Good morning, everyone.

We are here on October 8th, 2025 for the planning building, zoning, and environment committee meeting at 1030 a.m.

In addition to being able to attend in person, remote attendance has been made available to the public via Zoom at the link on the agenda.

This meeting is being recorded through Zoom.

Per county board rules and the open meetings act, attendance via remote means is permitted for qualifying reasons as long as the majority of committee members are physically present.

We've been notified in advance by member Paul Frank that he requests to participate electronically to due to one of the qualifying reasons.

A physical quorum is present.

So he may be marked as present and is eligible to vote on Manders before the committee today.

Nobody has any objections, right?

Okay.

As a reminder to members attending remotely, please ensure your camera is on at all times.

All right.

Uh, can we do uh Isaiah?

Can you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Can I get a roll call, please?

Chair Altenberg.

Here.

Member Compost?

Here.

Member Frank?

Here.

Vice Chair Peterson.

Member Schlick?

Here.

Member Wasick.

Here.

Okay.

We have a quorum.

Is there any public comment?

No public comment and no addenda to the agenda.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I have no chair's remarks today.

Um, do we have any unfinished business?

No unfinished business.

Okay.

Um, we need to do the consent agenda.

Can I get a motion for that?

Motion by Member Schlick, second by member Knishnik.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

We're moving on to 8.2, regular agenda.

Joint resolution authorizing the demolition of dangerous and unsafe buildings at 9865 West Logan Court, Zion, Illinois, that have been deemed to be an immediate and continuing hazard to the community.

And we want to welcome Leva Donov and PBND director Eric Wagner.

Thank you for coming.

Good morning, Eric Wagner, Planning Building and Development.

One more thing.

I need a motion, please.

Motion by Member Keniznik, second by member compost.

Okay.

Good morning, Eric Wagner, Planning Building and Development Director.

And I'm joined with Eva Donov, our building official.

And behind us is Krista Brown, our deputy director and zoning administrator.

Uh this morning.

We're going to go through an exercise that we don't go through very often, but when we do, it's very important.

This is the topic of our uh presentation and the action from committee today is the proposed what we call fast track demolition of an unsafe um abandoned uh collapsing single family residence along with a garage, some dilapidated fencing and junk and debris on the property.

This is up in the unincorporated Zion area within member Roberts District, who's here with us this morning.

This is a property that um has been on our radar for some time and we've been unsuccessful in obtaining compliance from the property owner.

Um, what we're gonna do this morning um is walk through the facts of the case, i.e.

what's going on with the property, what the condition it's in, and so forth.

You'll see some pictures.

But because uh we don't often go through the demolition process uh with the board, um, it's an opportunity to remind the board members, and for some members they've never seen this before, to sort of uh provide some insight into how we go through this process.

And so uh without further ado, I'll introduce uh Eva to sort of walk us through the facts of the case and then we'll um we'll take um take time for questions at the conclusion of our presentation.

Thank you.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you very much.

And uh the um improvement on the subject parcel is one single family dwelling about 196 square feet, uh detached garage, which is about 500 square feet, and there's a fence, which is about 120 square feet in um, I'm sorry, linear feet.

The structures have been vacant um and not maintained for quite a bit.

Um the property has been subject to ongoing enforcement action since 2021, and we've been trying to compel the property owner to bring the structures into compliance.

Umber vs efforts have been unsuccessful.

The structures have continued to deteriorate and are now deemed to be uninhabitable, open to animal and human intrusion and an immediate and continuous hazard to the community.

So you can see uh the aerial view of the property.

Uh the subject violations that we found are tall grass and bleeds.

Then I was at the property from the street, you can't even see the house or the garage.

The weeds are probably taller than myself.

It was an effort just to get uh closer to uh the front entrance of the the primary single family dwelling and the garage.

Um the garage and the dwelling both are open to intrusion.

The garage roof and the dwelling roof uh seem to be collapsing and open to the elements.

You can see the pictures of the single family dwelling.

When I was in front of it, I could uh clearly see that the door was propped open.

A lot of things were right in front of it.

Somebody most likely bent inside of the dwelling, and you can also see openings in the roof.

So structural integrity of the roof is compromised.

And I'm sure I'm assuming that there's water damage, structural damage, and it's open to the elements.

Um, the concern would be that people are able to enter the structure, it's not secure.

So anybody could be endangered by bad fact.

And and just to go back to the previous slide, you'll note that this property is in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

So we would consider a site like this a um high likelihood of becoming an attractive nuisance to like area kids.

You know, your little kid, of course, you're gonna want to explore on that you know, vacant property.

Um, and so given the populated nature of this area, this is especially concerning to us.

Right.

Um, so thank you, Eric.

The next slide is the accessory structure, the garage, 500 square foot.

Um, so the roof is caving in.

You can see the bow in the middle of it.

It is open.

The door was completely propped open as well.

And it seemed like there's an evidence of people taking things out because some things were left right in front of a door.

So the determination by myself, the building official, is that the structures are open and vacant and pose an immediate and continuous hazard to the community in which we are located.

The Lake County State's attorney agrees with the determination for 55 Illinois uh 5-5-11.

The county given the authority to expedite the removal of such structures and associated garbage and debris.

So this stat, this is sort of a history lesson.

This particular statute um allows us to through this emergency action to take down the single family residence, the garage, the fence, and clean up all the junk and debris on the site.

Up until 2013, we would only have had the ability to use the fast track process, which we'll describe a little bit later to just take down the house.

There wasn't an authority to do a fast track process for accessory buildings.

And so we recognize that was a flaw in the statute through our office.

We actually were successful in introducing this into the 2013 state legislative program, and we were successful ultimately in amending the Illinois statute governing county demolition actions to include in that fast track process accessory buildings like garages and fences and so forth.

So through that um former action that we take in legislatively back in 2013, we now have the ability to take care of all of it at the same time rather than just in a piecemeal fashion.

I have a question.

Yeah.

Um do you take possession of the property before you do this?

Because the people are not responsive to you.

We'll we'll talk a little bit about the process later.

But no, we do not take possession of the property.

We're simply stepping in to clean it up in the absence of any action on the part of the property owner.

But we'll talk a little bit about the process shortly.

So the next slide essentially details the estimate market cost.

It's not a specific um have a receipt from a contractor, but comes up uh shy of 40,000, just breaking down what they'll be involved in the process of demolition.

So they'll have to demolish a single family dwelling that comes up about 13,440.

The attached garage is about 7,500, uh defense about 2,500, uh, side cleanup, uh, about 4,000.

That's going to be removing all junk and debris and removing all the wheats and relate it.

And then there might be also asbestos based on the age of the dwelling, uh, which might be additional cost of 5,000 and then utility disconnect and permitting.

So an average of 2,000.

The reason why we went about conducting the sort of preliminary estimate at this point in time before going through the process is to make sure that, like at the end of this process, if we get ready to actually do the demolition through a contractor, does the county have the funding available to do that?

And the answer is yes.

We've consulted with finance and uh the finance department, and there will be funding available for this purpose should the county board elect to move forward, should we go through the process.

So I'll now talk about sort of the steps involved in going through this.

Umce the committee takes action today, if the board ultimately approves the action to proceed with a fast track demolition, um, the board would um would act on that at the county board meeting coming up.

And upon that approval, the state's attorney's office on behalf of the county will formally notify the property owners and lien holders of record of the pending action pursuant to the statute.

There's a notice requirement under the statute.

That notice that is provided to the property owner and any lien holders gives them 30 days, 30 days upon receipt to either take care of the problem themselves by demolishing and cleaning up the property or otherwise restoring it to a safe condition, or alternatively, should they so choose to file a an for an appearance in circuit court to contest the county's action.

And if at the conclusion of that 30-day notice period, they have failed to do either of those things, they've not taken care of the problem, nor have they contested the action, that would then allow us to move forward with the formal demolition contracting and action.

And so this gives us um a kind of a clear roadmap going forward of how to go about this process.

It's set forth in the statute.

We're following the statutory requirements.

Um, I will say that uh in advance of taking these steps, we have done um everything within our power to contact the property owner and you know, anyone else who's potentially um has a property interest, and we have thus far um been unsuccessful to actually talk with anybody most recently, um, and Krista can probably provide a little bit more detail.

The we've recently learned that the former uh former owner of the property um who lived off site, um, has let the property go for back taxes.

The tax buyer is represented by an attorney, and we have been able to reach out to the attorney um through efforts and uh coordinating with the clerk's office to get their contact information.

And so we are gonna be initiating a you know contact with them in the next couple of days to essentially brief them on this process and what their what their you know rights and responsibilities are under the statute.

And so we hope we hope that that would actually induce them to take care of the problem themselves.

More likely than not, though, uh, because this tax buyer has held possession of the property for the last couple of years and they've sunk some money into it, but haven't done anything to clear up the junk and debris or restore the buildings to a safe condition.

to be initiating of the you know contact with them um in the the next couple of days to essentially brief them on this process and what their what their you know rights and responsibilities are under the statute and so we hope we hope that that would actually induce them to take care of the problem themselves more likely than not though uh because this tax buyer has held possession of the property for the last couple of years and they sunk some money into it um but haven't done anything to clear up the junk and debris or restore the buildings to a safe condition more than likely they're probably not going to be that motivated to take the buildings down themselves but time will tell we'll have that conversation with them there will be a process for them to you know so um to follow and uh we'll see what happens so have you reached out to the tax buyer yet yes okay and you have they we respond and and Krista has a call scheduled with their attorney so we our attempts to reach the the property owner we tried every phone number that was ever associated with this person and none of them were successful and I think we even reached out to the property manager of of the person's last known address um and and pretty much got nowhere and so then turned our attention to the um to the the tax buyer situation and I've been working with somebody in the clerk's office to get the contact information there's there's two open tax buyers currently um one Eva and I did did talk to there's a little bit of confusion as to whether they still have a vested interest in the property but we informed them anyway um and they indicated they had no no issue with um with the action the the second one um which is more recent and more active um it was uh an LLC the uh so it took a little bit of uh trying to get through to an actual person um that would kind of reach back to us so um sent some emails made some phone calls um finally got a response just this morning um so we'll be reaching out to the attorney for that LLC and discussing it uh with them uh either this afternoon or tomorrow as soon as possible and is the tax buyer considered now the owner of the property not yet oh not yet there still has more per my conversations with the the clerk's office they have um there's still one step that they need to complete in the process before they would be considered the owner they haven't I think they have till the end of the year to to complete that process um so again we'll see what their we don't know what their intentions are yet okay we have a question from them from member Frank he has his hand up thank you chair uh director wagner uh Krista I I have no concern about the approach I think um we always want to first and foremost ensure public safety so I think the demolition proceeding through the legal routes makes a lot of sense but oftentimes these taxpayers are uh tax buyers are uh essentially prospecting for investments that they can turn over and turn profit um and you know to uh cynically it you know you could say that um the tax buyers taking advantage of the county by us paying for the demolition is there a process by which we could place a lien on on the property so that we could attempt to recover some of our costs uh if if the tax buyer eventually sells the property that is our intention yes great to file a file a judgment lien uh in the circuit court for the full amount and that would be a debt owed to the county at that point uh would be requirement for you know the the property owner to uh prior to taking possession of a property for a a buyer to have to you know for the current owner to pay off that lien um and so that would be our remedy available to to get the money back great thank you thank you chair okay member compost do you still have a question I do um thank you member frank that was one of my questions so I can save myself some time uh one of my questions regarding uh the property owners um right currently um you said you hit they had 30 days to either repair or uh contest uh contest um if they show movement on repair um do they need to repair it fully or show movement that hey there is a problem we hired a contractor they're gonna be they they can only come a month later right would that be enough i i'm not I'm I'm sure that's not going to happen but in that scenario so the statute gives us the authority to move forward with full demolition after the conclusion of the 30 day period if they haven't completed the work however given the interest in you know saving the the taxpayer taxpayers money sure um it certainly would be in our best interest to work with them if they had a bona fide timely plan to remediate the the property um in lieu of finishing it within 30 days if they proposed something that was a little bit more drawn out we would certainly work with them to to to have it taken care of before we did it ourselves.

Um, in lieu of finishing it within 30 days, if they proposed something that was a little bit more drawn out, we would certainly work with them to to have it taken care of before we did it ourselves.

And we have that discussion based on the discretion.

Correct.

Understood.

Uh and going forward with the demolition, what is the method that would be employed to demolish this building?

We would go through a contracting process um to do the demolition.

The county wouldn't take it on ourselves.

We don't have the equipment, we don't have the the personnel to do that.

Um there are either um there are two really two really two options.

First, there's a demolition contractor that the county uses utilizes through its jock program, the job order contracting process, which gives us some, you know, I think it gives us some certainty in terms of costs and quality.

Um is essentially um seeking uh proposals from uh known demolition contractors in the area that do this kind of work.

And so we're we would be weighing our options in terms of the the two paths to take, whether it's going through the jock contracting program or working with uh with a local uh builder in in any or with a local contractor.

In any case, the the county's demolition contractor is a local uh company as well.

Understood.

So the method of which to dump demolish would be safe, um to safely demolish this building would be on the contractor when they win the contract, they assess the property.

Hey, uh we're gonna use this method.

Okay, understand.

And we would oversee the process as well.

We typically, for these demolitions, we want to make sure that we have eyes on the property.

We we understand that you know things can go wrong in any given project.

And so, especially in light of the location of this particular property, we wouldn't would want to make sure that they were doing the work correctly and not jeopardizing life and safety and the surrounding community.

And so having eyes on the project while they were doing it is something that we would take care of at a level.

Understood.

And that demolition contract also covers uh disposal of the waste created by understood.

And we actually have uh a construction and demolition recycling requirement under the county's ordinance that requires them to divert um construction and demolition debris.

And so that is already a requirement under our under our ordinance.

No further questions, thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Member Schlick.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh Eric, uh two quick questions.

Just uh in the demolition costs, you had permits and utility disconnect.

Does that permits, does that really cover the administrative cost of your office's kind of um what's got your office to do all this as far as making sure you know going through all this legal process, going through we don't know.

There's no recapture fee of that because it just is simply part of our job of protecting life safety in the in the unincorporated areas.

So we don't we don't bill for our time.

Understood.

I in the future, I think it's a good idea, but I do think there should be some type of recapture fee for our staff's time.

And you know, as we go through some of this, that like I think you there's a certain threshold where you I accept what you do, and then I think there's above and beyond, and having to go through this process, I think might be a little above and beyond, but that's a discussion for another day, I guess.

And then I just have a little concern with as we're going through this tax sale process.

Um if we run into an issue where the 30 days expire, we put the lien on the existing homeowner who then loses the home to the tax buyer.

What does that look like?

Does you know, does the tax buyer inherit that lien at that point?

Is it you know, just making sure that there's not gonna be some type of slip up that you know, wow, it was uh we put the lien on the previous owner, but now they're conveyed by the taxes, just making sure the lien that's that's the whole point of getting a hold of the tax buyer.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

That was that's gonna be the the main point that I'm driving home when I when I do talk to the attorney is um, you know, we're prepared, we're this is this action is moving forward.

It will, you know, it's gonna go to the county board uh later, you know, in a few weeks.

And uh, but at the end of the day, there'll be a lien on the property.

And then if you complete the the purchase.

So that tax buyer has an opportunity to walk away and say, hey, I'm not interested.

So we wanted to make sure that we we want to make sure that they are fully aware of um what they're what they're getting themselves into.

All right.

Yeah, I just wasn't sure what the conveyance of the lien would be with the tax sale.

So I will say that once that property is cleaned up and the structures are gone, it's eminently more developable.

Okay.

And so that in some ways may actually facilitate a more rapid turnaround in terms of redevelopment of that lot, which as we all know, we need more houses in unincorporated Lake County.

So going through this process will not only provide the area community more safety, but it will facilitate potential redevelopment of the property that's gonna directly address one of the county board's other goals, which is to increase supply of housing affordable at all levels.

All right.

Thank you.

Member Wasick.

Oh, okay.

Any other questions?

Oh Gina.

Oh, thank you.

Um this was probably my first phone call when I got elected in 2020.

And this has been going on every year.

I get one or two phone calls from either the city or a neighbor.

It is so it's so unsafe.

Not only is it unsafe, the neighbors who live around it are beside themselves to have to look at this, worry about their kids going in that house.

Um, worry about um people moving, you know, the homeless people living in it.

Just um, it's just a bad it's just it's just a bad, it's just bad.

So um I I'm hoping everybody supports this because it will make that area safer and a better a better neighborhood because it's just an eyesore and unsafe.

So thank you all for your support, and that's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you.

Eric, you want to continue?

So that's our that's the whole presentation.

Okay, gotcha.

Um, anybody else have any questions about this?

I feel like we covered it pretty well.

Um so what are you looking for from us today?

A vote of that we'd like to go forward with the demolition.

Right, vote to approve.

This is joint committee action, so it would also go to FA tomorrow.

Okay.

Um so if you have motion, yeah.

We have a motion, I think.

Second campus.

Yes.

Okay.

So I'll just do all in favor if you're in favor, you're in favor of the demolition.

If you're against it, you're against the demolition.

Okay.

So all in favor, aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very thorough conversation.

Motion passes.

All right, we're moving to Ruth Ann, you have a report.

Um, yes, 8.3 is the committee action.

Right.

For the permanent destruction of executive session recordings for inactive planning, building, and zoning committee from June 3rd, 2008 through November 3rd, 2015, in accordance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act and as recommended on the attached documents.

We would need a motion and a second.

Okay, can I get a motion by member Schlick, second by member Wasick?

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Is there a county administrator's report?

There is not.

Okay.

We do have executive session, correct?

That's correct.

You need to read the two reasons why we're going into executive session.

Right here.

Okay.

So we are having executive session today to discuss a personnel matter pursuant to five ILCS 120-2 C1.

And we're also going to be reviewing an executive session, the minutes pursuant to five ILCS 120-2 C21.

So we need a motion or we need a motion for executive session.

Motion by member compo, second by no member Knižnik.

All in favor.

Oh, do we need a roll call for that?

Sorry.

Chair Altenberg.

Aye.

Member Campos.

Member Frank.

Aye.

Member Kneesek.

Vice Chair Peterson.

Member Schlick.

Member Wasick.

Okay.

We are down to 11.1.

Committee action approving the planning, building, zoning, and environment committee executive session minutes from September 25th, 2024.

Can I get a motion?

Motion by no member Knights, second by member Schlick.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Is that the only one?

Yep.

Okay.

Well, all right.

So any member remarks.

Okay.

We are happy to adjourn until October 22nd.

Until October twenty second.

Everybody have a fabulous day.