This is a duly advertised meeting of the Juliet Zoning Board of Appeals.

In our capacity, we hear petitions for relief from the strict provisions of our city ordinance.

In matters of this type, the decision of this board is final in respect.

It does not go to the mayor or the city council for any further action.

If you disagree with our decision, you do have recourse in a court of record.

We also hear petitions for variations of land use.

In matters of this type, we act as an advisory board to the mayor and city council, making a recommendation either for or against it.

The final decision on land use is made by the mayor and the city council.

Secretary, call the roll, please.

Mr.

Bias.

Mr.

Nacktreep.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Ms.

Roar.

Miss Midge?

Here.

Mr.

Stiff.

Here.

Chairman Hennessy.

Here.

Excuse me.

All right.

First on the agenda is the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes from December 18th of 2025.

Motion would be in order.

Motion.

Second.

Mr.

Nacktreep?

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Ms.

Midge.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Chairman Hennessey.

Hi.

All right.

Next on the agenda is citizens to be heard on agenda items.

Um, I do want to note that we do have one case that has been withdrawn, which is petition 202601.

It was a special use permit to allow a staffing agency located at 114 East Jefferson Street.

Um again, that petition has been withdrawn and it will not be discussed tonight.

So, under citizens be heard on agenda item.

This section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding agenda items and are allowed a maximum of four minutes.

It is not a question and answer period, and staff and the zoning board of appeals members do not generally respond to public comments.

The speaking procedures are on the two big projector screens.

Um I also note that everything on our agenda tonight, which there are two remaining agenda items are public hearings.

So you are if you are here to speak on one of these agenda items, you're welcome to speak now, or if you would like to speak when it's called as a public hearing, so it could be heard under the record for that hearing.

Um you're welcome to do that then instead.

So at this time, is there anyone here who would like to speak on an agenda item under citizens to be heard on agenda items?

Okay.

Yes.

Can we get to speak if they speak about one of the agenda items?

Um you you would if you're here to speak on agenda item, you can speak during citizens, or sorry, under the public hearing for that agenda item.

Um it's up to the chair when they close discussion.

Um then there'll be no more commas after a certain point.

So you're allowed to speak during that time.

Um I don't know if it's when or after, could be both.

Yeah.

All right.

Next on the agenda is old business public hearing.

And the first agenda item, a companion case is petition 2025 51, a special use permit to allow a self-storage facility located at 1701 Drowden Road.

The companion case is petition 2025 52, a variation of use to allow a B3 general business use in the B1 neighborhood business district located at 1701 Drowden Road.

The applicant for this petition is Ronald Schelling, and the owner is Timpenogus LLC.

For purpose, the applicant is requesting a variation of use and a special use permit to allow a self-storage facility in a B-1 neighborhood business district.

The City Council makes the final decision on both the special use permit and variation of use petition requests.

For site specific information, the 3.86 acre subject property is lot two of the 10.4 acre two-lot commercial subdivision at the northwest corner of Drowden Road and Theodore Street that the City Council approved on December 1st of 2020.

A gas and wash fueling center was constructed on lot one.

The property is zone B1 neighborhood business district.

Access to the subject property would be from Drowden Road.

The stormwater detention system for lot 1 would be expanded and shared to accommodate the proposed facility.

For surrounding zoning land use and character, to the north is a COM ed easement and its zoned R2 single family residential.

To the south is a gas station zone B1 neighborhood business.

To the east is single family residential use in its zoned R2.

To the west is a comm ed easement and it is zoned R2 single family residential.

For applicable regulations, we have Section 47-11.4 prohibited uses in the B1 zoning district.

We have Section 47-17.28 variation of use.

We have Section 47-13.2A special uses for the B3 zoning district and Section 47-5.2C criteria for issuance of a special use permit.

For case history, this proposal was brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2021 and in 2023.

In 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval, but the petitions were not approved by the City Council.

In 2023, the motion to approve the petitions failed by a vote of 3.4.

The petitions were subsequently withdrawn prior to City Council consideration.

Primary concerns from neighborhood residents in opposition to the petition in 2023 included concerns over squatters living in the facility and increased traffic and noise in the area.

Meeting minutes of the zoning board of appeals and city council meetings from the previous years are attached, and videos of these meetings are available on the city's website.

The public hearing for the petitions was originally scheduled for the November 20th, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, but has been deferred twice at the applicant's request.

For discussion tonight or today, the petitioner proposes to build an indoor climate controlled storage facility with accessory outdoor mini storage units on lot two of the gas and wash Theodore and Drowden subdivision.

The Joliet zoning ordinance allows self-storage facilities in the B3, I1, and I2 zoning districts upon special use permit approval.

The subject property is zone B1 neighborhood business district, where self-storage facilities are not listed as a by-right or special use, and therefore per the Juliet zoning ordinance is considered a prohibited use.

For these reasons, the request requires both a special use permit and a variation of use approval.

The petitioner feels that the subject property cannot accommodate a traditional neighborhood commercial use, and that the proposed self-storage facility use provides a service to residents not readily available nearby.

The zoning ordinance requires at least one year to elapse before a petition can be reintroduced to the zoning board of appeals or city council process.

Since over 2.5 years have passed from the City Council's April 2023 vote, the petitioner desires that the Zoning Board of Appeals and City Council review the proposal again.

This proposal includes a one-story 10,950 square foot climate-controlled indoor facility as well as six outside access one-story buildings with mini storage units.

The building facades that face the perimeter will be brick-faced with light and dark brick.

The buildings that are located within the proposed complex would be sited with fiber cement board.

And in total, there will be approximately 370 storage units of varying sizes.

Outdoor storage of any kind is not permitted on site.

The proposed site plan and conceptual building elevations are included with the staff report packet.

The proposed landscape plan shows that the site will feature dense landscaping along Drowden Road and all landscape beds will have low booming.

There will be a decorative six-foot-high black wrought iron style fence along the perimeter and areas where no buildings are present.

The proposed hours of operation during which renters can access their storage units would be from 5 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Renters of the storage units would access their units through a secured gate.

The facility would be staffed by one employee.

Security cameras would be positioned to review the exterior drives and the building or excuse me and the interior of building number five.

For recommended action, staff recommends the zoning board of appeals recommend approval of the variation of use and special use permit requests.

While staff does not find that strict enforcement of the permitted uses of the B1 zoning district would involve practical difficult difficulties or impose exceptional hardship considering the property in question can yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the B1 zoning district.

Staff does find adequate evidence that the unique circumstances exist with the shape and location of the site.

Staff also finds that adequate evidence was submitted to establish that the variation of use, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

The proposed self-storage facility is a service-oriented use, and with the scale buffering and other considerations that are built into the special use permit process, it does meet the spirit intent of a B-1 neighborhood business special use.

Staff does not believe the proposed facility would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, nor would it be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity.

The proposed self-storage facility business would be buffered by a 350-foot utility easement along its west side, share a southern boundary with an existing gas station and car wash, and have a hundred foot separation with an additional 30-foot wide landscape easement from the existing residential neighborhood on the east side of Droudon Road.

The facility will be secured with fencing and be required to meet the city's stormwater management regulations and building design standards.

Staff does not believe the proposed use will impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding property.

The applicant has provided a plan that shows adequate roadway access that would minimize traffic ingress and egress to Drowden Road by using an existing curb cut.

If the requested variation of use petition were granted, the special use permit would not be in violation of the city's zoning ordinance.

Over one year has elapsed since the last special use permit request, which was denied for this property.

Under conditions, if the zoning board of appeals desires to recommend approval of the variation of use and special use permit requests to allow a self-storage facility located at Drowden Road and Theodore Street, the following conditions would be included.

One, that no outside storage shall be allowed on site.

Two, that the special use permit shall herein terminate and lapse unless a building permit or certificate of occupancy is obtained not later than 180 days of the effective day of this ordinance, and that the erection or alteration of a building is started or the use is commenced within such a period.

The board may grant an extension of this period valid for no more than 180 days.

Additionally, upon written application and good causes shown without notice or hearing.

Whether or not there is an intention to abandon the special use if any special use is discontinued for a continuous period of one year, or if an intent to abandon the special use, is evident for a shorter period of time, the special use for such shall become void, and such use shall not thereafter be re-established unless a new special use permit is obtained.

Condition three.

Failure to comply with any of the above conditions could result in a rehearing and possible revocation of the special use permit.

And four, should the property be declared a public nuisance, it shall be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the special use permit.

And that concludes staff's report.

I do.

Your names and addresses.

Nate Washburn, 111 North Ottawa Street, uh KGG L L C on the attorney for the applicant.

We're on shelling, shelling development.

Go ahead.

Staff did a very good job of summarizing uh the history on this site and what's brought us here as you heard in staff's report.

Uh you know, it probably sounds uh for some of you who haven't been on this board throughout the entirety of uh the saga with this property that you know why in the heck are we back uh for round three?

Well, the the practical reality is you know we're not here to be obstinate and we're not here uh just sort of trying to well I shouldn't say what I was about to say.

We are sort of trying to fit the square peg into the round pole because this is a unique site.

My client has owned the property for 20 years this year.

It was acquired in 2006, and since that time have multiple attempts have been made to court investment and development of this site, ranging from medical office facilities, potential daycares, and other you know users that might more appropriately and by right fit into the zoning as it's currently granted.

However, in 20 years, the only thing that has developed is the existing gas and wash, which as a byproduct of that development, which was approved and moved forward, leaves this very uh you know interesting, unique shaped triangle left at the top that wasn't required or purchased by the developer in the gas and wash.

The biggest constraint for this site aside from just its relative size and configuration is our lovely buttress to the rear, which is the high tension lines.

Those high tension lines are really what prohibit most daycare providers from really desiring this site as feasible.

You know, it makes it tricky for a whole lot of uses that might otherwise want to go there.

As a result, the only use that keeps coming back to and otherwise, even by staff's own recommendations throughout the attempts to do this, is this mini storage use.

It is a self-contained use with us of the initial influx of people putting their stuff there.

Is a relatively low traffic on the whole use.

It is safe, it's secured, it's gonna be gated, it'll be an improvement in terms of the facades, we're gonna do nice brickwork, we're gonna make this a quality project, and there's still uh a need for these users.

You know, there is more, you know, there's constantly more housing projects being discussed in and around Will County.

The city, I believe, has taken some actions in recent years or months to start advancing some other housing developments.

Even the best housing developments, we uh we acquire stuff now at a rate far greater than our houses can store.

This use isn't going away, and it's one of several uh that I've been a part of, as many of you know, but I'm not the only guy who's been here uh, you know, with a mini storage use over the last several years, and they seem to keep coming, whether it's here or other communities around.

As a result, given staff's recommendation of approval and given the time, effort, and energy that's put into trying to find other users.

We're here asking for approval and a recommendation thereof for this mini storage use and self-storage use to allow what's been a 20-year in the making project to finally come to a close and complete the subdivision development uh that was started when the gas and wash came in.

And certainly we're here to answer any questions uh anybody on the zoning board may have.

Okay, any questions by the board comments?

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Is there anyone opposed to where you in?

Yes.

Do you swear the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law?

I do.

Your name and address.

Margie C Pon 1114, would I restrict Joliet?

I'm not I want to qualify.

Um I am not opposed to the project.

I haven't really even read about the project, except in the uh Herald News and how it keeps being brought forward.

What I do have a problem with is the application.

Um, the application um, and I have a handout here.

I can it printed out page eight of the application.

May I approach to give um to the clerk to provide uh copies to each commissioner, please?

Page eight of the application is information about the petitioner for the special use, and there is a similar page further into um the application for the uh application for the variants.

And if you were to look into the agenda packet itself, it would be page 18.

As you can see here, the petitioner's name and address is redacted.

The business address is redacted.

The business phone number is redacted.

There seems to be a problem that's occurring over the last several months that I spoke to Mayor Darcy about and these redactions and there's problems with FOIAs as well, which I want to bring up in non-agenda items at the end of the meeting in a public comment.

I had to come up here and state my name and address.

The petitioner did not.

Why was it redacted?

I again I have nothing against the petitioner.

I am here on the violation of citizens' trust.

We have a right to know.

Also, the business address.

And since this uh application has come forward, this is the third time.

We have a general idea.

But in future applications, wouldn't we want to know if this is a foreign company?

And what where these people are from?

Again, nothing against the petitioner.

I haven't really even read the proposal.

This is a problem.

This is a big problem.

I to me, either something is being hidden, or the application is incomplete because you can't read it.

So in my opinion, um you can't vote on this today.

This is an issue for transparency of the public.

And again, I spoke with Mayor Darcy, and he does believe that citizens have the right to transparency.

And I will get to the FOIA issues in my comment for non-agenda items.

Thank you for your time.

Come up to the mic.

We need to record this.

Sorry, I was going to say I'm happy to address it now, but if there are any other uh objectors, I would prefer to let them go first.

But on this particular issue, we didn't institute those redactions.

That was done at staff level.

We submitted a completed application.

That's out of my control.

We're not hiding anything.

Todd?

Todd Lindsay for the city.

Um I'm an attorney with the city.

That that is true.

So it's been a staff decision, administrative decision lately to more align what is released in these applications with FOIA.

Um we do not want the applicant exposed to fraud.

Um what we're trying to do is not for a tr a lack of transparency issue, it's to prevent fraud from um, and this is in line with FOIA.

It's personal information.

We are entitled to redact this information.

Um we want to be as transparent as possible while balancing that with people's individual rights.

That's according to legal our legal position, right?

Yeah, we what we're it's the I'm an attorney for the city.

What we're trying to do is line up with FOIA, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

We don't want someone like signatures, for instance.

You know, that's personal information that could expose someone to you know fraud.

So anyone else wishing to speak?

May I remind you though you can't jump up on your half of the right to speak once.

I'm going to give you two.

I appreciate the time.

In 2018, the attorney general ruled against the city of Joliet that names are private information.

I can uh I I didn't bring the citation for that ruling, but if that is the case, um I would like my name redacted and my address redacted from every public city record, and I think other people who who risk coming up to speak right to do that, but let's stick to the issue.

Yes, and and so I was asked to um give my name and address um for for this meeting.

I would like that redacted as well.

Thank you.

If I may comment one further, um this application there was more redacted than should.

We tried to fix that this morning.

Name should have been on there.

Um a home address, no.

That should not be.

But the name is fair game, that should have been on here.

All right.

Okay.

Anyone else?

And you check I pulled today.

What I have in my literally with me has both the petitioner's name and the property owner's name unredacted, and I printed this maybe two hours ago off the city's web page.

So what I have has petitioner's name, Ronald Shelling, owner of property, Timpanogus LLC, both unredacted, and this came from the city's website today.

So again, I to align with what Todd just said, if there was a directive given or if the other objecting party has something other than that, the city appears to have corrected at least with regard to the applicant and the owner's names as they are not redacted as it appears on the city's website today as of this afternoon.

That is accurate.

We were we review these constantly, and that came to our attention.

We released the name.

And what else did you change?

Anything else?

It was the address where this is applied for.

But the home address that that should be redacted.

And then I I get that I understand, and I understand we should have the names there.

Right.

But I also don't quite understand.

You made a change prior within hours of this meeting.

And it wasn't, you know, it was redacted yesterday.

Sure.

So nobody had notice now that you did make a change to the application.

Do we have a problem there?

No, you do not.

Like the name, I think that was on the first page of the staff.

If there's there's yeah, Ron's name was on here on the staff report.

But I don't believe that the staff report is as important as the petitions.

Okay.

Okay.

Wrong.

Right?

I don't believe we have a problem here.

I can't tell you how to vote.

We uh we review these petitions all the time, and not a hundred we try to do our best.

Um we saw this, we we amended it.

But just to clarify, there just to clarify there is no like open meeting act violation or anything.

Is it green?

There we go.

But just to verify, there's no like open meeting act violation or anything to that level.

It is posted.

The general subject matter was released as to this petition.

It was clear what this petition was for, so no, there should not be an OMA violation.

Thank you.

I would say I would if uh the board would indulge me.

Just one final comment.

I I do understand and can appreciate based on uh the one uh individual's uh objection that there is a concern, and certainly uh I uh as somebody who's before you very often, and I certainly agree the people should and do have a right to understand what is being brought and what is being asked.

However, in this instance, as our application was complete with all of the requisite information as it is situated today and as is apparent in the staff report, there is sufficient information for somebody to know who's requesting what is being requested, and I would very much ask that any vote taken.

Um, of course, I would encourage you to recommend approval, but I would also ask that you please not hold against the applicant, uh, my client anything that may have been an error gap or otherwise done at the staff level uh as we had no control or involvement in that, and we did give all of the requisite information openly honestly to staff and the city uh and I feel that if a vote were to be against this project on account solely of that potential uh and I'm not even saying that it is in fact any sort of legal wrongdoing.

I would concur with staff uh the city attorney that my knowledge of the open meetings act would not suggest this is a violation, but I would very much ask that that not be held against the applicant as that was not something we created cause to be created and certainly did not ask for.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who was just speaking opposition?

If not, the chair closes petition of the floor and asked the floor for discussion of the motion.

Motion to accept.

Second.

We have a motion, second to approve the petition with all the floor.

Mr.

Dakovich no.

Ms.

Rohr, aye.

Ms.

Smidge, no.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Mr.

Noctriebe.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

I the petition will move forward to the city council with a vote of recommendation.

Um is that on both items?

15 and one and two.

That was on both items.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Um, if you're interested in this matter, just continue to check the city's uh meetings and agendas page for when this will get scheduled for a council meeting.

All right.

Next on the agenda is petition 202601.

This was the special use permits for a staffing agency at 114 East Jefferson Street.

As I mentioned earlier, that petition was withdrawn.

Which brings us to petition 2026 2, which is a special use permit to allow a truck maintenance facility located at 3501 Shanahan Road.

The applicant in this matter is IFH Properties LLC.

The property and business, the status of the applicant is property and business owner.

The request again is a special use permit to allow a truck maintenance facility.

Under purpose, the applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow a truck maintenance facility for their freight carrier company at 3501 Shanahan Road.

For the City of Joliet zoning ordinance, carting, express, and hauling establishments may be allowed as special uses in the industrial zoning districts by the mayor and city council with advice of the zoning board of appeals, according to Section 47-5.2.

For site-specific information, the subject site is 4.7 acres and is zoned I-1 light industrial.

The site currently contains a vacant commercial building with surrounding parking that was occupied by a bar and restaurant business for many years until the fall of 2021.

The site previously contained a residence and detached garage on the west side, which were demolished in 2022.

The site has not been redeveloped or occupied by any use in the last few years.

The current owner purchased the property in June of 2025.

The subject site was annexed in December of 2011 and classified to the B3 General Business Zoning District to allow the former bar and restaurant to have access to city fire and police services.

The structure was not required to connect to city water and sewer at that time.

The annexation agreement allowed the existing structures and uses to remain and prohibited the outdoor storage of cargo containers, semi-trailers, and vehicle chassis.

In September of 2021, the City Council approved an ordinance to reclassify the site to the I-1 light industrial district.

City Council also approved a corresponding amendment to the annexation agreement to allow the outdoor storage of semi-trailers in connection with an approved warehousing or similar permitted use in the I-1 district.

The outdoor storage of cargo containers and vehicle chassis remain prohibited.

Additional requirements from the amendment include Birmingham Landscap adjacent to the residential parcel to the east if truck parking were located on the east side of the site, removal of the eastmost curb cut onto Route 6 if truck parking were located on the east side of the site, and that the existing land uses be terminated at the time of construction of any industrial development.

In August of 2020, City Council approved a preliminary and final plat of subdivision for 3501 industrial Joliet to create two lots for a proposed warehouse development that was similar to the concept plan approved with the 2021 Annexation Agreement amendment.

A recording plat for the subdivision was never approved, and those plats have since expired.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character, the zoning and land use are as follows.

To the north we have County A1 agriculture zoning and it's the Forest Preserve District property.

To the south is City I2 General Industrial Zoning and is an industrial use.

And then we have 47-5.2C criteria for issuance of a special use permit.

For discussion, the petitioner IFH properties LLC is requesting a special use permit to allow a maintenance facility with truck parking for their freight carrier business.

Interstate freights LLC.

Interstate freights is an over-the-road truck carrier that currently maintains an office in Naperville and a truck parking location in Summit, Illinois.

They would like to consolidate their operations at the subject site by constructing an office and maintenance building with associated trailer parking.

The site would serve a fleet of around 50 trucks that are primarily out on the road and would use this location for maintenance as needed.

The petitioner estimates that there will be around four truck trips to and from the site per day, most days of the week, with around seven trips per day on Fridays.

Proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

on Monday through Friday.

The location would initially have around five employees with a potential of up to 10 employees.

The proposed site plan contains 24,300 square foot building with around 18,000 square feet from the mechanic bays and associated storage in a 6,300 square foot office area.

Around 10 employee parking spaces will be located at the southwest corner of the site next to the building.

The remainder of the site will contain a parking area with around 61 trailer stalls.

The development will be accessed by one driveway off Shanahan Road near the west end of the site.

The existing billboard will be removed.

The site plan notes that stormwater detention will be provided underground.

The petitioner has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that meets the city's landscape and screening requirements.

There will be a 30-foot landscape area with a berm along most of the property frontage adjacent to the trailer parking area.

The east side of the site, which is adjacent to a residential property in unincorporated Wool County will have the required minimum five-foot landscape area with a berm as well as an eight-foot solid fence along the property line.

The edge of the parking area will be over 30 feet from the east property line.

The west and north sides of the site, which are adjacent to the forest preserved property, will have the required five-foot landscape areas.

The north and south sides of the parking area will be enclosed by a six-foot black vinyl chain link fence.

The development will be required to comply with the city's zoning ordinance requirements, including but not limited to the landscape and screening regulations, the non-residential design standards, and the parking standards.

The trailer parking stalls will be subject to the payment in lieu of taxes program per the terms of approved ordinance for truck parking facilities.

The site will be required to connect to city water and sewer at the time of development.

Water and sewer connection fees and development impact fees will be required.

All public improvements will be required per the subdivision regulations and the requirements of the public works and public utilities departments.

For recommended action, staff finds that the request meets the following special use criteria.

The establishment and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to the public health and safety, nor will it impede the normally and orderly development and improvement of this surrounding property.

Additionally, adequate access is provided.

City utilities are available in the area, and the site will be required to provide adequate stormwater detention.

The subject site is located along a major route and is across an existing industrial subdivision with similar uses.

The city zoned the property to I-1 Light Industrial District in 2021 to allow such uses as a warehouses, which typically contain trailer parking areas.

While the proposed site plan has more trailer stalls than the concept plan from 2021, each stall will be subject to a yearly fee per the payment in lieu of taxes program.

The proposed development is otherwise similar to the 2021 concept plan in terms of site layout.

The subject site is adjacent to an unincorporated residential use on the east side.

The 2021 amendment to the annexation agreement is required that any industrial development at the subject site include landscaping, a berm, and a solid fence along the east side as a buffer from the residential property.

The proposed site plan includes these elements.

Additionally, the amendment requires that the eastmost curb cut onto Route 6 be eliminated if truck parking is located on the east side of the site.

The petitioner has eliminated the eastern driveway and proposes only one access point on the west side of the site.

For conditions, if the zoning board desires to approve the special use permit to allow a truck maintenance facility located at 3501 Shanahan Road, the following conditions will be included.

One that a landscape plan that meets city ordinance shall be submitted as part of the building permit plan set and landscaping per the approved plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Two all that all public improvements as required by the Department of Public Works shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Three, that the property shall be enrolled in the payment in lieu of taxes program as per the terms of the pilot program ordinance.

Four, that the special use permit granted shall heron terminate and lapse unless a building permit or certificate of occupancy is obtained not later than 180 days of the effective date of this ordinance and the erection or alteration of a building is started or the use is commenced in such a period, and the rest is the standard language about extensions and abandonment.

And then five, should the property be declared a public nuisance, it may be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the special use permit.

That concludes staff's report.

No.

You swear the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law.

I do.

Remember.

Heather Glockler, two North 129th Infantry Avenue, Joliet, Illinois, attorney for the petitioner.

Any comments?

Um I want to first say good afternoon to everybody.

Um staff did an excellent job.

We would be adopting the recommendation, and we ask for your approval.

My client, myself, and the engineer are all available for any questions.

Thank you.

Questions by the board.

What's the what's the expected financial layout for this whole project?

I'm sorry.

What's the financial layout for this project?

The financial layout?

Um identify yourself, sir?

Uh, you swear you would you swear the evidence report present to be the truth under penalty?

Yes.

Yes.

October and get no name and address.

Octavian gets 2507.

Accolade avenue, night previously.

Approximately estimate is 7.5.

Okay, so five million.

And you presently own the property, right?

Okay.

Any other questions by the board?

Anyone in the audience was to speak in favor.

Anyone opposed?

Yes.

Good afternoon.

You swear the evidence you're about to present to be the true central penalty law.

I do.

Name and address.

Uh E Lane Pool and Lower the Mike a little bit, huh?

Sorry.

Elaine Pool and 3397 Shanahan Road.

Thank you.

So one of the residents is to the east of the proposal.

Um concerns are the water and drainage.

Um we've seen other developments come and they you actually it floods out the houses.

So concerned about that.

Um the properties that are to the west of this uh proposed development are well water.

Um so there's a concern about the impact to the environment and also to the residents that live there and the water pressure and the changes because it is butts up to the creek.

Um that lower rock run that runs into that.

Um there's already an issue with the traffic because of the construction, as you pointed out, the developments there.

Um the vehicles travel too fast, the trucks particularly don't stop.

Um so worried about the road.

Um, if I understood correctly, they said there will only be like five vehicles in and out a day.

I I'm looking at the size that you're proposing, and I I've been in logistics over 25 years.

There's no way that that's just gonna be five five trucks in and out a day.

That's gonna impact the road there.

It's gonna impact the traffic as it is already.

Um, a problem.

The close proximity to the houses, it's gonna lower the property values of the houses that are there.

Um, understand that we're trying to expand and build, but we're pushing people out who pay taxes and have paid for generations.

Um the fence isn't gonna do anything for the noise, a six-foot chain link fence isn't gonna do anything for noise.

Um I believe if it's the same company that proposal was shot down by the Shanahan committee because of most of the things that I've mentioned to you too.

Um traffic and noise, the speed limits.

Um, we've already had to deal with some of the issues with the with the traffic there, adding this property without any infrastructure for the roads or any um sort of traffic concerns.

Um still poses a problem.

Uh, my brother was hit by a car in front of our house.

So, and that was just you know none of the traffic handles the the uh none of this addresses the traffic with the roads and the traffic that'll be in and out.

Um there's more you guys want to know.

The fact that we didn't know who the company was either was odd.

So I'm gonna hit it on that lady's point where I don't understand why that stuff's not public information before you go into a meeting, but um that's about it.

It's super close to those roads, the creeks, uh, the environmental impact, and I I don't understand why it couldn't be put somewhere else instead of right on top of where the houses are there already.

My parents own that land where you're talking about with the first ferret forest preserve is our our grandparents owned all that land, and so we understand that there's change and improvement and all that, but part of why um we're still there is because of all that stuff there, and because of all the creeks and the ponds and and that well water directly affects us.

I certainly wouldn't want anybody to get something to happen to them because the water's been changed because of the drains they're putting in or how they put them in, and it impacts how we live.

And I just asked for you to take that into consideration.

You know, we're just little farmers, but uh there's other places this could go that could probably be a better use and not impact all of the area with all the traffic that's there now.

That's all right.

Do you live in one of the houses to the east of this property?

Yeah, well, I should say my family, our family owns one of the properties, and my brother lives in that house that we grew up in.

So our family uh my grandfather owned all that land where the park district is and all those houses, and so he gave his kids either an acre of land when they got married, their 11 kids they had, or uh money when they got married.

So an aunt and uncle, my mom and dad, aunt and uncle, aunt and uncle, and grandma and grandpa are where the that gas station is now on the corner of uh Bush Road, who was our aunt that you guys change it to uh well, you guys didn't change it.

The city changed it to uh to appease the casinos, but we're Bush Road and Route 6 is so tell me what was what give me your idea what would be the best fit for the land, what you think would be the best fit for land.

To be honest with you, um I don't know to be honest with you, I'd like it to be part of the park district because no one's used it in forever.

Yeah, but development is coming sooner or later.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Even if they put a school there, if they put a daycare there, if they something would ever be.

But the amount of traffic there now, you can have Amazon right up the street.

You couldn't put a school there.

Every time you go to the store and you want to get something off of the chefs, some truck has to bring it there, right?

I I'm not disagreeing with you, but there's there's a zillion properties where you have we have warehouses that are not being utilized, that are all over the area, that are not being utilized at all, that just sit there empty, and they're already ready for you to go, be wherever you want, right there.

It doesn't have to be right in our backyard or right next to us.

That's all I'm saying.

A lot of warehouses out there, a lot of empty spots.

Trust me, I know.

I've been in logistics a long time.

Just doesn't seem like the best use of this property right now, considering the fact that the traffic is already congested, and now you're gonna add even more.

And there's a reason Shanahan just down the road said no.

There's a reason.

It's just already too ridiculous.

Even if we turn him down.

Understand.

Sooner or later, someone is coming, darling.

I I'm not disagreeing with you, but they don't have to be there right now.

There's other spots available.

I I'm not disagreeing with you.

But it's it's not, it's not it's a question of doing the right thing for the people that have paid taxes for years and years, and not letting the company just come in and railroad you and say, we're gonna do this and it's gonna be nice.

And to say there's only five or six trucks that are gonna come in and out of there a day, you looked at that warehouse, you know that's not true.

So at least I'm telling you the honest truth.

Yeah, but development.

Development is coming.

I understand that, but there's other spots for that to be.

Because that will impact the houses.

That'll impact your taxes.

You certainly wouldn't want one in your backyard.

I guarantee there's probably not one in your backyard.

Who owned that property originally?

I'm sorry, who owned that property?

Uh the property where that is was uh John Elbert.

They own the where that restaurant is.

We own to the east of that.

There were actually there was a house that said there was one house.

There was actually four houses in the back, and then there was a house on the side, and they rented those houses out.

So I think originally when they did that, uh the 2011 was just to make the parking lot bigger.

It really wasn't for an industrial building.

It was a restaurant, a family restaurant, and I could see that instead of more trucks.

Because right now, the city loses money with all the trucks, and nobody's fixing it.

It's ridiculous how bad construction is all over, and no no companies are held accountable, and nobody does anything to say, okay, we're gonna build this, but you're gonna have to be a part of the solution as far as the maintenance of it, too.

You telling me that they're not gonna pay taxes when they come.

Well, I don't know.

You guys defer a lot of stuff, so I don't know, but I don't know how much taxes they're gonna pay based on what impact they're gonna have to your to your uh constituents and all the people that vote for you and the traffic.

I mean, you you I'm certain that you probably look at Facebook on I-8055.

That's insane.

It's insane, and we don't need to add another one where now Route 6 will be just as bad.

That's all right now.

You have growth there, but it's it's not growth where it's gonna blow up.

This will blow it up.

That's all.

Any other questions by the board?

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

Hello, as far as the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law.

Yes, I name an address.

My name is Kathy Link, and I'm at 22758 South Michael Drive, Shanahan, Illinois.

I'm her sister, and my main concern is the um environmental impact because the west side of that location is Rock Run Creek, and the forest preserve behind it.

And my concern is that they're gonna impact the forest preserve negatively and the crypt negatively.

There is groundwater that has a concern because those houses on the east are all well water, and if they get impacted by the groundwater, they will have to drill new wells or other such items or get city water, and they're right now in unincorporated Woke County, but my big concern is the environment rent, and what a trucking maintenance facility is gonna do to runoff of the trucks, tank cleaning or uncleaning, and I just don't think the request has been examined environmentally enough.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Do you care to address those issues?

Yes, thank you.

I do want to thank everybody that spoke today.

Um a few things that I would like to just readdress here.

This is not a warehouse, this is a trucking maintenance facility.

Um, so it will have you know the stalls available as um as staff pointed out in one of the the pictures, the concept plan.

Um the my my client is is estimating five to six trucks for repair and maintenance.

Um he does own an over-the-road trucking company.

Um so those trucks will be parking in those stalls.

Thank you.

Um will be parking in those stalls when they're not on the road.

Um, so while I certainly understand the concerns um of increased traffic, um the five to six trucks in and out or additional vehicles in and out is an estimate based on the use.

Um, we're going to comply with all of the city requirements.

Um that is something that you know there's conditions for us.

Uh we do have to comply with, and we are not the same company company that they've referenced uh in the past with Shanahan.

I'm not sure who that was.

Um my client did uh purchase this last year and has been complying um in in the application process since far as the environmental concerns.

I certainly understand that.

Um a maintenance facility is not the same as the warehouses that are already there.

Um I'm sure a number of one, you know, a number of us have driven up and down that street.

We're aware of those, the the environment over there.

Um whatever conditions are imposed, obviously my client will abide by.

I'm sure that the environmental protection agency we you will have to concur with whatever they asked for, right?

Absolutely, we would yes.

At what point does the EPA step in to ask those questions and to see the plan?

Like, should that happen before a vote is taken?

My name's Gary Dillman.

Oh I must swear you in.

Just where the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law.

Your name and address.

Gary Dillman, 1550 Seals Court, Neighborville, Illinois.

All the environmental issues will be addressed by permit to the EPA during the process of the engineering phase, which comes right after the approval phase from you.

The water runoff for that property, all the water will be maintained on the property in a storm trap for a certain period of time and then divert it into the storm system at a reduced rate, so not to impact any property outside of the outline of that property.

It's all stored underground, concrete bins, water sits in there when it rains, fills up, then it ejects out a big pipe to a smaller pipe to a smaller pipe, so it doesn't impact the storm system in front of the property.

All the environmental waste that comes out of there is taken out through a triple basin on the opposite side of the building where all the sewage will go out, and it's taken out like the old storm or sewage in the back of the house.

Well now it goes through a triple drain system, is filtered out, and that system is emptied by the owner at the point of when it gets to capacity where it's full, but never impacts the storm or the uh basic based on outside where all the sewage is put in.

So that's never impacted into the property.

All that's done before the engineering is approved, and then that goes to the city, they sign off on it, and we're done.

They may have questions or comments, but those are all presented at the same time.

Anyone else?

Questions by the board.

Chair's gonna close the petition the floor now for discussion and a motion.

Motion to accept.

Second.

We have motion, a second to approve the petition, pull the board.

Ms.

Rohr?

Aye.

Ms.

Smig?

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff?

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Mr.

Noctree?

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessey.

All right.

Um this petition will move forward with a recommendation of approval to an upcoming city council meeting.

So if you're interested in this petition, just continue to look at our agendas for city council meetings.

All right.

That brings us to old business, not for final action or recommendation, which there are no agenda items.

And that brings us to public comment.

This section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding non-agenda items and are allowed a maximum of four minutes.

It is not a question and answer period, and staff and the zoning board of appeals members do not generally respond to public comments.

And the speaking procedures are up on the screen.

Hello again, Margie Seapan.

As I brought up the redactions in the applications for the city records, I also spoke about FOIAs and the FOIAs have become a problem for residents.

And it's been happening over the last several months, and I'm not the only one that's noticing.

I did talk to Mayor Darcy about this as well.

And uh the most recent one that I it was not even my FOIA.

I very rarely FOIA the city.

But it wasn't even mine, it was um, I'm not sure who, but in neighboring mu municipalities, residents were talking about it.

It was about the data center.

And the number of pages that were released for this FOIA was 1,314 pages.

Of the 1,314 pages, 1,307 were redacted.

The FOIA, the FOIA asked for development agreements, engineering plans, memos, and it was all redacted.

Why was it redacted?

Redaction is the exception, not the rule.

the one thousand three hundred and fourteen pages one thousand three hundred and seven were redacted the FOIA the FOIA asked for development agreements engineering plans memos and it was all redacted why was it redacted redaction is the exception not the rule and within those one thousand three hundred and seven pages of black pages that's almost three reams of paper is the city saying that there is a a specific law that they can cite for every single word in that FOIA release this is not the first time either there seems to have been over the last few months a change and what the citizens the residents have information to we should have that information why there was a legal notice put out the the data center was supposed to be before you and I believe the plan commission as well a public notice was placed and then it was taken off the agenda indefinitely citizens want transparency and I I believe the mayor's in agreement too what is going on thank you anyone else here to speak uh through public comment hi I'm um here to say something about the storage units but I I don't know if I'm allowed if go ahead okay um first of all it's regarding the storage units that want to be put up on Drowden Road and um I we live across the street in Westmere subdivision and we have um four schools that are actually in that area which we are concerned about the children walking home and was I supposed to do okay sorry here it's very bridge grade school drown point and train middle school all these kids um all these kids go right past the house and I live right in back well in front of where this is gonna supposedly be and I'm more concerned about kids because it I don't think that's a good idea I'd rather have a store or something there where people don't have to worry about their children so okay then uh there's another thing we wanted to add to is that a lot of the storage units have um guns a lot of people store their guns in these storage units um also the drugs and dealing with the drugs um and they also live in the storage units and um we're just worried for for the children again and even I live alone and I mean all this that will be going on there's a lot of traffic right there and I believe they're putting uh stop and go lights up there that right now it's been just stop signed and it's right next to a gas station and then the one grade school is right would be right next door right there by the um the storage unit and um I don't I don't know just them having drugs for one thing they could be coming in to our subdivision and who knows you know what they can do um I I do have some friends that own not own but um buy storage units and they find this kind of stuff out all the time and um just I have a um example of it's not in Illinois but it's Brown University Massachusetts shooting suspect was found dead inside a storage unit in Salem New Hampshire so that's just uh just one example so and um also you know what our tax is gonna go up because of this um you know we're already um high and like I said I live alone so

So that's just uh just one example, so and um also you know what our taxes gonna go up because of this.

Um you know we're already um high and like I said, I live alone, so it's uh quite hard to uh make ends meet.

Um so that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anyone else would like to speak under public comment?

That being said, we'll move to adjournment.

Motion be in order.

Motion second.

We have a motion to adjourn the meeting for the board.

Miss Mid.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff, I Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Mr.

Noctree?

Aye, Miss Radokovich, Miss Roar, Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.