MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR THE CITY OF COUNTRYSIDE, IL
HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006

Chairman Fullmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Secretary Lube called the Roll; the following members were present:

PRESENT: Chairman Richard Fullmer, Jr., Secretary Robert Lube, Mr. Edward Ziemba, Mr. Frank Thullen, Mr. Steven Jasinski, Ms. Cynthia Schulz, Ms. Tina Grotzke, Mr. Richard Toth, Mr. Daniel Moss

ALSO PRESENT: Mayor LeGant, Ald. Michalczyk, Ald. Pondelicek, CDD Muenzer, Attorney Robert Peck, MBA Hudson, CDP Swanson

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The first order of business was approval of the minutes of March 7, 2006. Ms. Grotzky moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Toth and carried by unanimous voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Fullmer read the Notice of Public Hearing to consider the proposition to rezone from its current M-1 manufacturing classification to a B-3 service and wholesale business classification on the real estate commonly known as 6402 Joliet Road; also consider the referral by the Countryside City Council of the proposition to issue a special use in the event the aforesaid rezoning is granted for an automobile service use on the real estate commonly known as 6402 Joliet Road. Such special use would permit operation of a retail business establishment for the servicing of automobiles including towing operations and related services and the washing of automobiles where no chain conveyor, blower or steam cleaning devices are employed. Such service use shall not include the sale of automobiles or trailers (new or used), painting or auto body repair.

Mr. Toth moved to open the Public Hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Lube and carried by unanimous voice vote. The persons intending to testify were sworn in en masse by Chairman Fullmer. Mr. Muenzer stated that the Staff recommendation is for approval of the rezoning and approval of the special use.

City Attorney Robert Peck summarized the matter and noted that a court reporter is present to record the testimony and transcribe the proceedings into a verbatim record if necessary for review by a court. He then reviewed the factors established by the Illinois Supreme Court to be taken into account when considering a proposed rezoning classification. They are: 1) the existing uses and zoning of nearby property; 2) the extent to which any property values are diminished by particular zoning restrictions, either those existing or those that are proposed; 3) the extent destruction of the owner’s property values, if the zoning is denied, promotes the health, safety or the general welfare of the public; 4) the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner if the rezoning is denied; 5) the suitability of the subject property for the purposes to which it is currently restricted by existing zoning and the purpose to which it will be if it’s rezoned; 6) the extent to which the existing land restrictions or proposed zoning changes are supported by the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 7) the extent to which there is a need for the proposed use. Mr. Peck also presented a packet of exhibits for Board members, as City’s Exhibits 1-3, which are basically excerpts from the City’s Zoning Code. He explained the need for each exhibit as it relates to the present hearing. Mr. Peck called Mr. Bresnahan on direct examination.

Mr. Anthony Bresnahan, owner of Chariot Automotive, 6402 Joliet Road, described the premises as seen on City’s Exhibit 4 indicating the location of fences and parking of vehicles. He stated that west of the subject property is the Lyons Township Building; east of the property is the mobile home park, separated by privacy fencing.

City Exhibits 5A-L are photographs depicting various views of the subject property and surrounding areas. Mr. Bresnahan described details of each photograph and the date that each photo was taken. He estimated that approximately 60 cars move in and out of the facility on an average day. He stated that seriously damaged vehicles are covered with tarps and are usually stored for 3-5 days. He noted that towing is 60% and auto repair is 40% of his business. Auto repair includes maintenance of personal vehicles, including oil change, brake jobs, timing belts, transmissions, etc; they also do truck maintenance and repair. No body work or painting of vehicles is done. Facility hours are from 7am to 4pm. After 4pm only towed autos and customer pick-up of cars takes place; the front gate closes at 6 pm, however due to police work, they provide a 24-hour operation; also tow trucks are sent out for accidents and/or snowstorms. The company has service contracts with about 60 commercial establishments and police departments in surrounding communities. He stated that the present law suit is the only known complaint.

Attorney Gregory Furda, representing Mr. Matt Pauga, cross-examined Mr. Bresnahan who stated that on occasion vehicles enter and leave the premises at all hours, on weekends and during late night. The property has a manual gate. Mr. Furda covered the chronology of towing on this particular site. He presented Pauga Exhibit 2, dated January 3, 1994 indicating Mr. Bresnahan’s request to change zoning from B-1 to B-3 to put a repair facility on the property, including towing. At a hearing of the PC/ZBA held February 1, 1994, the motion to deny the rezoning was passed by a 5/1/1 vote. The decision was referred to the City Council on February 9, 1994, which the City denied.

Mr. Bresnahan stated that he previously owned a towing business on 55^th St. The building housed two tenants: – a body repair shop and auto rental company. He has been in business in Countryside for 14 years and another 14 years elsewhere.

Mr. Furda presented Pauga Exhibit 10 which reveals that Code Enforcement Officer Billy Pyle presented a complaint to the City Council on May 22, 2001 to revoke his business license. Chairman Fullmer stated that Mr. Bresnahan can only respond to the rezoning issue at hand tonight. Mr. Furda alleges that the City acted improperly by rezoning this property from B-1 to M-1; he further stated that this is a classic case of spot zoning.

Mr. Furda stated that Pauga’s Exhibit 13, page 30, is a transcript of tapes from the hearing of January 8, 2001. He read a portion of the transcript which included a statement made by Mr. Bresnahan. Attorney Erik Peck stated that cross-examination is limited to the topics covered on direct examination, not what occurred in 2001. He stated that questions should be directed to rezoning and special use only. Chairman Fullmer agreed.

Mr. Furda presented Pauga’s Exhibit 15 being an Impoundment Logbook showing the date vehicles were brought in and the date they were released. Mr. Furda cited examples of entries including 4-21-02 1996 Honda Accord impounded, and showing a release of 6-11-02 with a storage charge of $1,560. Mr. Bresnahan stated that the vehicle had a police hold order on it, resulting in the lengthy storage.

Chairman Fullmer and Attorney Erik Peck continually objected to the presentation of the past history as having no bearing on the issue at hand. Exhibits presented are proper for the Circuit Court but are not proper for the Zoning Board Hearing tonight. Mr. Furda disagreed. He stated that Plan Commission members should understand the history of this case. Mr. Bresnahan stated that if the State’s Attorney puts a hold on a vehicle, it will remain until the police release it. Mr. Furda asked how many vehicles are currently on the property; Mr. Bresnahan replied 35. Mr. Furda had a photo taken on October 10 which showed 79 cars present on the lot, four tow trucks, four large trucks, two buses, one cargo van and two jet skis. There were no further questions. Mr. Furda stated his objection to the limitation of cross-examination of the witness.

Mr. Robert Peck next called Mr. John Houseal on direct examination. Mr. Houseal has been a certified professional planner for the past 15 years. He described his educational and business background in the field of City Planning. He cited various communities in which his company has been the principal city planner. City’s Exhibit 2 is the Comprehensive Plan in which Mr. Houseal was the project director; the City adopted the Plan in 2004. He reviewed the basic steps utilized in developing the Comprehensive Plan, which took approximately 12 months to complete. The subject property is identified as the Joliet Road Sub-Area, between Willow Springs Road and Brainard Avenue.

Group Exhibit 6A is the geographic map of Countryside; 6B shows the individual sub-areas of the City. Exhibit 6C shows the Joliet Road Sub-Area, some of the building footprints and some recommendations regarding minor parcel-by-parcel improvements.

Regarding the subject site at 6402 Joliet Road, it can best be described as an automobile-oriented commercial service. Joliet Road is a major arterial road; Exhibit 6D is from the IDOT Web site showing average traffic volume of 17,100 trips per day. Mr. Houseal stated that in his professional opinion the current use of the subject property and the proposed zoning and special use request are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which encompasses a variety of commercial uses.

Mr. Furda cross-examined the witness, showing him an unmarked exhibit including the subject property zoned M-1 and asked whether it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Houseal noted that there was no other M-1 zoning classification in the exhibit. He stated that his work with the City began in 2003-04 therefore he cannot testify regarding any date prior to that time. Mr. Furda asked whether the term auto pound is applicable and if that type of business is an appropriate use in the M-1 district. Mr. Houseal agreed that it is an appropriate use. Mr. Furda went through several zoning issues including the definition of special use.

Mr. Furda presented Pauga’s Exhibit 17 showing only one parcel zoned B-3 between Brainard and Willow Springs Road. Mr. Houseal stated that there is a substantial parcel zoned B-3 east of Brainard along Joliet Road. Mr. Houseal was asked to speculate on hypothetical situations dealing with special use, which he indicated were not applicable to the current issue.

Mr. Matt Pauga, 6 Kensington, North Barrington, IL cross-examined Mr. Houseal and objected to the fact that he and his attorney, Mr. Furda, are denied the right to review the past ten years of history in this case. Mr. Pauga presented other hypothetical questions which Mr. Houseal stated were not applicable to this case. Mr. Houseal stated that without knowing the specifics, he cannot respond. He stated that a special use is granted based on a specific proposal for a particular piece of property. Standards are established in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Houseal stated that there are no established guides for what is or is not spot zoning. Mr. Pauga stated that mobile home park residents are disturbed by the ongoing noise from the business. Mr. Bresnahan objected to the term junk yard used by Mr. Pauga. Mr. Houseal stated that when residential use is next to a commercially designated zoned area, there may be some problems. Mr. Pauga stated that about 500 residents live in the immediate area and are affected by this business. He does not believe this is the appropriate location for this business.

(Whereupon a five-minute recess was had)

Mr. Robert Peck examined the next witness, Danielle Edenfield, 10600 Stallford Road, Countryside, IL; her parcel is directly behind (south) of Chariot Automotive. She stated that she was approached by Mr. Pauga asking whether she had any noise complaints, etc. She noted that her property is being rehabbed and is some distance from the business; she has experienced no noise problems with the business. She also stated she was appearing voluntarily, and not in response to anyone’s request.

Mr. Peck called Robert A. Napoli as the next witness. Mr. Napoli has been a certified real estate appraiser since 1970. He has three professional appraisal designations and is certified to appraise any type of property – residential, commercial, vacant, industrial, special use, etc. He has various national and international clients. For the last 15 years he has worked in the Chicago metropolitan area doing a variety of appraisals — further information listed as City’s Exhibit 3. He discussed City’s Exhibit 7 A & B, which lists the existing zoning ordinance and zoning classifications along both sides of Joliet Road – showing office, retail and limited service use. City’s Exhibits 8A-D are a series of photographs taken by Mr. Napoli depicting the business uses along both sides of Joliet Road between Willow Springs Road and Brainard Avenue. The trend of development in Countryside shows a transition from single-family residential to commercial / business uses along Joliet Road, which has been ongoing for many years. His opinion as to the rezoning and special use of the subject property to B-3 zoning is that it is appropriate based upon the ongoing trend. He finds no diminishment of value to real property or the health, safety and welfare of residents.

Ms. Betty Shearier, 146 Meadow Drive, LaGrange Estates, stated that the bright lights coming from Chariot Automotive make it impossible to use the deck of her mobile home in the evening. The noise coming from the back-up tow trucks takes place all night long. She is most concerned with the bright lights.

Mr. Furda cross-examined Mr. Napoli. Mr. Napoli stated that the highest and best use of the property would be B-3 with a special use; the existing use would have less impact on surrounding properties than a more intensive use. Mr. Furda showed Mr. Napoli Pauga Exhibit 1 being a complete appraisal report of 6402 Joliet Road, dated January 21, 2002, signed by Appraiser John Moody to Standard Bank & Trust Co. found that the highest and best use of the property is an office-type building. There are 7 office buildings and 4-5 automotive use buildings along Joliet Road. Mr. Napoli stated the appraisal is four yeas old and out of date.

Mr. Pauga cross-examined Mr. Napoli regarding the trend of development along Joliet Road. Mr. Napoli stated that towing and car repair is an automotive use consistent with other automotive uses along Joliet Road. Mr. Peck reiterated in redirect-examination that the trend of development is commercial and business. A variety of uses are permitted; automotive is a use, but not the sole use. Mr. Napoli noted 12-15 damaged cars on the east side of the subject property, waiting to be serviced. Parked cars are noted everywhere in the immediate off-street area. Mr. Furda noted the appraisal by Mr. Rosen that is unsigned but dated October 19, 2005 stating that the highest and best use is still the same – office use.

No further witnesses were called. Chairman Fullmer asked for additional comments. Mr. Pauga enumerated the business establishments on both sides of Joliet Road, and stated that the area is predominantly office, small retail, not auto business and that Chariot Automotive does not make sense in its present location.

Mr. James Bresnahan, Manager of Chariot Automotive, responded to some of the remarks made earlier. He stated that he is there day and night, summer and winter. Back-up noises of trucks are required by the State of Illinois for safety reasons. They must light the east side of the area, but lights are pointed downward into the storage facility. They are attempting to repair the adjoining fence between the mobile home park at present. Chairman Fullmer suggested lowering the intensity of the lights and add shields to the sensors. Mr. Tony Bresnahan noted that the Township Building has very bright lights as well. He stated that no noise complaint has ever been filed against the business. He is willing to comply with neighbor’s wishes.

Mr. Peck presented his closing statement noting that the City Council has a right to refer any matter relevant to Zoning to this Commission. All of the relevant factors bearing on this issue have been presented. It is clear that the issue is a B-3 zoning, special use permitting an automotive operation including towing and mechanical repairs of vehicles. The issue before the Board is whether that zoning change and special use is appropriate for the area, and whether granting that would have any detrimental effect upon the adjoining property or general health and welfare of residents. Objections are minimal — damaged cars parked behind a fence that cannot be seen from the street.

These cars are only a fraction of a percent of the hundreds of parked cars in the immediate area. Maintenance of the fence and adjustment of lighting could be included as a part of the special use designation. Mr. Peck believes that each of the LaSalle Bank Factors has been met by the evidence presented for rezoning, as well as the City’s standards for special use.

Mr. Furda presented his closing statement by reading a passage from a 1961 Kentrucky Supreme Court case. He stated he was prohibited from examining Mr. Bresnahan with respect to the history of his involvement with this property and previous business operations in Countryside. The major objection is to the business location at present. They do not believe that the M-1 zoning granted in 2002 was appropriate; that is why they are here. They also believe that an excuse has been sought by the City to try to justify the establishment of this business; this was done by creation of a text amendment for the automotive service uses so that towing operations could then be legal as a special use in an M-1, B-1, B-2 or B-3 district. They believe it is more appropriate in an M-1 district.

Mr. Furda stated that with respect to the special use, he disagrees with the rulings by the Chair in this hearing. He questions whether his due process rights were violated by the rulings; this will be determined by Judge Bush. Mr. Furda did not introduce any evidence with regard to the standards for special use because this Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the special use notwithstanding the fact that the City of Countryside is a Home Rule Municipality. The ordinance is very clear; he read from Section 10-12-4-6(B). He stated that there has been no application filed by a person. A referral from the City Council for a special use is inappropriate since the Board does not have jurisdiction. Section C also includes further instructions that must be followed by the applicant, none of which has been completed. There is no application; there is no jurisdiction. One other consideration is that public notice to residents living within 250 feet of the subject property was not given. Community Development Director Mr. Muenzer stated that public notices did go out and were received back by the City. The Chairman asked that the Public Notices be included as part of the evidence for the record. Chairman Fullmer entered into evidence all exhibits presented by the City and all exhibits presented by Mr. Furda and Mr. Pauga. Mr. Furda withdrew his statement about the Notices; he was unaware that they had been sent out.

Mr. Lube stated that with 500 residents affected by this business, he would expect to see more objectors present; only one person actually appeared.

There was no further testimony. Chairman Fullmer entertained a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Toth moved to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing, seconded by Mr. Ziemba and carried unanimously by voice vote.

Chairman Fullmer entertained a motion to continue the hearing for one week. Mr. Toth moved to continue the hearing for deliberations on the evidence to April 11, 2006 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Mr. Thullen and carried by unanimous Roll Call vote – 8/0/1.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Lube moved, seconded by Mr.Toth, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Chairman Fullmer declared the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.