VILLAGE OF GURNEE
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE
PLAN COMMISSION
AND
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
held
February 9, 2000
7:00 PM
GURNEE MUNICIPAL BUILDING
325 North O'Plaine Road
Gurnee, Illinois
PLAN COMMISSION:
LYLE FOSTER, Chairman
BILL FINN
KATHRYN McDERMOTT
FRANK PAPP
CHERYL ROSS
JIM SULA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
ED CLARK
TOM HOOD
DAVID KAUFFMAN
STEPHEN PARK
BARBARA THOMA
ALSO PRESENT:
JON WILDENBERG
TRACY VELKOVER
BARBARA SWANSON
AL "BUTCH" MAIDEN
1 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Good evening. I
2 would like to call to order tonight's joint
3 meeting of the Planning Commission and Zoning
4 Board of Appeals for a public hearing.
5 I would like to first tonight go
6 through the roll call for the Planning
7 Commission, please.
8 MS. VELKOVER: Ross.
9 MS. ROSS: Here.
10 MS. VELKOVER: Sula.
11 MR. SULA: Here.
12 MS. VELKOVER. Finn.
13 Absent.
14 Papp.
15 MR. PAPP: Here.
16 MS. VELKOVER: Winter.
17 Absent.
18 McDermott.
19 Absent.
20 Foster.
21 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Here.
22 Tom gave me permission to also
23 call for the roll call of the Zoning Board of
24 Appeals so let's have that, please, too.
1 MS. VELKOVER: Thoma.
2 MS. THOMA: Here.
3 MS. VELKOVER: Park.
4 MR. PARK: Here.
5 MS. VELKOVER: Kauffman.
6 MR. KAUFFMAN: Here.
7 MS. VELKOVER: Hood.
8 MR. HOOD: Here.
9 MS. VELKOVER: Clark.
10 Absent.
11 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Thank
12 you.
13 I don't see it on the agenda, but
14 we might as well have our Pledge of Allegiance to
15 the flag.
16 (Whereupon, the Pledge of
17 Allegiance was said.)
18 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: No. 2 on the agenda
19 is the joint workshop minutes for both the
20 Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of
21 Appeals. I'll ask for a motion from the Plan
22 Commission for discussion about the minutes.
23 MR. SULA: So moved.
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there a second?
1 MS. ROSS: Second.
2 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: There is a second.
3 Any additional discussion?
4 (No verbal response.)
5 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: If not, I'll call
6 for the roll call, please.
7 MS. VELKOVER: I'm sorry. We're doing
8 the Plan commission?
9 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, we're doing
10 the Plan Commission.
11 MS. VELKOVER: Ross.
12 MS. ROSS: Aye.
13 MS. VELKOVER: Sula.
14 MR. SULA: Aye.
15 MS. VELKOVER: Papp.
16 MR. PAPP: Aye.
17 MS. VELKOVER: Foster.
18 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Aye.
19 For the Zoning Board of Appeals
20 is there a motion to approve the minutes?
21 MR. KAUFFMAN: So moved.
22 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there a second?
23 MS. THOMA: Second.
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any additional
1 Dicussion?
2 (No verbal response.)
3 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: If not, we'll call
4 for the roll call vote, please.
5 MS. VELKOVER: Thoma.
6 MS. THOMA: Yes.
7 MS. VELKOVER: Park.
8 MR. PARK: Yes.
9 MS. VELKOVER: Kauffman.
10 MS. KAUFFMAN: Yes.
11 MS. VELKOVER: Hood.
12 MR. HOOD: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That motion is
14 carried as well as the Planning Commission
15 motion.
16 This is a public hearing on
17 proposed amendments to the Gurnee Zoning
18 Ordinance. I would ask -- Tracy, are you
19 handling the staff report? Could you just give
20 us a staff report.
21 MS. VELKOVER: Sure. Please take a look
22 at the February 4th, 2000 draft of the text amendments
23 on group homes. After the last workshop session on
24 January 10th, we made some modifications to the draft
1 based on what you had wanted to see.
2 For example, for the definition
3 of community residents we took out the word
4 "relatively" in reference to persons living in a group
5 home on a relatively permanent basis. The removal of this
6 word reflects that residents in a group home would occupy
7 the unit on permanent basis versus a relatively permanent basis.
8 Under the definition of persons
9 with disabilities the Boards asked that we add,
10 wording that ensures that the definition does not include
11 anybody in the current illegal use of, or addicted
12 -- I'm sorry -- in the current illegal use of
13 or addicted to a controlled substance. So we
14 added "or alcohol" to line 4 to ensure that somebody who
15 is addicted or using alcohol is not included in the
16 definition. The intent is to make is clear that group homes
17 do not include an alcoholic treatment center.
18 (Ms. McDermott entered.)
19 MS. VELKOVER: And then on the fourth
20 page under community residence requirements we
21 had a request to reorder the requirements. There
22 are four criteria that have to be met in order
23 for group homes to be permitted uses in certain
24 districts. And we reordered Item No. 1 and Item No.
1 2. We switched those around.
2 In addition, for item No. 4, which is the
3 requirement that first occupancy be give to --
4 or first preference for occupancy be given to
5 persons who currently live or reside in the
6 village or children or parents of persons who
7 reside in the village, we added wording that this
8 requirement can be met by submitting a written
9 statement that indicates this is the provider's policy.
10 This was done because there was some uncertainty about
11 how the provider could show that they are meeting that
12 requirement. We still have that reference in the draft
13 ordinance that this requirement is to be done to the
14 greatest extent permissible under state and
15 federal laws.
16 And then there were some other
17 changes that were made to the ordinance in
18 addition to these changes and, again, these
19 changes were requested by the Boards.
20 But as staff looked through the
21 draft ordinance we had some concerns, and most of
22 those concerns centered on the treatment of group
23 homes in multi-family districts.
24 The previous draft ordinance had
1 two types of group homes, a family group home
2 which allowed up to six persons and then a group
3 community residence which allowed seven to 16
4 people per unit and, again, that was -- usually
5 that was in a multi-family zoning district.
6 We started thinking about the
7 actual application of that and whether you could
8 ever have seven to 16 people living in one unit.
9 One unit in a multi-family district could be one
10 dwelling unit -- or I'm sorry -- one unit of a
11 duplex, one unit of a townhome, or it could be
12 one apartment within an apartment building, and
13 I don't think you could ever get seven to 16
14 people living in one unit -- because of building
15 code issues and --- and other concerns. So what
16 we did in the draft before you is we've eliminated
17 the group community residence, which is the larger
18 group home-- the one for seven to 16 persons, and
19 what we've done is we've -- we've utilized the
20 family community residence only, which is the smaller
21 group home that allows up to six persons and
22 -- I think the best way to go through this and
23 show you how the draft ordinance has changed is to
24 look at this chart over here.
1 In the R-1 through R-3
2 districts which are our single family districts
3 it doesn't change at all. Up to six persons
4 would be permitted in each of these districts
5 if they are able to meet the four standards
6 that we've talked about in past workshop sessions
7 which include -- they have to be located
8 at least 1,320 feet from any existing family
9 community residence, they have to meet our
10 parking ordinance, they have to demonstrate that
11 a license or a certificate from the state has
12 been obtained and that they have to provide first
13 preference to residents or children of parents
14 who live in the village.
15 If they can't meet any of these
16 standards in the R-1 through R-3 districts then
17 it becomes a special use and that's pretty much
18 the -- it's identical to the way the previous
19 draft ordinance read.
20 It starts getting different in
21 the R-4 through R-6 districts. The R-4 district
22 allows both single family and two family units
23 and what we've done is we've broken the family
24 group homes into the unit type --- whether they're
1 permitted or a special use by the type of unit
2 that's actually located in the district.
3 For example, if you had a single
4 family home in an R-4 district it would be
5 permitted by right if they can meet the four standards
6 noted earlier. However, if they can't then it's a
7 special use.
8 If it's located -- if a group
9 home wants to locate in a duplex unit they would
10 be permitted by right in the first unit and then
11 anything over the first unit in the duplex, which
12 would be the second unit, would be required to
13 secure a special use permit.
14 Again, the first unit if it can't
15 meet those four standards -- any one of those
16 four standards, would have to be kicked into the
17 special use standard -- or special use permit process.
18 In the R-5 district we have
19 different types of units that are permitted in
20 the R-5 district. We can have single family
21 homes, we can have duplexes, we can have
22 townhomes and we can have apartment buildings.
23 And, again, the way this
24 ordinance is structured group homes are either
1 permitted or special uses depending upon what type
2 of structure they're in.
3 In a single family home located in
4 the R-5 district it would be a permitted use,
5 if they can meet all four standards. If they
6 can't it's kicked into a special use category.
7 The same way for duplex - it is a
8 permitted use for the first duplex unit if they
9 can meet those four standards. However, if any
10 of the four standards can't be meet, then it
11 would require a special use permit.
12 It gets a little bit more
13 complicated with towhome buildings and multi-
14 family buildings ---- and what we've done with the
15 draft ordinance is we've differentiated group
16 homes that are in townhome buildings and multi-family
17 buildings with common entrances from towhome
18 buildings and multi-family buildings without
19 common entrances.
20 And what we've done is when you
21 have common entrances to multiple units,
22 for example, either in a townhome or in an
23 apartment building, the first unit would require
24 a special use permit.
1 That's because you have a common
2 entry where the people both, you know, the group
3 home and the traditional residential situation
4 are mixed. There's no separation between those two.
5 So what we did was -- the draft
6 ordinance treats townhome units without common
7 entrances and multi-family buildings without
8 common entrances the first -- I'm sorry -- with
9 common entrances. Let me back up.
10 In townhome and multi-family buildings
11 that have common entrances the first unit requires a
12 special use permit, because there is no separation
13 between the residents of the group home and the
14 residents of the other units.
15 The second unit, of course, would also require a
16 special use permit. Again, the four requirements noted
17 earlier would have to be met. If any couldn't be met
18 then a special use permit would be required to
19 address this inability.
20 The way that this draft ordinance has
21 been crafted if to require a situation where you have
22 more than two units in a building with a common
23 entrance to secure not only a special use permit, but
24 also a variation.
1 And the reason for that is
2 because once you start getting more than two
3 units per building, either in a townhome or
4 a multi-family apartment building, you start to
5 get into more of an institutional situation which
6 the Fair Housing Act was really trying to avoid.
7 This act tries to disperse the group homes so that
8 persons aren't in an institutional environment.
9 And then in the R-5 district if
10 you have a townhome building or a multi-family
11 building that has private entrances because there
12 is that separation with the private entrances the
13 first unit would be permitted by right and
14 then -- and the second unit would have to go
15 through the special use permit.
16 And, again, the first unit if
17 they're not able to meet any one of those four
18 standards they would, again, be kicked into the
19 special use.
20 And just like the units with
21 common entrances units that have private
22 entrances once you get to two or more units -- or
23 I'm sorry -- more than two units that would be
24 kicked into both a special use and a variation
1 process.
2 In the R-6 district what
3 we've done is a little different than the R-5
4 district and let me explain that. For a single
5 family home in the R-5 district a group home would
6 permitted by right. In a single family home in
7 the R-6 district it would require a special use
8 permit.
9 The reason for that is a
10 single family home, even if it's not a group home,
11 a straight single family home, is not a permitted
12 use in the R-6 district currently. It's a
13 special use. So we treated group homes the same
14 way in the R-6 district that we treat traditional
15 single family homes.
16 In a duplex it's the same thing.
17 In the R-6 district duplexes are not permitted by
18 right. They are special uses. So if one unit or
19 two units of a duplex wanted to convert into a
20 group home it would require -- even the first
21 unit would require a special use permit and the
22 second unit, also.
23 And then for the R-6 district the
24 townhomes and the multi-family buildings are
1 treated the very same way as the R-5 district.
2 If you have common entrances where there's a mix
3 of the group homes and the traditional residential unit
4 then even the first unit is a special use, the
5 second unit would be a special use, also, and
6 more than two units would be a special use and a
7 variation.
8 If you had a townhome
9 unit or -- and a multi-family building that had
10 private entrances where there is separation we
11 would allow the first unit as a permitted use.
12 Again, as long as they can meet all four
13 criteria. Second unit would be a special use.
14 Again, it would be a special use
15 if they couldn't meet any of those criteria and
16 more than two units would be a special use and a
17 variation.
18 Clear as mud? What we tried to
19 do was to look at the various types of units that
20 we have around town and we tried to look at what,
21 realistically, could happen. The intent of
22 the Fair Housing Act is to try to get group homes
23 integrated into traditional neighborhoods; not
24 institutional settings. So what we tried to do was look
1 at units within a building, if it was a
2 multi-family building, a townhome or a duplex,
3 and regulate how many units within each
4 building could potentially convert over to group
5 homes.
6 The separation is still the same,
7 the 1,320 feet. That's something that you may want to
8 discuss in the multi-family district. You may
9 want to, you know, take a look at maybe reducing
10 that distance somewhat, but we kept it at
11 the 1,320 and we feel that this is a better
12 ordinance than what was previously drafted
13 because the -- the previous draft you really
14 couldn't accommodate seven to 16 people per unit.
15 It was not a very realistic ordinance.
16 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Tracy.
17 We appreciate the time and thought that's gone
18 into the recommendations that you've made
19 tonight.
20 Because this is a public hearing
21 tonight I'm going to ask that any members of the
22 audience that wish to testify or provide comment
23 in terms of this ordinance if they would stand at
24 this time so that they can be sworn in by the
1 village attorney.
2 (No verbal response.)
3 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: If there are no
4 individuals who wish to do such we will continue.
5 I would like to just then go over
6 the formalities of the members of the Planning
7 Commission and the Zoning Board who have comments
8 and questions on what we have before us tonight.
9 Tracy has gone over some of the updates and, Jon,
10 Kirk and Butch, please feel free to chime in as
11 well.
12 Are there any particular
13 questions or comments? We've had some additional
14 changes tonight.
15 Yes, Mr. Sula.
16 MR. SULA: First to staff I think they
17 did a great job of making this thing a little
18 more manageable for us and I for one appreciate
19 it.
20 I guess the only question I have
21 for discussion on the revisions is in the -- in
22 the meeting notes that were provided here in
23 terms of what's happening in the marketplace
24 outside of the Gurnee area with other employers,
1 do we want to have a two tier approach for the
2 number of people per unit.
3 It seems then that the six works
4 out okay in the single family in that location,
5 but there are a couple examples here of four per
6 unit in the -- in the multi-family including
7 duplex applications.
8 MS. VELKOVER: And, again, that might
9 get to be where you want to talk about the
10 separation. We're actually talking -- in most of
11 the situations that you see here that we've
12 talked to the other group home providers Anixter
13 (phonetic), Glenkirk they do occasionally take a
14 duplex unit and they'll put four persons in each
15 side of the duplex and the way our ordinance is
16 crafted right now you could put six persons in
17 each side of the duplex. So it is judgment.
18 MR. SULA: I guess what I was opening
19 for discussion is whether we want to parallel
20 that in the duplex to go to four instead of six.
21 MS. VELKOVER: Four instead of six.
22 Okay.
23 MR. SULA: I personally like the
24 separation of the 1,320. I really don't see any
1 reason personally to want to change that. I
2 would be in favor of -- of four persons per unit
3 in a duplex and other multi-family applications
4 as opposed to the six in the single family.
5 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any thoughts, any
6 comments, any discussion?
7 Yes, Jon.
8 MR. WILDENBERG: Would that mean you
9 would also include townhome units and apartment
10 units?
11 MR. SULA: I think so because I think
12 the -- what I'm sensing in the background from
13 the other applications is perhaps while the
14 building itself might be a larger building the
15 individual units are smaller and probably not
16 practical to have more than four -- four persons
17 living in a given unit even though your typical
18 size is going to be two, possibly three bedrooms
19 as opposed to single family homes are
20 predominantly three and more often four in our
21 community.
22 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
23 Yes, sir.
24 MR. PARK: I'd like to ask a couple of
1 questions if you don't mind. I'm trying to
2 understand some of the changes you made, first of
3 all. Let me go to one that is a little confusing
4 to me.
5 In the R-6 you state that the
6 single family dwelling unit and the duplex
7 dwelling unit are not permitted uses but special
8 uses and, therefore, an applicant who wanted to
9 build a single family home in ten -- one of them
10 in an R-6 unit would have to come in for a
11 special use permit. I understand that.
12 My question is how is that
13 relevant to putting a group home in one of those
14 dwelling units that may exist in the R-6 or may
15 in the future exist in the R-6. I sense them as
16 two different decisions in my mind, but somehow I
17 think they're commingled in this proposal.
18 If Joe Builder came in in the R-6
19 units next year and put in a dozen homes in an
20 R-6 district with the approval of the Plan
21 Commission and the Village Board he goes and
22 builds it, two years later a group home provider
23 wants to put the group home -- a family -- bear
24 with my imprecise language -- wants to put a
1 group home into one of those single family units
2 he would still need -- even though the single
3 family is an approved use that they had built he
4 would still need a special use.
5 I don't -- I think the land use
6 decision versus the occupancy decision are being
7 commingled and I'm not sure that was your intent.
8 Did I miss something?
9 MR. WILDENBERG: No. That's a good
10 question.
11 MR. MAIDEN: I think one of the issues
12 just the consistency in the ordinance is in other
13 situations we usually don't allow amending a
14 special use without having another hearing and
15 that was just one --
16 MR. PARK: But you wouldn't be.
17 MR. MAIDEN: The single family home is
18 a special use and if -- I guess what we're
19 concerned with is what if someone came in and
20 wanted to build one, you know, immediately it
21 would appear if we allow it as a permitted use
22 and there's a vacant lot zoned R-6 and they
23 wanted to come in and say well, it's a permitted
24 use, I just want to build this group home. Well,
1 then two years later they sell it as a single
2 family home it's no longer a special use.
3 We're just trying to keep
4 consistency with the existing ordinance. Now, we
5 could possibly put in if you want that it -- to
6 say that if it's previously been granted a
7 special use for a single family home a group home
8 is permitted.
9 I just don't know how consistent
10 that is with other parts of your -- the other --
11 maybe we can consider that a -- a minor change to
12 the special use so you don't have to have another
13 hearing. It just goes to the Board or something.
14 We're just trying to stay
15 consistent with all the --
16 MR. PARK: And all I'm saying is the
17 land use decision is one step and if it's good to
18 have a single family home out there we've already
19 said in a single family home one of these
20 facilities is legitimate and to be encouraged
21 provided it meets all the other requirements.
22 I also -- to respond I don't have
23 any problem at all with the 1,320 distance. I
24 think it's very reasonable. You know, it's --
1 it's not magic, you know, 1,000, 15, 13. It's a
2 quarter mile. That's fine. I think people can
3 understand that.
4 One additional question I have
5 you distinguish here on R-5 and R-6 very
6 significantly buildings with common entrances
7 versus those without. I would like to hear a
8 little bit more why those are important
9 distinctions for this type of facility. Why the
10 staff thought those should be differentiated or
11 consulted.
12 MR. MAIDEN: I think we did look at
13 some of the existing development we have in town,
14 whether like a townhome situation, if it is a
15 coach home style arrangement where you have one
16 entrance and there's four units off that entrance
17 and really if it happens as a permitted situation
18 by right.
19 Let's say you own your
20 condominium, you will have no notice whatsoever
21 before other individuals start a group home where
22 you're all -- your children and your family are
23 all going to be part of that same common
24 corridor. You have no opportunity to make a
1 separation.
2 At least if you have a townhome
3 where there's -- you have your entrance, they
4 have their entrance at least you have some
5 opportunity if you want to put up a fence or
6 landscape or something. You at least have
7 something to do the separation.
8 Now, if they apply for a special
9 use and they can prove up to standards they still
10 may be able to be next to you but at least
11 there's some notification for families that are
12 in a common entranceway.
13 And we were -- so -- we do have
14 some units that, you know, 20, 30 units in a
15 building and they're all part of the same common
16 corridor. If we suddenly open it up by permitted
17 use with no notice to anyone that here's a group
18 home we were concerned with that -- the fact that
19 we would have that many units with a common
20 relationship.
21 MR. PARK: I think I -- I understand.
22 Let me try and rephrase it just slightly. If
23 somebody wanted to come in to one of those
24 categories in the R-5 district let's say where
1 there is a common entrance then they would have
2 to apply for a special use proving that they meet
3 the standards in the ordinance?
4 MR. MAIDEN: Yes.
5 MR. PARK: But at least that would
6 provide notification for the neighboring owners,
7 not necessarily the occupants because that may be
8 a renter, but the owners would have -- okay.
9 MR. MAIDEN: And they would have the
10 right -- if they could come and testify and prove
11 some reason why that special use shouldn't be
12 granted they at least have that right to come and
13 be heard.
14 MR. PARK: Okay. Another question is
15 I'm a touch confused and let me use the duplex as
16 the simplest answer. If I'm in the R-4 zoning
17 district and I have a group home facility with
18 six residents I can march in and do it.
19 If, however, I choose as a
20 Glenkirk or whoever they are to purchase both
21 halves of the unit and combine them is that a
22 second facility or is that one home? I've
23 combined them. I've physically connected them.
24 Is that two facilities because --
1 or is that one unit that's just been enlarged?
2 MS. VELKOVER: You still have two
3 kitchens and two separate --
4 MR. PARK: Yeah.
5 MS. VELKOVER: But they're physically
6 connected, you can get between --
7 MR. PARK: Yeah. And they operate
8 together. And they operate together. That
9 allowed me extra elbow room that that unit wanted
10 to have.
11 It's less of an issue here
12 with -- in my mind with multi-family. It happens
13 in the city quite a bit where somebody buys, you
14 know, a two bedroom and a one bedroom and
15 combines them, you know, and that's in a condo
16 situation or apartment situation that can happen
17 quite often, but it can also happen in a duplex.
18 MS. VELKOVER: Anytime there is a
19 second kitchen involved that's seen as a second
20 unit. We don't allow second full kitchens to be
21 in a single family building. Single family home.
22 MR. PARK: So that's a building code
23 issue or zoning code issue?
24 MS. VELKOVER: Yes. So that would be
1 seen as a second unit.
2 MR. PARK: Okay.
3 MS. VELKOVER: Correct me if I'm
4 wrong.
5 MR. WILDENBERG: That there situation
6 it would have to come to public hearing.
7 MR. PARK: Now, then the question I
8 would have just to clarify again if they wanted
9 to do that and have even only six people in both
10 units they would still have to come in for a
11 special use; is that correct?
12 MR. WILDENBERG: That's the thought.
13 Yeah. Once you look to occupy that with what
14 once was the second unit or still might be the
15 second unit of a duplex then it kicks into
16 special use.
17 MR. PARK: Okay. Now, if they get rid
18 of the kitchen do they have to do that?
19 MR. WILDENBERG: Well, I think that's
20 subject to discussion here. We have to examine
21 the specific proposal and layout and so forth in
22 that area.
23 MR. PARK: Thanks. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes, sir.
1 MR. MAIDEN: As Mr. Sula was
2 mentioning do you want to make an exception for
3 your example that it would be a permitted use if
4 there's eight people in a duplex? Am I right?
5 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Were you saying a
6 permitted use, Mr. Sula?
7 MR. SULA: I was saying four per unit
8 but argueably if somebody did that it would no
9 longer be a duplex. It would be a single family
10 home in which case it would probably be the six
11 by the code. Or the ordinance drafted here.
12 I mean it's kind of an odd -- it
13 would really be an interesting discussion if
14 somebody actually proposed to do that and I would
15 think you would get into all kinds of terms of
16 real estate timing and deeds and all those other
17 complicated things if somebody tried to make a
18 duplex -- two duplexes into one single family
19 unit.
20 MR. MAIDEN: But that's part of what
21 we're trying to prevent that if they convert back
22 and they sell it three years from now. We're
23 trying to make it easy for them to convert back
24 if they suddenly want to go back to just being a
1 conventional duplex. Because I think by giving
2 them the special use procedure --
3 MR. SULA: I think they should go
4 special use. I don't think we should try to call
5 that permitted. It should be a special use
6 probably with a variation, something that
7 strange, trying to convert a duplex to single
8 family.
9 Just a point of clarification for
10 me, one's a pragmatic question and one's just an
11 educational curiosity. Do we have any cases of
12 single family homes in our R-6 district right
13 now? Are there a lot of them or --
14 MS. VELKOVER: I don't think so, but
15 we do have some.
16 MR. SULA: Less than a dozen or --
17 MR. WILDENBERG: Yeah.
18 MR. SULA: I'm just trying to get an
19 understanding whether we have a real practical
20 issue here or whether this is a theoretical
21 discussion.
22 MR. WILDENBERG: There are a few
23 existing in R-6 and I would just speculate that
24 the economics would indicate that if somebody did
1 want to do single family that they could ask to
2 rezone it to single family and the Plan
3 Commission and the Board could consider that
4 rezoning request or if they've got R-6 zoning,
5 that's our residential district, they may prefer
6 to exercise other options under the R-6 versus
7 the single family.
8 MR. SULA: And just a planning and
9 zoning education tidbit. Why wouldn't single
10 family be allowed in R-6?
11 MR. MAIDEN: The single family right
12 to the north and east of here and all the way up
13 to Grand Avenue are zoned multiple family. If
14 there's existing multiple family the developer on
15 that tract under your previous zoning ordinance
16 came in and had all the cul de sacs laid out and
17 depending on what was going on with the market he
18 would start doing multiple family on two lots and
19 then say I think I am going to come in on a
20 single family permit on this one lot and then
21 well, what are you going to do next month, next
22 month I'll come in for multi-family on this lot.
23 We started getting concerned wait
24 a minute, how do we let people know that next
1 month you may build a multiple family building
2 next to them. So that was where they changed the
3 ordinance. Actually changed it before the
4 comprehensive amendment.
5 So they said we're not going to
6 prohibit it, but at least you're going to have to
7 let people know if you're going to be doing that.
8 MR. SULA: And I can certainly
9 understand not wanting a surprise multi-family in
10 a single family -- what's zoned single family
11 district, but if somebody for whatever reason
12 wanted to put single family in a multi-family
13 district why not do that?
14 MR. MAIDEN: Because they were
15 concerned some of those -- since it had already
16 been subdivided and the lots were already there
17 if that developer put single family in and then
18 the next lot over was sold to someone else when
19 they tried to come in for multi-family and now
20 when individuals are coming in and objecting to I
21 never thought -- you know, I'm single family, I
22 never expected you're going to sell that off and
23 you're going to go multi-family. So they were
24 just trying to keep it from complaints.
1 MR. SULA: It's a land issue.
2 MR. WILDENBERG: The use isn't
3 precluded. It's not permitted by right, but it
4 can be considered for special.
5 MR. MAIDEN: And that's part of what
6 they were looking at as well was as Mr. Park
7 mentioned we're trying to protect all the single
8 family homes from multi-family why wouldn't we
9 also in the most intensive multi-family try to
10 protect single family from them as well.
11 MR. SULA: I agree with you.
12 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any additional
13 discussion or comments from the members?
14 (No verbal response.)
15 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Does anybody have a
16 sense of what direction they would like to go
17 right now? Do you feel comfortable with -- I
18 mean there's been a few things raised, but do you
19 feel comfortable with the ordinance as it's
20 presented? Are there any changes?
21 MR. SULA: I guess I would like to
22 hear a little feedback on the thought of four
23 persons per unit in multi-family.
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there any
1 feedback in having four people per unit in a
2 duplex?
3 MR. PARK: I would suggest they stated
4 in our workshop your physical conditions aren't
5 necessarily that unique and the provider of the
6 group home can make that decision on the best
7 care of their residents better than we can
8 thinking of all the possibilities that might be
9 out there.
10 It's better analyzed on those
11 conditions. There are building code issues that
12 control that over occupancy issue that I think
13 are better left to them, but I -- I also argued
14 for eight versus six.
15 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We remember.
16 MR. SULA: I guess the point that I
17 would make on this is Anixter and Northpoint are
18 both providers of the service and if I'm reading
19 these notes right they're the ones that are
20 suggesting four per units in the multi-family
21 type application.
22 Am I reading between the lines
23 there too much?
24 MS. VELKOVER: That's what they're
1 saying their typical is and, again, I think
2 that's kind of regulated by how many bedrooms
3 each unit has, that each provider indicated that
4 they try to get people into their own private
5 bedroom but in no instance will they put more
6 than two people in a bedroom.
7 So if you have a two bedroom
8 duplex, which some duplexes are, but we do have a
9 handful that have three bedrooms, too.
10 MR. MAIDEN: And the same is true with
11 garages. I think a lot of it'll take care of
12 itself because the duplexes usually just have the
13 one car garage, but if there is -- as Tracy said
14 if there's one with three cars or three bedrooms
15 and two car garage maybe that situation it makes
16 sense.
17 MS. THOMA: Also I think that with
18 townhomes and duplexes there's more likely going
19 to be the same thing. It's going to be three
20 bedrooms or -- I mean you're really restricting
21 the Petitioner if you can have a three bedroom
22 home but you can only put, you know, four people
23 in there. It would be a little more practical
24 aspect of it.
1 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. SULA: Another way to possibly
3 consider it is having a sliding scale based on
4 how many bedrooms there are. We talked about
5 four retrofitting the buildings.
6 MS. McDERMOTT: Do I understand that
7 if it's single family it's six, if it's duplex
8 it's 12?
9 MS. VELKOVER: It's -- it could be
10 potentially. There would be six that would be
11 permitted in the first unit and then to get six
12 in the second unit would take a special use
13 permit.
14 MR. PAPP: It wouldn't be by right,
15 though.
16 MS. VELKOVER: Right. It would not be
17 by right. Only up to six would be by right.
18 MR. SULA: Well, let's say that the
19 first unit did have six and someone was trying to
20 come in for the other half of the duplex and then
21 put six more, what do we have as a Commission
22 then and the Board to fall back on to -- to
23 obtain proper balance and density?
24 I mean practically speaking if --
1 a duplex home in a lot of cases they're a whole
2 lot bigger than a single family home. We're
3 saying six is the limit on a single family. How
4 can we go as high as 12 -- I mean what -- what
5 criteria do we use to avoid the 12 in a duplex?
6 MR. WILDENBERG: It's going to depend
7 on the individual circumstances. It's hard to
8 envision every possibility or possible way out
9 or, you know, surrounding environment, but you
10 know you'll have a track record of decisions as
11 you go through these particular requests as you
12 do get them and it's really going to come down to
13 pretty in-depth analysis of the exact issues that
14 you're facing on each and every particular
15 circumstance and the type of, you know, decision
16 log that you build based on those circumstances.
17 It's a special use so it's not
18 a -- it's certainly not a use by right, but the
19 Board does have the ability to evaluate its
20 impact and make recommendations and decisions.
21 MR. SULA: Jon, this is very
22 hypothetical but typical situation of wanting it
23 as a mirror end to the other. What criteria
24 could possibly apply to have six on the left side
1 of the wall and only four on the right side of
2 the wall?
3 MR. WILDENBERG: Separate requirement
4 right off the bat, you know, why is -- just
5 because these two units are attached together why
6 it -- why is something less than 1,320 valid?
7 MR. SULA: Okay.
8 MR. WILDENBERG: You know, duplexes
9 is somewhat prevalent as a transitional use
10 between commercial and single family in some
11 areas of our town. In other areas of our town we
12 have a rather substantial neighborhood of what
13 you would call duplexes and, you know, all
14 clustered in -- in one major subdivision. So we
15 have a couple of different conditions.
16 MR. SULA: You could argue that you're
17 really trying to give separation of structures
18 and --
19 MR. WILDENBERG: Well, yeah. I
20 suppose he would.
21 MR. SULA: Okay.
22 MR. WILDENBERG: But, again, the
23 Village is going to have to look deep into that
24 and come in with what they feel is rational and
1 best for the circumstances at hand.
2 MR. SULA: Okay.
3 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So are you saying
4 that the one half of the duplex could be a group
5 home but the other one could not?
6 MR. WILDENBERG: Yeah. One could be
7 established by right and the other one would have
8 to remain as, you know, single family residence
9 or family residence unless special use was
10 granted.
11 I think it's on one hand
12 affording the opportunity for group homes to come
13 into a duplex environment and just like anyone
14 else that would come into a duplex environment
15 and that's balanced against trying to provide --
16 or avoid, if you will, too much clustering of one
17 type of use in one area.
18 So that's where the special use
19 comes in to help evaluate that. Or at least
20 give -- give the Plan Commission and Village
21 Board an opportunity to evaluate it plus the
22 adjacent surrounding property owners a chance to
23 input into that evaluation.
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I have a question in
1 the R-5 and the R-6. I just want to be clear
2 that that's not confusing in terms of that 1,320
3 feet requirement or how are you interpreting
4 that?
5 MR. WILDENBERG: Right now the spacing
6 requirement says that the separation is based on
7 lot line to lot line. If we had a situation --
8 we've got a sample site plan here of an apartment
9 complex in town. This is the Woodlake Apartment
10 site right here.
11 The apartment buildings are in
12 brown up in this area. Those buildings are I
13 think 14 and 16 unit buildings each. There are a
14 total of 260 units on this entire property,
15 multi-family lot.
16 I think we would try to be
17 practical and look at the boundaries of the unit
18 and see what's -- what the spacing would be to
19 the next proposed unit.
20 If these were condo -- condos and
21 were individually owned I guess you could
22 construe the lot as the entire envelope of
23 ownership that they have in the condo and we
24 would apply it the same way if it would happen to
1 be an apartment unit.
2 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I guess I'm asking
3 if there was somebody against a special use for a
4 Petitioner and if you -- if you tried to
5 interpret that to say well, if you've got one
6 unit on one side of the duplex that's used as a
7 group home or Apartment A and you now want to do
8 Apartment C that they couldn't read that to say
9 well, that's what that 1,320 feet so they can't
10 have -- they can't get that zoning.
11 MR. WILDENBERG: They couldn't do it
12 by right. They could just establish it by right.
13 MR. PARK: They would have to do it by
14 special use, correct?
15 MR. WILDENBERG: Yes. Yes. If we
16 have one unit here let's say established by right
17 and there was another one over on the other side
18 of the complex or in the building across the
19 parking lot and the spacing was less than 1,320
20 they would automatically have to proceed as a
21 special use.
22 MR. PARK: And it doesn't matter if
23 it's a different building or next door --
24 MR. WILDENBERG: Right.
1 MR. PARK: -- with a common wall.
2 You're over -- you are under the 1,320 limit, you
3 come in for a special use.
4 MR. WILDENBERG: Yes.
5 MR. PARK: If, however, that was a big
6 project and the upper right corner was 1,320 away
7 from the lower one then they could do it?
8 MR. WILDENBERG: Yes.
9 MR. PARK: If --
10 MR. WILDENBERG: Right. If it met the
11 separation and all of the other criteria.
12 Logically within any one building if you want to
13 establish a second unit it's probably going to be
14 within a quarter mile so that automatically kicks
15 it into a special use.
16 Same with the townhome
17 arrangement. We do have some townhomes that are
18 stacked over with ownership-wise two story and we
19 also have other townhome arrangements where a
20 person owns a whole unit that's two stories,
21 they're connected side by side.
22 CHAIRMAN FORSTER: Anyone ready for a
23 recommendation or do we need additional
24 discussion?
1 MR. PARK: Yes. I would like to ask
2 what the Board members think of the issue of
3 separating the R-6 single family duplex land use
4 from occupancy decision.
5 To me right now it's commingled
6 and saying if I want to have a group home
7 facility in the R-6 in a single family or duplex
8 regardless of whether that happens to have been
9 there ten years I have to go for a special use
10 approval and I'd like to know what the other
11 members --
12 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, my feeling is
13 I understand the merits of what you're saying,
14 but I probably start with what Butch mentioned a
15 few minutes ago where I'm used to a special use
16 going with its original intent.
17 And so if someone has a special
18 use and later on there's a different user
19 intended then that needs to be reviewed again.
20 That's sort of where I come from.
21 MR. PARK: So you would regard a group
22 home facility differently than a single family
23 occupant?
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Correct.
1 MR. PARK: Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: You have to
3 understand that on the surface one could debate
4 the merits of that, but I think that part of the
5 intent of the special use issue is affords one
6 the opportunity to look at the individual
7 circumstances. So it would give that ability.
8 MR. PAPP: I would concur with that
9 observation.
10 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And I think also
11 the point that Butch made about the person that
12 has too much kind of open up -- sometimes open up
13 additional ones that we may not always
14 anticipate. So I mean anybody ready for -- yes.
15 MR. WILDENBERG: On that -- on that
16 same issue I think the existence of homes right
17 today in the R-6 district is pretty minimal.
18 MR. PARK: It's not a huge issue right
19 now.
20 MR. WILDENBERG: Yeah. And --
21 MR. PARK: The odds of them being
22 developed, you know, five years down the road are
23 relatively minimal in that respect. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is anyone ready to
1 advance a motion at all tonight?
2 MR. PAPP: Did we resolve the quorum
3 issue?
4 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes. I would just
5 as soon let that go.
6 MR. PAPP: My sense is I kind of
7 concur with Mr. Sula. I think four is adequate
8 even if there is a three bedroom duplex. What
9 about the person that stays 24 hours a day, you
10 got two and two in one. I just think four is a
11 better number.
12 If they want to go to six eight
13 they have to go to a special use anyway, do they
14 not? So I think that would be adequate. That
15 would be my opinion.
16 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I got a sense I
17 heard two and two at the time who actually voiced
18 an opinion. I got a sense they were kind of
19 split on that so I -- one way to resolve that is
20 to keep discussing or make it as part of the
21 motion that you would like to change the proposed
22 text to reflect that and see how it looks.
23 MS. McDERMOTT: I just had one
24 question concerning that. When we're talking
1 about four people to a duplex unit are we saying
2 if someone comes in for occupancy-wise you were
3 saying something in reference to is that going to
4 be harder for a builder to come in to specify.
5 I'm confused on that.
6 MR. WILDENBERG: No. You have -- it
7 really depends on the physical layout of the unit
8 whether it's a two bedroom or a three bedroom
9 unit.
10 MS. McDERMOTT: So if we're saying if
11 it's a three bedroom unit then six would be
12 allowed but if it's not then a four bedroom --
13 four person.
14 MR. WILDENBERG: Well, that's what --
15 MS. McDERMOTT: That's what we're
16 trying to motion? Just so I understand where it
17 is. Okay.
18 MR. WILDENBERG: One of the other
19 points that was brought up what if you have
20 somebody who take a duplex building that's
21 currently separated and totally divided and
22 connects it into one, then it plays as a single
23 family. Then it falls under current draft six.
24 MS. McDERMOTT: Okay. I was -- just
1 wanted to understand where we were coming from in
2 the sense of occupancy. Okay.
3 MS. THOMA: I actually have a
4 question for Mr. Sula. Three bedrooms that are
5 permitted six residents by right what --
6 what's -- where are they -- you're running into
7 the same problem. Where else are they going to
8 find sound 24 hour care. Same thing. Where are
9 they going to sleep, what are they --
10 MR. SULA: Three bedroom is okay
11 because it averages out to -- to I think two per
12 bedroom. Maybe the staff has a little to deal
13 with here.
14 In the duplex scenario duplex as
15 it currently exists in the Village can you give
16 us some -- roughly estimate how many of them are
17 two bedroom versus three bedroom? I mean --
18 MR. WILDENBERG: Just about all of
19 them.
20 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Which office are you
21 running for?
22 MR. WILDENBERG: That's, obviously,
23 two out of three is the dominant condition, I
24 believe. You may have some that are two bedroom
1 right now have a space to put a third bedroom in.
2 So it's -- it's a mixed bag.
3 You really do have a mixed bag
4 between two and three. That would be your --
5 your predominant condition, I'm sure. We have --
6 we haven't, you know, researched every building
7 permit obviously but --
8 MR. SULA: I understand.
9 MR. WILDENBERG: -- just gut sense on
10 what we've approved and what's been built in the
11 last 12 years.
12 MR. SULA: My thought on it is that my
13 gut instinct tells me that most duplexes and
14 townhomes and condos are going to be smaller two
15 bedroom variety and we have something that's
16 crafted for four people.
17 There's always the ability to
18 come in for a special use for six people if they
19 want to, correct?
20 MR. WILDENBERG: It depends how you
21 draft this order. It depends on how you
22 construct this order.
23 MR. SULA: I mean I would prefer to
24 err on the side of maybe having a little more
1 structure than less structure and be able to ease
2 up as specific situations present themselves that
3 we can apply some reasonable rationality to a
4 variance for a special use.
5 It's always easier to ease up and
6 allow for a special situation that's more dense
7 or more populated than -- than you might have
8 envisioned going in rather than trying to clamp
9 down on something that's already permitted by
10 right and you're stuck with it because you can't
11 change it.
12 So I would tend to err on the
13 four for the multi-family type settings with the
14 ability to grant a special use based on a
15 specific situation within the unit to allow six
16 people.
17 MR. HOOD: My side I would rather see
18 the six mostly because I would like to see -- to
19 encourage in any way we can the existence of
20 group homes. I mean Gurnee doesn't -- that's not
21 something Gurnee is known for and I don't want to
22 see any road blocks.
23 People come in, they see four. I
24 assume most group homes want to see more than
1 four, they want to see six or more, and I'm not
2 looking for more, but I would like to see group
3 homes here because I think Gurnee needs to be a
4 diverse community and I don't want to see that as
5 a roadblock.
6 Special use is a way to solve it,
7 but I also don't want to use that as a tool to
8 have to be faced with every time a group home
9 comes in. I think most of them are going to want
10 six so I think we have that issue come up every
11 time.
12 MR. SULA: And I am very, very much
13 aware of what the spirit of the fair housing is
14 and that's to simulate as normal a living
15 condition as possible for residents of group
16 homes and I would hate to see a situation where
17 we foster the ability of an unscrupulous provider
18 to jam alot of people into a smaller unit than
19 might be reasonably comfortable.
20 MR. WILDENBERG: I just want to point
21 out one other aspect of this. There are
22 basically two different forms of ownership of a
23 duplex. The first is you own the whole building
24 on one lot and the building is divided into two
1 living units.
2 The second is each individual
3 entity owns half of the building and half of the
4 lot. So it can play almost as -- well, it does
5 play as attached single family units at that
6 point in time. We have both types of ownership
7 in the community right now. Both styles of
8 ownership in the community.
9 MR. SULA: So if it was an attached
10 single family it might -- assuming -- I'm trying
11 to -- attached single family is that a duplex or
12 single family?
13 MR. WILDENBERG: Each unit you live in
14 is a single family unit. The building is a
15 duplex. The building -- when you take the
16 building as a whole it's a two family --
17 MR. SULA: Would have common ownership
18 of both units.
19 MR. WILDENBERG: It could or it could
20 be individual ownership of each unit.
21 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Mr. Maiden.
22 MR. MAIDEN: Well, I think Mr. Hood
23 raised an issue. I think you may get some
24 criticism down the road as you start having some
1 of these units come in and individuals -- single
2 family neighborhoods may say well, why don't you
3 go look in a multi-family area.
4 I think the providers are going
5 to say because Gurnee restricts us to four in
6 multiple family. We're immediately looking at
7 all the single family areas, we're not looking at
8 the multi-family areas, it's harder for us to
9 get. So it's -- I've seen this happen with some
10 of the cell phone ordinances.
11 You try to get this condition
12 controlled and it sometimes backfires that it
13 just pushes them right into the single family
14 where you really probably don't want them as much
15 as you would rather have them in duplex areas
16 because that's usually the transition area
17 between family and commercial.
18 MR. WILDENBERG: And many of the
19 ordinances from the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's,
20 duplexes and single family homes were allowed as
21 uses by right in a lot of districts together.
22 They were all legal.
23 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there any
24 additional discussion or comments at this time?
1 MS. SWANSON: If there's going to be a
2 change to the six from four I would like to see
3 the language actually itself agreed upon tonight
4 as part of the recommendation.
5 In other words, as I'm looking at
6 the definitions of the family community residence
7 at the bottom of Page 1 of the draft I would
8 think that language would need to be worked on so
9 that everybody knows what it is.
10 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
11 Is anyone prepared now to advance
12 a motion?
13 MR. PARK: Sure.
14 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes.
15 MR. PARK: I'll advance a motion that
16 we adopt this ordinance and recommend it approved
17 as it stands.
18 MR. KAUFFMAN: Second.
19 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: There is a motion on
20 the floor with a second. Is there any
21 additional discussion?
22 Yes. That's correct. I will
23 make that clear. You are very tenacious.
24 Okay. We'll call for the roll
1 call for the Zoning Board.
2 MS. VELKOVER: Thoma.
3 MS. THOMA: Yes.
4 MS. VELKOVER: Park.
5 MR. PARK: Yes.
6 MS. VELKOVER: Kauffman.
7 MR. KAUFFMAN: Yes.
8 MS. VELKOVER: Hood.
9 MR. HOOD: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That motion is
11 carried for the Zoning Board.
12 For the Plan Commission is there
13 a motion to -- you all put me in a tough spot
14 here. I want to say is there a motion like that
15 motion. We have two different motions here.
16 That's not going to be good.
17 MR. SULA: What happens if we have two
18 different motions?
19 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Village attorney.
20 MS. SWANSON: Two different motions.
21 MR. SULA: I would like to make a
22 motion to send a recommendation to the Village
23 Board and basically taking what's been presented
24 to us but adding two changes.
1 One change being family
2 community residence hyphen single family homes
3 and have that definition just as it is there and
4 a whole new paragraph that family community
5 residents, duplex and townhomes or condos are
6 multi-family, whatever you call them, and present
7 that as a definition and then proceed with the
8 rest of the ordinance as proposed.
9 Oh, obviously, the change of
10 four.
11 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there a second?
12 MR. PAPP: Second.
13 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Is there any
14 need for discussion on that motion?
15 MR. WILDENBERG: Could I ask for a
16 clarification.
17 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes, Mr. Wildenberg.
18 MR. WILDENBERG: In the duplex
19 townhome multi-family scenario with six going to
20 four would the ability to request six as a
21 special use be --
22 MR. SULA: Yes.
23 MR. WILDENBERG: -- included?
24 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any additional
1 discussion, clarification?
2 (No verbal response.)
3 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: There is a motion on
4 the floor with a second. Let's call for the roll
5 call vote from the Planning Commission.
6 MS. VELKOVER: Ross.
7 MS. ROSS: Aye.
8 MS. VELKOVER: Sula.
9 MR. SULA: Aye.
10 MS. VELKOVER: Papp.
11 MR. PAPP: Aye.
12 MS. VELKOVER: Foster.
13 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Nay.
14 McDermott.
15 MS. VELKOVER: Oh, McDermott.
16 MS. McDERMOTT: Aye.
17 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. That motion
18 is carried.
19 Can I ask, Miss Swanson, if you
20 can just give us clarification. It's two
21 different motions.
22 MS. SWANSON: Right. Zoning Board
23 made its recommendation and the Plan Commission
24 has its recommendation which is different from
1 the Zoning Board's recommendation. So we'll see
2 how the Board handles this one.
3 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Never let it be said
4 that there's no independent thought between these
5 two bodies. We have demonstrated that tonight.
6 I think this is our order of
7 business in terms of our public hearing for
8 tonight and with that having been accomplished I
9 think we need to maybe adjourn for the public
10 hearing and we'll go into our workshop session.
11 I'll entertain a motion to
12 adjourn.
13 MR. SULA: So moved from the Plan
14 Commission.
15 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: A motion from the
16 Zoning Board.
17 MR. HOOD: So moved.
18 CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right. We are
19 adjourned.
20 (Whereupon, the proceedings
21 were adjourned at 8:02
22 p.m.)
23
24
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
COUNTY OF L A K E )
I, SUSAN R. PILAR, do hereby certify
that I am a court reporter doing business in the
County of Lake and State of Illinois; that I reported
by means of machine shorthand the testimony given at
the foregoing Report of Proceedings, and that the
foregoing is a true and correct transcript of my
shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid.
_________________________________
SUSAN R. PILAR, CSR, RPR
Notary Public, Lake County, IL
CSR License No. 084-003432.