East Central Reporter

City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 22.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Mumm

Mark Thies

Kurt Buehnerkemper

Ken Wohltman

Theresa Hillyer

Carrie Rodman

Andy St. John

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney

Luke Thoele, City Engineer

Greg Koester, City Planner

1. Quorum: The August 22, 2023 City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg. A quorum was present.

2. Approval July 25, 2023 Minutes: On motion by Board Member Kurt Buehnerkemper, seconded by Board Member Carrie Rodman, the minutes for the July 25, 2023 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.

3. Location: 201 S. Fourth Street (100 W. Fayette Avenue), Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance for Parking

Petitioner: Effingham Shakti Corporation, an Illinois corporation

The hearing on the Petition for Variance, previously held during the July 25, 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, was reconvened at the August 22, 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

The Amended Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Effingham Shakti Corporation, an Illinois corporation. The Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow a reduction from the required 120 parking spaces, as required in Article 25 in Appendix B to the City of Effingham, Illinois, down to 81 parking spaces.

Nirav Patel appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, Effingham Shakti Corporation, an Illinois corporation, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Patel advised that the amended Petition requests a reduction of 39 parking spots. Mr. Patel advised that the reason for the variance is that the Subject Property is landlocked, and they cannot provide any more parking. Mr. Patel testified that they do have a plan in place to possibly add additional parking. More specifically, Mr. Patel advised that they have a first right of refusal to purchase the adjacent property from the Mihlbachler facility in order to provide additional parking spaces. Additionally, they are continuing discussions with the State to acquire property from the State.

In response to questions from the City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Patel confirmed that in the Amended Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a reduction from the required 120 parking spaces down to 81 parking spaces.

At the request of Mr. Patel, the Amended Petition, and the exhibits attached thereto, were made a part of the record.

Mr. Patel continued testifying that they are speaking with the State about the possibility of acquiring the excess property remaining from the Petitioner’s existing A-1 Liquor facility after the Fayette Avenue project is completed. The Petitioner has entered into a Parking Easement with the Mihlbachler facility. This Parking Easement allows eight additional parking spaces, at an angle of 45 degrees, and 17.6 feet in depth. These eight additional parking spaces are part of the proposed 81 parking spaces. Mr. Patel further advised that the Petitioner also has a parking agreement with the Smokin’ Irishman facility, which will allow the proposed development to use their parking spaces. This agreement allows the Petitioner to park on the Smokin’ Irishman property, as long as there is no long-term parking and they cannot sublease the parking rights.

Mr. Patel testified that the Petitioner could guarantee 81 parking spaces, but they do have plans to add additional parking in the future. Furthermore, Mr. Patel testified that he can guarantee that the building proposed to be constructed on the Subject Property will not get any bigger, and that it will most likely shrink. Mr. Patel advised that he did not want to make the expenditure necessary to get drawings of the proposed building just to be turned down on the request for variance.

In response to concerns about a shortage of parking in the downtown area, Mr. Patel provided photos of the public parking areas which are in the downtown area. These photos were taken on different days and different times. Mr. Patel testified that there are 38 businesses in the downtown area between Kirby Foods and Fifth Third Bank. Mr. Patel stated that 32 of these businesses are closed by 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., six that are open until 9:00 p.m., and three additional businesses that are open until 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Mr. Patel testified that there are 878 public parking spaces in the downtown area and his photographs show that there is plenty of downtown parking. Mr. Patel asserted that there is not a shortage of parking in the downtown area.

Mr. Patel advised that while they cannot provide the required 120 parking spaces at the current time, the Petitioner will provide 120 parking spaces in the future.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding the right of first refusal on the Mihlbachler property, Mr. Patel advised that if they acquire the Mihlbachler property, they will be able to develop approximately 16 more spots. Mr. Patel further added that if they are able to acquire the Petitioner’s current A-1 Liquor Facility excess property back from the State, the Petitioner will be able to add an additional 25 spots.

At the request of Mr. Patel, the photographs of the downtown parking areas were made a part of the record.

In response to questions by Board Member Thies regarding the agreements with the Smokin’ Irishman and the Mihlbachler facility, Mr. Patel advised that the parking spots the Petitioner can use on the Smokin’ Irishman are not counted as part of the 81 parking spots. Mr. Patel also confirmed that the Parking Easement with the Mihlbachler facility does have a provision that either party can terminate the easement agreement with 60 days’ notice.

In response to questions by Chairman Mumm, Mr. Patel stated that the proposed parking to be built on the existing A-1 Liquor property is not included in the proposed 81 parking spots because they are still in discussions with the State to acquire the excess property. Mr. Patel stated that if the Petitioner is able to buy that excess property, they will construct an additional 25 spots on that property, and they will construct an additional 16 spots on the Mihlbachler property if they are able to acquire the Mihlbachler property.

In response to questions by Chairman Mumm and City Attorney Willenborg regarding the location of the proposed 81 parking spots, Mr. Patel confirmed that they will have eight spots next to the Mihlbachler building, as part of the Parking Easement, 17 spots on the east side of the proposed building, 16 spots on the lot across from Fourth Street, and 40 spots on the lot behind the current A-1 Liquor facility.

In response to questions by Chairman Mumm regarding whether they will develop a restaurant as part of the building proposed to be constructed on the Subject Property, Mr. Patel advised that they plan to serve food through a “Ghost Kitchen,” but there will not be a full restaurant. They do not plan on preparing or cooking everything there and there will be no fryers.

Robert Conley appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Conley testified that the Petitioner is looking to make a substantial investment in the community. Mr. Conley testified that he agrees that questioning parking is valid, however, the issue to be resolved is whether an adequate parking mitigation plan to allow the variance has been put in place. Mr. Conley testified that while the Petitioner cannot currently come up with the required parking spaces at this time, Mr. Patel is waiting on the State and has a plan to eventually add additional parking spaces. Mr. Conely stated that the tax revenues that will be generated from the proposed business should be a paramount concern to everyone on the board and everyone in the City. Mr. Conley testified that the Petitioner is willing to dedicate this amount of time, money, and effort into building a destination that is going to basically be the rising tide that will lift all boats in our community. Mr. Conley testified that the Petitioner has provided a parking mitigation plan and that he is of the opinion that there is not a parking issue around the downtown area. Mr. Conley testified that the burden has been more than met by Mr. Patel and urged the Board to grant the variance.

In response to Chairman Mumm’s inquiry regarding Mr. Conley’s relationship to the Petitioner, Mr. Conley advised that he does not have a relationship other than having done business with Mr. Patel’s current facilities.

Craig Pals appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Pals advised that he is in agreement with all the points raised by Mr. Conley. Mr. Pals advised that the Fayette Avenue widening project is a massive disruption to the business community along the core part of Fayette Avenue. Mr. Pals advised that as a result of this disruption being faced by Mr. Patel, the Petitioner is more than deserving of leniency and the variance. Mr. Pals advised that he is in favor of the project, growth of the business, and that it will be an impactful business for the downtown area.

Mr. Pals advised that the parking regulations can be excessive in many areas and lead to a lot of urban sprawl, as well as eat up valuable land. Mr. Pals advised that we should think about how to design downtown areas and make them more walkable and be flexible with shared parking. Mr. Pals testified that the Petitioner has presented creative plans for parking and that he thinks the variance should be granted.

Melinda King appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Ms. King advised that she was a customer of A1 Liquor and is now a member (employee) of the A1 Liquors family. Ms. King stated she has always believed in shopping and supporting local and small businesses, but the proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property is not a small town business and is a business that can help Effingham thrive. Ms. King said that everyone that comes through the door of Mr. Patel’s store is treated like family. Ms. King testified that she supports this variance because not only should a community support any development that's wanting to grow and drive further sales, but also is wanting to improve and always do better. Ms. King testified that the development will allow for a nicer, newer-looking store that will look great on Fayette Avenue. She further testified that customers of the business will be very happy with the selection of things that they have to offer.

Carla Doll appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Ms. Doll presented a PowerPoint presentation, and the presentation slides were made part of the record. Ms. Doll testified that the requested variance would affect the B-3, Central Business District area, which was identified in a map outlined in yellow. Ms. Doll stated that the purpose of the B-3 district is to provide opportunity for a broad spectrum of commercial uses, particularly retail service and office uses. It's designed for application to the concentrated downtown core where the relaxation of regulations is desirable. Ms. Doll presented a slide detailing the number of public parking spaces in downtown Effingham. More specifically, there are 80 on Jefferson, 58 on Washington, 24 on Section, 40 on Banker; 25 on Fifth Street, 48 on Fourth, 15 on Front, 20 on Merchant, 20 on Main Street, and 18 on Second Street. Ms. Doll testified that all parking spaces to accommodate the needs of businesses within Zone B3 are not exclusively in areas zoned B-3. Ms. Doll opined that access to parking has been a longstanding deficit for businesses in the downtown area.

Ms. Doll advised that in 2018, when Jefferson Avenue was rebuilt, three parking spaces were lost to development, which created a major concern for downtown businesses, landlords, and tenants. In October of 2018, retired county Chief Judge Kim Koester was quoted in the Effingham Daily News about issues with sufficient parking in the downtown area and the need for more parking spaces.

Ms. Doll testified that the value of commercial buildings is dependent on access to close and convenient parking. Ms. Doll provided an example of the Register Building downtown which is a multi-use space accommodating up to five tenants on the first floor, multiple office tenants on the second floor, and third floor event center. Ms. Doll expressed a concern for the negative impacts to the value of the building, as well as ability to obtain new tenants, if convenient parking is not available.

Ms. Doll testified that the Subject Property, which is the proposed site for Effingham A-1 Liquors is outside the Effingham Business District Zone B-3. Ms. Doll advised that the list of businesses and hours of operation, as attached by the Petitioner as part of the Amended Petition, is incomplete. The list excludes many second-floor tenants of the buildings located in the downtown area including McHugh Hospitality Group, Airbnb space, full-time residents and apartment tenants. Ms. Doll testified that the list also fails to exclude the needs of future tenants in existing spaces in buildings in the downtown area or space to be improved within buildings located in the downtown area. For example, possible future development of the second and third floor of Bike and Hike, the basement space in the Exchange building, and the upper floors of the Gopher Grill building, which was office and apartment space before. Ms. Doll further expressed concern about the parking that will be needed for businesses that may move into buildings that are currently vacant including the vacant Effinbrew building and the Heart Theatre.

Ms. Doll testified that the Subject Property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. The purpose of the B-2, General Commercial District is to provide sufficient space for a wide variety of commercial and miscellaneous service and light industrial activities. It is designed to serve a wide area along existing major thoroughfares where a mixture of commercial and service activity now exists. Ms. Doll testified that in all zoning districts, outside of the B-3, Central Business District, there shall be provided at the time any building or structure is erected or structurally altered, minimum off street parking spaces in accordance with the certain requirements set forth in the City’s regulations. A Restaurant, nightclub, cafe, or similar recreation or amusement establishment requires one parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area. Based on the square footage that the Petitioner has requested, the regulations require 175 parking spaces. Ms. Doll testified that after negotiations with the City, the parking requirements were reduced to 120 spaces, however, the Petitioner is requesting a further reduction down to 81 spaces. Ms. Doll expressed a concern that a portion of the proposed parking for the proposed development would be located across Fayette Avenue and the hazard it could create to have people walking across Fayette Avenue.

Ms. Doll testified that the requested variance would place an additional burden of approximately 40 spaces on parking space allocated for downtown businesses and visitors, which is already overburdened. Ms. Doll stated that while the Petitioner represented that to permit the variance would not in any way be detrimental to the adjacent property, reality suggests a different outcome. Ms. Doll testified that the Petitioner acquired a distressed business previously occupied by Witt's Barbecue on Route 32/33. The original structure was a 4,800 square foot building with 60 parking spaces. The Petitioner expanded the building to 12,360 square feet and 10 parking spaces were lost when a drive-through was installed. The owner of the adjacent vacant property next to the Petitioner’s A-1 Facility on Route 32/33 stated that he offered to sell his vacant property to the Petitioner to increase their parking capacity for a price that represents fair market value. This offer, however, was declined by the Petitioner. Ms. Doll identified an email from the owner of Owen Motorsports, which is adjacent to the Petitioner’s facility on Route 32/33. This email stated "We want to be good neighbors and we do try to be as flexible as possible. A-1 patrons have been using our parking lot as overflow parking. As a result of an A-1 patron trespassing in our back gated area recently, we plan to install a gated entrance to our facility. The overall liability risk involved with A 1 patrons using our parking lot during and after business hours is simply not a risk we can continue to take. Again, we want to be the best neighbors possible, but simply cannot risk the potential damage to property or individuals resulting from this unauthorized use of our parking lot."

Ms. Doll testified that, if the variance request is passed, it is highly likely to have a severe negative financial impact on all commercial property and tenant investments in the B-3, Central Effingham Business District, area. Ms. Doll stated that the Board must understand the negative impact of a positive variance decision to benefit one entity will be at the expense of many who have been here for many years. Ms. Doll further expressed a concern with setting a precedent if the variance is granted.

In response to questioning by the public requesting written proof of the negative financial impact that the proposed development of the Subject Property will have if the variance is granted, Ms. Doll advised that she did not have written proof. In response to further questioning by the public regarding Ms. Doll’s relationship with a business located in the downtown area, Ms. Doll stated that she did not have a relationship with a business located in the downtown area.

David Doedtman, President of Washington Savings Bank, appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Doedtman expressed reluctancy with appearing at the public hearing. Mr. Doedtman testified that while they support development in the downtown area, and believe that the Petitioner’s business, A-1 Liquor, is a great business, he has to represent the interests of the employees, customers, and owners of Washington Savings Bank. Washington Saving Bank sits on the corner of Fayette and Banker Street, and on the south side of Section Street. Approximately 20 years ago, Washington Savings Bank purchased the building across the street from the bank facility. The building was demolished, and the bank invested in installing private parking on the property. Mr. Doedtman testified there is a parking problem in the downtown area and stated that the Bank’s parking areas are already negatively affected by businesses already existing in the downtown area. Mr. Doedtman advised that it is not uncommon for bank employees to come back from lunch and be unable to park in the bank parking lot. The bank has a dozen signs identifying that the lot is for Washington Savings Bank parking. Mr. Doedtman further identified the expenditures that the bank has had to make in the last year, being approximately $20,000, which was utilized to fix dented signs that have been run into by non-employees, upgrades to landscaping, and striping of the parking lot. Mr. Doedtman testified as to the damage that has been caused by the public, including a tow truck running over new landscaping, garbage and debris, including beer cans and broken beer bottles. Mr. Doedtman advised the Board that when he left the bank at 5:30 that evening, there were a half dozen vehicles in the Bank’s parking lot that were not associated with the bank facility, and there were at least a half dozen parking spots open in the public parking lot across the street from the bank, next to Dust & Sons.

Mr. Doedtman advised that the City’s regulations require the proposed development to provide for 170 parking spaces, which has already been reduced to 120 parking spaces, consistent with the City’s past practices. Mr. Doedtman advised that 40 of the parking spaces of the 81 spaces being proposed by the Petitioner are located across Fayette Avenue. Mr. Doedtman expressed a concern with the negative impact of people having to walk across Fayette Avenue, and expressed doubt as to whether people would utilize this parking area rather than parking areas located closer to the Subject Property. Mr. Doedtman testified that in reality customers of the proposed development would most likely utilize the bank’s parking facilities, which means more maintenance issues for the bank, as well as possible legal liability if someone falls in the bank parking lot. Mr. Doedtman testified that based on the experiences the bank has had, the variance in parking being proposed is not going to be good for bank employees, good for bank customers, or just in general good for the bank. Mr. Doedtman testified the proposed development could be great for downtown Effingham if the Petitioner can address the parking, but the burden should not be transferred to the Bank.

Michael Brummer appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Brummer stated that the City has already made a concession for parking in the reduction of the required parking spots for the proposed development, from 175 down to 120, and this concession was made even though plans for the building have not been provided. Mr. Brummer testified that no one has made any statements that the proposed development cannot be built somewhere else in town or that the Petitioner would not be able to build a building on the Subject Property that is more comparable in size to the Petitioner’s existing building. Mr. Brummer testified that he is the owner/operator of The Exchange, which is located downtown. The Exchange has coworking spaces, and they operate Airbnb’s and short term and long-term rental in the upstairs portions of the building. Mr. Brummer advised that he is very familiar with the parking in the downtown area. Mr. Brummer advised that the concerns expressed by members of the public are not about people’s character or protecting certain downtown business interests; the concerns are only about parking. Mr. Brummer advised that he drives around the downtown area every day and the downtown area is at capacity for the current parking available. Mr. Brummer further expressed concerns about the impacts on parking should existing vacant buildings or areas of buildings in the downtown area be utilized. Mr. Brummer advised that he has a basement space that he would potentially like to develop, but questioned if the investment in developing that area would be feasible if there is not sufficient parking in the area. Per Mr. Brummer the variance, if granted, would cause further distress to the existing parking issues and threaten existing businesses. Mr. Brummer advised that existing businesses, like The Last Straw, Brown’s Drug Store and Noah’s Ark, which are mom and pop shops, that are the beating heart of the downtown area, already have parking issues. Mr. Brummer testified that while he understands the Petitioner’s proposed development would be a great opportunity for Effingham, we need to protect the existing businesses in the downtown area.

Lisa Schafer appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Ms. Schafer testified that she, and her husband John, have owned three different properties in downtown Effingham. They are currently in their fourth decade working, and now living, in their property downtown. Ms. Schafer testified that they own one of the largest buildings downtown and further testified that there is not enough parking in the downtown area.

Ms. Schafer testified that the City has strict rules and regulations for the buildings in the downtown area. Ms. Schafer stated that they can't even pick up a screwdriver in their building without someone from the City showing up to make sure they are following all the strict codes and regulations downtown. Ms. Schafer testified that she realizes that these codes are in place to protect neighbors' investments and the entire downtown business district. Ms. Schafer testified that requirements for parking spots are no different. Ms. Schafer provided testimony on experiences they have had with losing business due to customers being unable to find parking. Ms. Schafer testified that they purchased the old Stevens Hardware building based on the larger size of the building and the huge parking lot that was on one side of the building. Ms. Schafer testified that the parking lot was wide and open and great for many years, but started to fill up more and more every year, and now it is packed on a daily basis. Ms. Schafer testified that this parking issue is both good and bad. It's bad since there are less available spaces to park, but it's good because it shows how the downtown area has continued to grow. The downtown is currently full of many sharp minded store owners and young entrepreneurs that bring thousands of people downtown every day. This new generation of specialty stores, along with a large county building that requires more parking, has pushed the parking issues from East Jefferson to West Jefferson. Finding a spot to park downtown on any given day is not an easy task. Ms. Schaefer testified that the City’s regulations are in place to protect the people that have already made a large financial investment in the downtown business district, and they are one of those businesses. Ms. Schafer provided testimony on the investments they have made in the downtown area. Ms. Schafer testified that if a variance is granted, it may be doing one business a favor, but it is also affecting the livelihood of other businesses. Ms. Schafer testified that they want to see A-1 Liquor succeed in business, but reducing the required parking is not going to help their business or neighboring businesses in the long run. Ms. Schafer reminded the Board about the major controversy a few years ago concerning the loss of three parking spots in the downtown area. Ms. Schafer further expressed concern that many of the downtown business owners are not being informed about the request for variance.

Ms. Schafer then read a statement from her husband, John, who was dealing with an illness. Within the statement, Mr. Schafer stated that the issue was not about parking spots, the issue was about the Petitioner trying to put too large of a building on a small lot. Mr. Schafer opined that the size of the proposed building on the lot is why there is not adequate parking. Mr. Schafer stated that if the Petitioner developed a smaller building, there would be no need for additional parking spots that clearly don’t exist. Within the statement, Mr. Schafer stated that they are asking that the board protect the investments that have already been made by the current downtown property owners and to apply the rules equally and fairly to all businesses.

Brandon Debenham appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Debenham advised the Board that he and his wife own Joe Sippers Café and Roastery. Mr. Debenham testified that the Subject Property is catty-corner to their building. Mr. Debenham testified that parking in the downtown area is an issue for their staff and customers. Mr. Debenham testified that they encourage their staff to park in the public parking lot across Section Street on the corner of Third Street and Fayette to alleviate some of the parking issues. Mr. Debenham questioned the potential for the proposed development of the Subject Property to negatively impact the financial value of Mr. Debenham’s business and property. Mr. Debenham further questioned how the Petitioner’s proposed development, offering video gaming and packaged liquor, would culturally enrich the downtown area. Mr. Debenham testified that he does not want to stand in the way of free enterprise, and if the square footage of the proposed building were reduced to be the appropriate size for what parking is available, he would be in favor of the project.

A member of the public questioned Mr. Debenham on how he would feel if his business were to be demolished, his employees out of jobs and having to rebuild. Mr. Debenham responded that while they have not had those same challenges, they have had many adversities in buying and maintaining a business and building.

Mr. Narav Patel reappeared to provide rebuttal testimony. Mr. Patel testified that he understands concerns when it comes to parking. He understands that the Subject Property is in the B-2, General Commercial District, and is required to provide off-street parking, which is why they are seeking the variance. Mr. Patel testified that they would provide the required additional parking in the future. In response to concerns with the proposed parking area across Fayette Avenue, Mr. Patel testified that the City’s regulations allow parking within 500 feet of the Subject Property. Mr. Patel further testified that the State will be installing crosswalks across Fayette Avenue to protect pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Patel advised that the proposed building will not be any bigger than what is being proposed and will most likely shrink. Mr. Patel testified that he believes that the proposed development will have a positive impact, not a negative impact to the downtown area. Mr. Patel stated that the business will attract people from all over, who will shop in the community, have coffee, or go to Village Wine to have a drink. The proposed development will bring more people in and not put a burden on the City or other businesses.

Mr. Patel testified that while they do not know the projected time that the State will complete the Fayette Avenue project, the Petitioner will be developing the extra parking to eventually provide the required 120 parking spots in the future. They are seeking the variance at this time, however, so that they can reconstruct their building before their existing business is demolished as part of the Fayette Avenue project.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the negative impact if the Petitioner is unable to build the proposed building prior to the Petitioner’s existing building being demolished, Mr. Patel testified that it will negatively affect loyal customers, the

employees, and his family who work for him. Mr. Patel testified that they employ 34 people at their two current businesses. Mr. Patel stated that it will affect their livelihood.

In response to questioning by the public regarding lack of parking in cities like Chicago and whether this impacts businesses, Mr. Patel testified that when they visit the City, they are willing to walk 10 blocks to get where they are going. Mr. Patel testified that here in the City of Effingham, the mentality is that they have to park at the front door and if they don’t have front door parking, they will not walk to the business.

In response to questions by the public regarding whether the Petitioner has developed construction plans and hired a construction company, Mr. Patel testified that they have not. Mr. Patel stated that the biggest obstacle to proceeding is to get the variance. He would like to get the variance before he goes to an engineer and invests $150,000 to $200,000 to get drawings done.

In response to questions by the public regarding the parking spaces being proposed by the Petitioner, Mr. Patel testified that the Petitioner is proposing to currently provide 81 parking spaces, and requesting a variance to reduce the required parking by 39 spaces. In response to further questioning, Mr. Patel testified that they do have a plan to eventually provide the required 120 parking spaces, which is dependent on the right of first refusal, as well as possibly purchasing property from the State.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the possibility of purchasing excess property from the State, Mr. Patel confirmed that while it is speculative, they believe that they can negotiate to keep a portion of their existing property and develop 25 spots on that area, which would allow for a total of 65 spots on property across Fayette Avenue.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the required parking count was determined without working blueprints of the proposed building, Mr. Patel confirmed that the calculations were determined without a working blueprint. Mr. Patel testified that the calculations were based on usable square footage and the proposed occupancy of the building. Mr. Patel further testified that the proposed building will not be any bigger than what has previously been stated and may shrink.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the Petitioner knew the Subject Property was zoned B-2, General Commercial District, when they purchased the property, Mr. Patel testified that they did not know the zoning of the Subject Property when they purchased the property. Mr. Patel further testified that the Petitioner is currently proposing 81 parking spots, but they will develop the required 120 parking spots when they are able to repurchase property back from the State.

At the request of the Board, Greg Koester, City Planner, appeared to testify. In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the public hearing for the Petition was previously held at the July Zoning Board meeting and subsequent to the July Zoning Board meeting, the Petitioner submitted an Amended Petition. Mr. Koester testified that within the Amended Petition, the Petitioner is requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 120 down to 81.

A Board member inquired whether the Petitioner would need a variance if the Petitioner purchased the property located at 109 West Jefferson, which is a vacant building across from the courthouse. Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner would not need a variance if the Petitioner redeveloped the property at 109 West Jefferson or tore down the building and built the proposed three-story building on that site.

A Board Member inquired whether the Petitioner received any special treatment when the City reduced the required parking from 175 down to 120. Mr. Koester testified that no special treatment was given. The zoning regulations allow the City to consider a building with differing uses and calculate the parking per use per square footage and add them together. The City did the calculations based on the usable areas or occupied areas utilizing the information provided by the Petitioner. Mr. Koester testified that the basement area of the proposed building is all storage area, so no parking is required. Certain areas, including stairwells, elevator space, cooler spaces, etc., were taken out of the square footage for the first, second, and third floors, to come up with the required parking.

A Board Member questioned whether accurate drawings were provided to the City. Mr. Koester responded that no building plans were provided, however, the Petitioner provided square footage of the different floors of the building. If the square footage of the building goes down, the parking requirements will go down. Mr. Koester stated that Mr. Patel has stated numerous times in his testimony that the building will not get any larger than what they have proposed. Mr. Koester further stated that the Petitioner’s revised conceptual plan is actually four feet smaller than the last conceptual plan.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether Mr. Koester has ever made a determination of parking spaces without being provided blueprints in the past, Mr. Koester testified that he does not recall any specific incidents in the past.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the City has a stated position on the proposed project, Mr. Koester advised that he is not aware of a position.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether downtown businesses have to get City approval regarding parking before they redevelop, Mr. Koester testified that no off-street parking is required for properties in the B3 District. When a building in the downtown area is redeveloped, the only thing the owner has to do is submit plans to the Building Official to make sure the building is in compliance with building codes, fire codes, etc. Mr. Koester confirmed that this is the case even in the event a downtown building were to build on another floor to an existing building. Mr. Koester further testified he can think of two exceptions in the downtown area. Mr. Koester testified that when Midland States Bank redeveloped their building to develop the Midlands Loft, which required a special use permit, Midland States Bank was required to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Midland States Bank does provide these required parking spots on the property where the new bank was developed behind the Midland Lofts building. Mr. Koester also testified that Mr. Brummer was required to provide two parking spots per dwelling unit when he redeveloped his building for Airbnb’s and short-term rentals.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the Petitioner is actually adding parking spaces to the downtown area, Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property is not located in the B-3 district, which does not require off-street parking. The Petitioner’s property is located in the B-2 District, which does require off-street parking. The parking to be developed as part of the Petitioner’s development of the Subject Property is not considered public parking.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the City has proposed any suggestions or mitigation strategies to address the parking issues as a whole, not specifically related to the Petitioner’s request, Mr. Koester testified that he is unaware of any plans for the City to add more parking downtown. The City has, over the years, added additional parking in the downtown area, including having redeveloped parallel parking and making it angle parking to increase the number count. Mr. Koester testified that as of right now, he is not aware of any plans to provide additional parking downtown.

In response to questioning by the public regarding what it takes to develop in the City, Mr. Koester testified that the City has regulations that have to be followed, including zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, building codes, fire codes, etc. When a developer has an issue, or a hardship, that is why the City has the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether other businesses including Orchard Inn, Gabby Goat, and Top Shelf had to comply with the parking regulations when they redeveloped their properties, Mr. Koester testified that those businesses were required to comply with the City’s parking regulations.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the Orchard Inn, Gabby Goat, and Top Shelf were “landlocked” when they developed their properties, Mr. Koester testified that he would assume so.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the parking requirements would be changed if the use of the proposed building were ever changed or if the usable space was ever altered, Mr. Koester advised that the parking requirements could change if there is a change in use or change in usable space.

A member of the public inquired whether variances can be temporary or whether they can be revoked. In response City Attorney Willenborg advised that restrictions can be placed on variances and can be revoked in accordance with the City’s regulations.

At the request of the Board, Mr. Patel reappeared to respond to questions from the Board. Board Member Wohltman inquired whether the proposed building was the same size as the Petitioner’s current building or bigger, Mr. Patel testified that the proposed building is bigger. More specifically, the current building is around 5,000 square feet, and the proposed building is 7,000 square feet per floor, for a total of 21,000 square feet. In response to questioning by Board Member Wohltman whether the Petitioner could possibly not build that big of a building and provide the required parking spaces, Mr. Patel testified that they are trying to build something that will bring people into town. Mr. Patel testified that they will eventually provide the required 120 parking spaces. Mr. Patel testified that even if they shrunk the size of the proposed building, they would still have to develop parking across the street from the Subject Property whether that be the Fourth Street lot or the property across Fayette Avenue.

The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

Board Member Thies stated that the issue comes down to parking and he is of the opinion that they should require the Petitioner to provide the required 120 parking spots.

Chairman Mumm stated that the Petitioner’s request is premature and that the Petitioner has not provided building plans. Chairman Mumm stated that this is a chicken and egg situation where the Petitioner needs to know whether they will obtain a variance before they invest in building plans, but questioned whether the Board can make a decision with the information presented.

Board Member Wohltman concurred with Board Member Thies. Board Member Wohltman stated that he is sure that Mr. Patel runs a good business. Board Member Wohltman expressed a concern about the possible future use of the building and whether it would negatively impact the parking requirements. While the Petitioner stated that they will construct the required 120 parking spots, they are unable to do so now. Board Member Wohltman advised that he cannot support the request and strongly suggested that the Board deny the request. Board Member Wohltman also stated that the Petitioner could build a building on the Subject Property that is the same size as the Petitioner’s current building across the street from the Subject Property and have adequate parking.

Board Member Hillyer also expressed a concern with not knowing how IDOT will proceed regarding the Fayette Avenue project or transferring back any excess property to the Petitioner.

On motion by Board Member Mark Thies, seconded by Board Member Ken Wohltman, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied, by a 6 to 1 vote, the variance as requested.

4. Location: 15210 N. Monocot Street, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance to Allow Accessory Building in Front Yard Petitioner: James R. Barbee

The Petition for Variance to Allow an Accessory Building in Front Yard was filed by an owner of the Subject Property, James R. Barbee. The Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the construction or placement of an accessory building in a front yard, which is not permitted per Article 5-2 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code.

Mr. James R. Barbee, Petitioner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Barbee advised that he and his wife own the Subject Property, which is about a mile outside of the city limits. Mr. Barbee advised that they would like to place an accessory building in the front yard. Mr. Barbee requested that the documents attached to the Petition be made a part of the record. Mr. Barbee advised that the house sits on the back side of the Subject Property and that there is also a septic system located in the back area of the Subject Property. Mr. Barbee testified that there is a large ditch that flows through a large portion in the front area of the property. Mr. Barbee further testified that there are also low areas where water comes into the Subject Property from the house and other properties. Mr. Barbee testified that, as a result of these issues, there is limited area on the Subject Property to place the proposed accessory building. Mr. Barbee identified the location of the proposed accessory building utilizing a hand-drawn rendering, as well as photos of the Subject Property. Mr. Barbee advised the Board that he has spoken to his neighbors and each of them signed the letter giving permission for the building, which said letter was attached to the Petition.

In response to questions by the Board requesting the proposed accessory building, Mr. Barbee testified that they were proposing to develop a 12’ x 30’ portable building. Mr. Barbee further testified that they were not putting any foundation work underneath the building or in front of it but will place rock underneath the building.

In response to questions by the board regarding the impact of drainage on the Subject Property, as well as the location of trees, Mr. Barbee testified that there are about three different areas where water drains through the Subject Property. Furthermore, there are a number of mature trees present on the Subject Property.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Barbee confirmed that the drainage issues on the Subject Property, the location of the mature trees, as well as the septic field negatively impact the ability to place the proposed accessory building on the Subject Property.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Barbee testified that, in his opinion, the variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to any other adjoining properties, nor would it be detrimental to the character of development in the area. Mr. Barbee testified that he and many of his neighbors had no idea their properties were located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City and subject to the City’s zoning regulations.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

The Board Members concurred that the accessory building would fit in the area being proposed. In response to questioning by the Board whether they can place limitations on the size of the proposed building, City Attorney Willenborg advised that the Board can place restrictions on the dimensions.

On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Carrie Rodman, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 7 to 0 vote, the variance to allow the Petitioner to construct or place a 12’ x 30’ portable building in the front yard of the Subject Property.

5. Location: 308 E. Eiche Avenue, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance to Allow Addition to Non-Conforming Building Petitioners: Janice Hester and Douglas Murrell

The Petition for Variance for Addition to Nonconforming Building was filed by the owners of the Subject Property, Janice Hester and Douglas Murrell. The Petitioners are seeking a variance to allow the construction of an alteration (addition) of 1,235 square feet to an existing allowable non-conforming building for a total 2,795 square feet building, which deviates from the restrictions contained in Article 28-2 of Appendix B to the City of Effingham Municipal Code.

Mr. Douglas Murrell, Petitioner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Murrell testified that they would like to construct an addition to the non-conforming building present on the Subject Property.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Murrell confirmed that the Subject Property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residence District. There is currently a building on the Subject Property, which is 1,560 square feet in size. Mr. Murrell testified that he currently utilizes the building to store his personal items. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Murrell confirmed that the use of the Subject Property for storage is a nonconforming use since it is in the R-2, Single Family Residence District. Mr. Murrell testified that they are seeking to increase the size of the building to 2,795 square feet.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Murrell confirmed that they plan to continue to utilize the building, as well as the additional space, for storage.

Mr. Murrell testified that he has improved the property immensely from when he purchased the Subject Property from the City.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding the Petitioner’s hardship, Mr. Murrell testified that he needs more storage space and given the current zoning he is unable to add onto the existing building and continue to utilize it for storage.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Murrell testified that, in his opinion, the variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to any other adjoining properties, nor would it be detrimental to the character of development in the area.

In response to questions by Board Member Thies regarding the use of the Subject Property before it was purchased by the Petitioner, Mr. Murrell testified that the City utilized the Subject Property for storage and that the Subject Property was zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District when the City owned the Subject Property.

In response to questions by Board Member Thies regarding whether the Petitioner has made improvements to the Subject Property since purchasing the property, Mr. Murrell testified that he cleaned up the Subject Property, including painting part of the building and putting in concrete. Mr. Murrell advised that he plans to finish the exterior painting if the variance is approved.

In response to questions by Board Member Thies regarding the proposed addition, Mr. Murrell testified that he will be putting metal all the way around the new addition, including the front area of the entire building, and putting a new roof on the building.

Members of the Board made statements about the current condition of the Subject Property. In response to these statements, Mr. Murrell stated that the Subject Property was overgrown when he purchased it from the City.

In response to concerns by the Board whether the use and condition of the Subject Property is appropriate given the nice homes around the Subject Property, Mr. Murrell testified that he is going to put a new face on the building, as well as a metal roof.

At the request of the Board, City Planner, Greg Koester, appeared to testify.

In response to questions by Board Member Thies whether the City should consider rezoning the Subject Property, Mr. Koester testified that they evaluated the possibility of rezoning the Subject Property, however, were concerned that such a rezoning could be considered “spot zoning”. To allow storage, the Subject Property would have to be rezoned B-2, General Commercial District. There are no other properties in the area that are zoned B-2, General Commercial District. In response to further questions by Board Member Thies, Mr. Koester testified that the property to the east of the Subject Property is zoned R-3D, Multi-family, but is improved with a single-family home owned by Jim Mayhood. Mr. Koester further testified that the property to the south of the Subject Property is zoned NU, Non-Urban District.

In response to Board Member Buehnerkemper’s question on the size of the Subject Property, Mr. Koester testified that the lot is 64.22 feet wide.

In response to questions by Board Member Wohltman regarding whether the building complies with setback requirements, Mr. Koester further stated that the northeast corner of the existing building on the subject Property is 4.79 feet from the property line, so the existing building is also non-conforming with regard to setback requirements.

In response to questions by Board Member Wohltman regarding why the building is considered “non-conforming”, Mr. Koester testified that the building is basically an accessory building without a principal building.

In response to questions by Board Member Thies and City Attorney Willenborg regarding whether the B-2 zoning designation would be the only district storage allowed,

Mr. Koester testified that both the B-1 and B-2 zoning classifications allow for storage as an allowable use. Mr. Koester testified that the future land use map shows the area for residential uses.

Mr. Koester testified that Mr. Murrell has made huge improvements to the property since he acquired it from the City.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

City Attorney Willenborg explained that the regulations provide that an allowable non-conforming use or building cannot be increased, changed, or altered. Also, if the building is destroyed by a certain percentage, it cannot be rebuilt or repaired.

The Board Members concurred that the Petitioners’ hardship is that the property has allowable nonconforming buildings, which cannot be increased in size to allow for the construction of the addition.

On motion by Board Member Mark Thies, seconded by Board Member Andy St. John, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 7 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.

6. Location: 1905 S. Banker Street, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance for Off-Premise Development Complex

Sign/Billboard- Electronic Message Board

Petitioner: The Lamar Companies and DAMP 23, LLC

The Petition for Variance for Off-Premise Development Complex Sign/Billboard – Electronic Message Board was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, DAMP 23, LLC, and Petitioner, The Lamar Companies. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow an off premises Development Complex Sign/Billboard on real estate in the same configuration of the sign which: (i) does not have the required 100 feet of separation from another sign per Article 24-7.C. (1)(c) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; (ii) has a sign area of 300 square feet per sign face, which exceeds the maximum area of 250 square feet per sign face permitted pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (4)(a) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; (iii) does not have the required 100 feet of separation from another sign pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (7)(b) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (iv) is not improved with a business permitted to have a Development Complex Sign/Billboard pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (8) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham. Petitioner is also seeking a variance to allow an Electronic Message Board on the southeast side of the Billboard which (i) has an area of 300 square feet, which exceeds the maximum of 150 square feet per side per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (ii) displays off-premises advertising other than limited to public service information or advertising for business located on the same real estate as the sign as generally prohibited per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham.

Daniel Hamilton, an attorney with Brow, Hay & Stephens in Springfield, Illinois, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, The Lamar Companies, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Hamilton requested that the Petition be admitted as part of the record. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Petition includes explicit standards of variation and explanations as to how those standards of variations have been met in this particular case. Mr. Hamilton further stated that the Petition includes various exhibits that help explain the need for the relief and the status of the Subject Property. Mr. Hamilton testified that there is currently a two-sided billboard on the Subject Property, which is in the Bob's Discount parking lot. Mr. Hamilton testified that the Petitioner, Lamar, is seeking authorization to replace the south sign face only with an electronic digital display. Mr. Hamilton testified that the existing billboard is an allowable non-conforming use because the billboard pre exists the zoning ordinance. Mr. Hamilton testified that electronic digital displays provide various benefits to the community. First, whenever you replace a standard billboard that's lit with floodlights with an electronic digital display, the amount of light that is emanated from the sign is actually reduced by about 95%. In addition to that, the boards provide public safety notices whenever there's an emergency need, including weather alerts, amber alerts, etc. Mr. Hamilton testified that there is a public service component that follows with these boards that is not available through traditional billboards. Mr. Hamilton further testified that community events and not-for-profit events can be advertised with no charge.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the rendering, attached as Exhibit F to the Petition, demonstrates what the board will look like. The replacement board will be the same square footage as the existing board, being 300 square feet, and it will not display any images that scroll, link flash or are animated. All of the images that are displayed will be static.

In response to concerns that the electronic message displays distract vehicles drivers, Mr. Hamilton identified two studies referenced within the Petition. Mr. Hamilton provided copies of the studies and they were made a part of the record. Mr. Hamilton testified that the 2012 study from the National Federal Highway Administration determined that these sorts of signs did not appear to be related to any decrease in looking towards the road ahead. Drivers in the study devoted between 73% and 85% of their visual attention to the road regardless of whether there was an electronic billboard or a standard billboard. Mr. Hamilton testified that the evidence has shown that electronic billboards do not add any additional distraction to drivers. You combine that with the reduced amount of light that is emanated and it actually makes traffic flow safer in some cases.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the statements in the Petition reflect that the variance, if granted, will be subject to the issuance of an IDOT permit and that submissions of structural plans will be required before the city actually issues its permit. Mr. Hamilton advised that currently, a sign owner has to submit zoning approval to IDOT, then IDOT will issue a sign permit and then you have to go back to the city and get a building permit. Mr. Hamilton advised that the State recently enacted Senate Bill 62, which provided Illinois Department of Transportation with the authority to approve these sorts of sign conversions without a full signed permit.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow an off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboard on real estate in the same configuration of the sign which: (i) does not have the required 100 feet of separation from another sign per Article 24-7.C. (1)(c) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; (ii) has a sign area of 300 square feet per sign face, which exceeds the maximum area of 250 square feet per sign face permitted pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (4)(a) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; (iii) does not have the required 100 feet of separation from another sign pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (7)(b) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (iv) is not improved with a business permitted to have a Development Complex Sign/Billboard pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (8) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham. In response to further questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the existing sign on the Subject Property is 300 square feet and they are requesting to maintain the size of the existing sign when they replace the sign. Mr. Hamilton advised that 300 square feet is industry standard for the size of these types of signs.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the Petitioner is also seeking a variance to allow an Electronic Message Board on the southeast side of the Billboard which (i) has an area of 300 square feet, which exceeds the maximum of 150 square feet per side per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (ii) displays off-premises advertising other than limited to public service information or advertising for business located on the same real estate as the sign as generally prohibited per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham.

In response to questioning from City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton further testified that the the Petitioner is also seeking such other relief as is necessary to accomplish the purposes stated herein. Mr. Hamilton testified that the City code is complex and they are seeking authorization to swap out the existing board with the replacement electronic message board.

In response to questioning from City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the variance, if granted would be subject to the Petitioner obtaining a permit from IDOT authorizing the replacement, reconstruction and/or installation of the sign, as well as authorizing the electronic message board on the south-facing sign face. Further, the variance, if granted, would be subject to submission to the City Staff of a report signed and sealed by a structural engineer submitted with the signed permit application stating the existing structure or suggested modifications thereof will support the conversion of the south facing sign face from a static sign to an electronic message board.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the economic return on the Subject Property cannot continue in its status quo due to the change in the outdoor advertising industry. Mr. Hamilton stated that the advertising market in the City of Effingham has been modified by the previous grant of variances for another property with similar relief. Mr. Hamilton testified that the plight of the Petitioner is due to those same unique circumstances in that the Code has been varied for specific properties that now have an advantage in the market and the fact that the Code does not allow this use which is confused between development complex signs and billboard signs, which are actually two completely separate things but the Code treats them as one.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

The Board Members stated that this is simply improving an existing sign and replacing a sign face with an electronic message board. The replacement sign will be in the exact same position. Board Members stated that the difference between the previous request made by Lamar and this current request is that this sign is an existing sign which is different than the previous request where Lamar was proposing to install a new sign. The Board Members state that each petition must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

On motion by Board Member Kurt Buehnerkemper, seconded by Board Member Andy St. John, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 7 to 0 vote, the variance to allow an off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboard on real estate in the same configuration of the sign which: (i) does not have the required 100 feet of separation from another sign per Article 24-7.C. (1)(c) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; (ii) has a sign area of 300 square feet per sign face, which exceeds the maximum area of 250 square feet per sign face permitted pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (4)(a) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; (iii) does not have the required 100 feet of separation from another sign pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (7)(b) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (iv) is not improved with a business permitted to have a Development Complex Sign/Billboard pursuant to Article 24-7.C. (8) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham, and to further allow an Electronic Message Board on the southeast side of the Billboard which (i) has an area of 300 square feet, which exceeds the maximum of 150 square feet per side per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (ii) displays off-premises advertising other than limited to public service information or advertising for business located on the same real estate as the sign as generally prohibited per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham, SUBJECT TO AND CONDITIONED UPON (i) the petitioners obtaining a permit from IDOT authorizing the replacement, reconstruction, and/or installation of the sign, as well as authorizing the electronic message board on the south side of the sign; and, (ii) the Petitioners’ submission to the City Staff of a report signed and sealed by a structural engineer submitted with the sign permit application stating the existing structure or suggested modifications thereof will support the conversion of the south-facing sign face from a static sign to an electronic message board.

7. Discussion Only: Discussion Only-Training by American Planning Association Illinois Chapter- September 27, 2023: City Planner, Greg Koester advised the Board that the American Planning Association Illinois Training for both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals has been scheduled for September 27, 2023.

8. Public Comment: None

9. On motion by Board Member Andy St. John, seconded by Board Member Theresa Hillyer, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CVVPPX659E0C/$file/Aug%20ZBOA%20Minutes.pdf