VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 15, 2011
CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 pm
Chairman Brackett called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
In attendance: Chairman Mike Brackett, Co-Chairman Jennifer Duncan, Commissioner Ed Sweeney, Commissioner Andrea Rattray, Commissioner Mark Rivecco, Commissioner Mark Carroll, Commissioner Tom Lenkart, Commissioner Connie Holbrook, Trustee Mike Herlihy. Not in attendance: Commissioner Ryan Lambert.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 1, 2011
Motion for approval made by Commissioner Duncan and seconded by Commissioner Rattray. All in favor. Motion approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – None
NEW BUSINESS – None
OLD BUSINESS
a. Zoning Ordinance Revision Review, Chapters 4
Section 4.2 (e) – Commissioner Rivecco asked if there was any value in considering height as a possible variance. The Commission was in agreement with the possibility of a 10% maximum height variance.
Section 4 (f) – Hardships – Commissioner Lenkart suggested the findings of fact be written so that they are in an easy to read format with a yes/no check box next to each commissioners name to record their vote, eliminate the double negatives and eliminate the statements that do not prompt a response. Trustee Herlihy said that the form also needs to record the 6 or 7 positions of the Village Board since both bodies (Village Board & Plan Commission) need to make specific findings of fact. Buening said that the village attorney has stated that the Village Board also needs to make findings of fact. The Board can adopt the findings of fact of the Plan Commission collectively. If the Board votes differently from the Plan Commission, they should note their findings of fact.
Buening to discuss this further with Atty. Drendel in terms of both bodies having to make findings of fact.
Trustee Herlihy said that the wording at the beginning of section 4 needs to be more procedural guidance. Herlihy said it should state the basis of the procedure.
Commissioner Carroll said that the language in the first paragraph was very clear. It stated that the Village Board, in its decision, makes specific findings of fact.
Commissioner Sweeney suggested the Commission look at the ten (10) questions for findings of fact separately from the zoning ordinance discussion and bring it back for discussion at the next meeting.
The Commission was in agreement. Once the questions are reviewed they will be forwarded to Atty. Drendel.
Section 4.3 Special Use – Trustee Herlihy said that this section is missing disclosure of all parties related to the condition such as beneficiaries to the special use, prospective tenants, silent partners, etc. Commissioner Rattray stated that the Community Development Department would decide if an application is complete. The Community Development Department would have a checklist of the items so there would be no need to place the information in the ordinance. Sweeney said it could be referenced as an appendix. The Commission decided to keep the wording as is and to have a checklist with the Community Development Department. The checklist will be addressed as an appendix.
Action by the Planning Commission – It was decided that both the Plan Commission and the Village Board should have the ability to request additional information from the developer and the majority of the Plan Commission or Village Board would have to agree before asking.
Section 4 (a) (iii) – Action by the Village Board – Buening noted a change that was made. “If the Plan Commission has a denial, would take a super majority vote.” Herlihy said the Board could ask for additional information. Duncan said that language should be noted in the section regarding “Action by the Planning Commission”.
(e) РStandards for Special Uses: Lenkart noted a typo in section e: community development “director’s”.
#5 & #7 – Lenkart said that the wording is too vague and too incompatible. Lenkart suggested that the information in this section be made into a checklist. The Plan Commission agreed.
(f) – Lenkart noted that if one special use is granted, it does not mean that all similar use requests will be granted. Wording to be added to reflect, “nor does approval of the special use apply blanket approval of an identical special use within the same zoning district.” Carroll noted that the ordinance states that the listing of a use within an ordinance does not presume approval.
The Commission agreed to include Lenkart’s wording suggestion.
(g) Conditions on Special Uses – no comments
Buening said that special uses could be structured so that they are valid for one year and if the special use is not operating within a year, it would be revoked unless they request the Plan Commission to extend the special use. The Commission decided that the special use would expire one year from the date of Village Board approval. The applicant would be required to file, by registered mail, ninety (90) days in advance of expiration in order to extend the special use.
Buening suggested, for special use and variances, a clause that prohibits someone from applying for the same variance within a year.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Duncan and seconded by Commissioner Rivecco. All in favor. Motion approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori J. Murray/Village Clerk
