking about, right? You know, I feel like playing
[37:08] field has had so many applications coming in front of us where it's cookie cutter, right?
[37:14] This is an opportunity of supporting someone that has a unique property that has a nice
[37:20] and wants to enhance that, right?
[37:22] This is the diversification that I've been talking about.
[37:25] This is what we need for Plainfield.
[37:28] So to talk about hardships, I struggle with that
[37:31] because this is a great opportunity for someone
[37:34] to enhance his property and provide something different
[37:38] than what we've been seeing.
[37:40] So that's all I've said.
[37:41] Thank you.
[37:42] Appreciate that.
[37:44] All right, if there are no other commissioner comments,
[37:47] I would first look for a motion here to close our public hearing.
[37:52] Motion to close the public hearing.
[37:54] Motion has been made by Commissioner Villarga and seconded by Commissioner Campanella.
[37:59] Again, we can do this with a voice of vote. All in favor with an eye.
[38:03] Any opposed with an eye? Any abstentions?
[38:07] Okay. We are out of the public hearing for this case now.
[38:11] I'd either entertain any discussion points or I would look for a motion with regard to what is in your packet.
[38:17] I move, we adopt the findings of fact of staff, the findings of fact of the zoning board of appeals,
[38:24] and recommends approval of the requested variances for 15665 South Wendich Road subject to the following two stipulations.
[38:33] All right.
[38:34] Motion was made by Commissioner for Heam.
[38:36] Seconded by Commissioner Heinen.
[38:38] But I had before we vote on that.
[38:41] That we had his testimony as part of this.
[38:45] that's how we normally do that, that he would not use this as rental property.
[38:49] Thank you.
[38:50] Is that allowed to be part of the motion?
[38:55] I mean, I don't know how to do that.
[38:57] Thank you, man.
[38:57] Sorry, we could talk about that.
[38:58] The staff report.
[38:58] It could be included as a third stipulation.
[39:02] So, I would defer to either a new motion or if we had a second on the existing motion.
[39:14] Okay.
[39:14] So, then, as it is in our packet, we have a motion by Commissioner Fahem and seconded by Commissioner Heinin.
[39:22] Could we get a vote by roll call please?
[39:25] Commissioner Campanella?
[39:27] Commissioner Nicholson?
[39:28] Commissioner Belirga?
[39:29] Yes.
[39:30] Commissioner Heinin?
[39:31] Yes.
[39:32] Commissioner Fahem?
[39:33] Yes.
[39:33] And share my minutes?
[39:35] Yes.
[39:36] All right.
[39:36] So your application will get a favorable recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[39:41] Please continue to work with staff.
[39:43] And we wish you the best of luck going forward and looking forward to some, you know, big parties out there, not just getting.
[39:51] Thank you. Appreciate what you're doing here in town.
[39:55] Any other discussion items from any of my fellow commissioners?
[40:01] All right. Well, hearing none. You do have your reminders, almost on the screen. They'll be on the screen shortly, but Labor Day coming up by wish everyone a happy Labor Day.
[40:12] Village offices will be closed that day. We'll have our next plan Commission meeting September 15th at 7 p.m.
[40:19] And at 7.36, our meeting is adjourned. Thank you.