Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Aug_08_07_ZBA_Min

VIEWS: 34 PAGES: 32

									ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

                                      MEETING MINUTES
                                                 OF
                                 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
                            THE COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO, ILLINOIS
                               404 Elm Street, Room 303, Rockford, IL
                                     August 8, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.

PRESENT:         Carol Wilke
                 Ed Conklin
                 Tom Walsh
                 Richard Brown
                 Brian Erickson
                 Pete Scordato
                 Tami Verstraete

STAFF:           John Cantrell, Planning & Zoning Officer
                 Greg Tilly, Planner
                 Chessie Delaney, Secretary
                 Sara Hohe, State’s Attorney Office

CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Good afternoon, before
we begin hearing the petitions listed on the agenda, I would like to give a brief overview of the role of
the Zoning Board of Appeals and make a short announcement. The Zoning Board of Appeals receives
complete concise testimony from both petitioners and objectors, deliberates and provides a
recommendation that is based on facts and evidence to the County Board on 3 types of petitions.
These petitions include map amendments, special use permits and variations.

A map amendment changes the zoning classification of a piece of property, for example, from
Agricultural Priority District to Rural Agricultural District. Each zoning classification has a list of
permitted uses and special uses. Special uses must be applied for through a special use permit, because
of its potential influence upon neighboring uses. A special use permit is regulated with respect to
location or operation for the protection of the community. A variation, which includes alterations to
setback requirements, is sought when there is a particular difficulty in following the strict letter of the
regulation and is intended to alleviate some demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The zoning ordinance
includes standards, which must be met for both a special use permit and a variation. It is very important
that both the petitioner and the objector’s testimony include evidence and facts, which address each
standard. These standards are the guidelines that must be considered when the ZBA deliberates a
special use permit or variation.

As earlier stated, our decision is a recommendation to the County Board. A favorable recommendation
is achieved when at least four (4) ZBA members cast a favorable vote to approve. After each petitioner
makes his or her presentation any objectors to that petition will be allowed to make their presentation.
The petitioner will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttal. It is important for both petitioners and
objectors to understand that this hearing is their only opportunity to provide evidence and testimony
for the record. Any documents or photographs submitted to the ZBA will become part of the record
and will be placed in the petitioner’s file, which is maintained by the zoning office.

Once all of the evidence and facts have been brought forth, the ZBA moves to deliberation. During
deliberation, the testimony period is closed. In order to ensure that everyone is given an equal
                                                    1
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

opportunity to speak, the following ground rules shall be adhered to: a) Anyone wishing to speak must
first be sworn in before providing testimony. b) Only one person at a time may provide testimony. c)
Testimony will not be heard until the individual is recognized by the Chairman. d) Anyone providing
testimony must base relevant testimony around the applicable standards pertinent to the petition.
Deliberation will be based on relevant testimony specific to the applicable standards. e) Demonstrate
respect for other points of view. Statements that are intended to be inflammatory or derogatory will not
be tolerated. f) Disruptions or outbursts, such as applause or booing will not be tolerated. g) If an
individual is ruled “out of order” due to disruptive behavior, he/she may be removed from the hearing.

The Zoning Committee of the County Board will consider the petitions heard tonight and acted upon
by the ZBA on Wednesday August 22, 2007, at 5.30 pm in Room 303 of the County Administration
Building, 404 Elm Street, Rockford, IL. The Zoning Committee meeting is open to the public. The
recommendations of both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Committee then go to the full
County Board for their consideration on Thursday, August 23, 2007. The County Board will lay the
petitions over to the September 13, 2007, County Board meeting for decision. However, the County
Board may, in certain instances, suspend their rules and make their decision on August 23, 2007. If you
have any questions on this meeting schedule please call the County Planning & Zoning office at 319-
4350. Legal protests on proposed map amendments may be filed with the County Clerks Office,
County Administration Building, 404 Elm Street, Room 104. If you wish to address the County Board
prior to the meeting, please call the County Board office at 319-4233 for information. If you will be
speaking on behalf of, or in opposition to a petition this evening, please make sure that you have signed
the sign-in sheet before you leave tonight.

NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, a portion of the minutes was not eligible

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING’S MINUTES: Minutes of July 11, 2007.

MOTION to approve the minutes of July 11, 2007 made by Ed Conklin, SECONDED by Pete
Scordato. MOTION PASSED by 7-0.

OLD BUSINESS:           NONE

NEW BUSINESS:

1.     Z-13-07: A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE 1.29 ACRES FROM AG,
       AGRICULTURAL PRIORITY DISTRICT TO RE, RURAL ESTATE DISTRICT,
       requested by Nathan Noble, for property located at 4988 Safford Road, in Rockford Township.
       P.I.N.#s: 11-08-428-002 & pt. of 11-08-428-003                                 C.B. District 7
       LESA SCORE: 184 204                              CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: NO

Swear in:        Nathan Noble, 6833 Stalter Dr., Rockford

Discussion:       Summary of the minutes.

NATHAN NOBLE, the Petitioner, testified that he was there on behalf of Paul Marshall, Sr., the
owner of the PIQ. Mr. Noble passed out a small packet, Exhibit A, which included a copy of his
answers to the STANDARDS, two aerial view maps (WinGis) showing the PIQ, and a copy of the
Staff Report. Mr. Noble indicated that Don and Mike Marshall (sons of Paul Marshall, Sr.) were in
attendance tonight, but that Paul Marshall, Sr., was not in good health and was unable to attend. He
                                                    2
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

informed the Committee the reason for the zoning change was so that the parcel and house would be
conforming. In reference to the Standards, Mr. Noble proposed that there would be no or very
minimal change. He claimed that the existing house had been rented to Mr. Marshall’s grandson for
over the past 2 years and that the grandfather wanted his grandson to own it. He upheld that although
the grandson was on his honeymoon at this time, that the addition of one more person would not
change the answers to the Standards. The Petitioner reported that there was city sewer and water
hookups on the back side of the PIQ. He also expressed that the PIQ would then conform to the
general area of some single-family homes.

No witnesses of objection.

Deliberation:

A question about the LESA score was brought up in regards to the evaluation of number #9, whether
the request was consistent with the Year 2010 Land Use Guide? GREG TILLY discerned that the
LESA score number shown of 184 was incorrect due to some confusion and much discussion on the
correct answering of number #9 of the assessment. Mr. Tilly expressed that although the PIQ
appeared closer to conforming with the 2010 Land Use Plan than conforming to the AG District, it
brought it closer, but still does not qualify as consistent. He stated that the decision was made that
number #9 should properly be answered ‘no’, allotting a 20 point variation in the total LESA score,
increasing it to a total of 204, although a ‘10’ would have been ‘more appropriate’ or ‘fair’, but not an
option.

MOTION to approve Petition Z-13-07 made by Pete Scordato, SECONDED by Ed Conklin.
MOTION PASSED 7-0

NOTE: Petitions #2 (SU-13-07) & #3 (V-08-07) [Cedergren] were discussed together but
voted on separately:

2      SU-13-07: A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A KENNEL AS AN ACCESSORY
       USE BY THE OCCUPANT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, IN THE AG,
       AGRICULTURAL PRIORITY DISTRICT, requested by Karen Cedergren for property
       located at 7945 Knapp Road, in Harrison Township.
       P.I.N. #: 06-35-400-002                                            C.B. District 1
       LESA SCORE: N/A                               CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A


3.     V-08-07: A VARIATION TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.9 FEET
       INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET IN THE AG, AGRICULTURAL
       PRIORITY DISTRICT, requested by Karen Cedergren, for property located at 7945 Knapp
       Road, in Harrison Township.
       P.I.N. #:06-35-400-002                                                   C.B. District 1
       LESA SCORE: N/A                        CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A

Swear in:
       For Petitioner: Attorney Ferguson, Attorney for Petitioner, 216 N. Court St., Rockford
                       Karen Cedergren, Petitioner, 7945 Knapp Rd.
                       Jim Higgins, 7529 Harrison Rd.
                       Della Watkins, 4765 Rockton Rd.
                                                    3
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

                       Brian Hill, 8236 Trask Bridge Rd.
                       Khalid Chaudhry, Petitioner’s Veterinarian, 1645 Blackhawk Blvd.
                       Judy Newcomb, 2150 N. State St., Belvidere
                       Pat Kiser, 8520 Harrison Rd.

       Objectors:      Colleen Hennelly, 8616 Harrison Rd.
                       Jon Kaemmerien, 8616 Harrison Rd.
                       Kris Proudfoot, 9918 Pierce Rd.
                       Jeannie Huber, 8124 W. Oliver Rd.
                       Mark Hart, 7724 Stephens Rd.
                       Jill Beyer, 9024 Harrison Rd.
                       Judy Moore, 7114 Stephens Rd.
                       Korrina Kiser, 8346 Delta Dr., formerly of 8227 Oliver Rd (a month ago)
                       Ed Froeliger, 7986 Stephens Rd.

Discussion:      Summary of the minutes.

Witnesses for the Petitioner:

JIM HIGGINS witnessed that although he now lived about a mile away on the corner of Cemetery
and Harrison Roads, he had lived ‘on the property’ of the Petitioner for 68 years. He claimed he did
not know anyone who better cares for their animals than the Petitioner.

DELLA WATKINS professed that she was a friend of the Petitioner and was at her house ‘all the
time’ helping her with her dogs and visiting. Ms. Watkins argued she never heard dogs bark excessively
or no more or no less than the neighbors. She maintains that the Petitioner takes very good care of her
dogs and makes sure that her dogs are ‘all put away and tucked into bed’ by 10:00 at night, so that it
wouldn’t disturb anyone. Regarding a meeting on that prior Monday, Ms. Watkins stated the neighbors
that had a problem with the Petitioner’s dogs kept saying that her dogs were 200 feet from their
bedroom window. Making it a point, she insisted that she had measured the distance of one point to
another at 233 and that her dogs were farther up, so there was a little bit of difference there than what
the neighbor had claimed.

BRIAN HILL announced that his family farmed the land that surrounded the Petitioner’s house for 3
generations. He alleged that it basically came down to someone moving out into the country and trying
to tell the country people how to do what they do. Mr. Hill added that they had cattle and hogs and
that they have had received complaints of that also. He exclaimed that it was the country! He shared
that the Petitioner took very good care of her animals; they were not neglected.

Because Mr. Hill lived on the border of the PIQ for the Variance, a BOARD MEMBER asked if he
had a problem with the Petitioner’s building being 6’ 9” off his property line. He indicated that he did
not.

KHALID CHAUDHRY testified that he was the Petitioner’s Veterinarian, visiting her facility once a
month for regular checkups, vaccinations, and to inspect the premises. He reported that the facility was
properly sanitized with ‘airtight control’ so that the neighbor would not get upset from barking. He
repeated that there was no excessive barking. Mr. Chaudhry attested that he never found a problem
when going there. In his opinion, the Petitioner maintained nicely housed animals and followed the
rules and regulations. He had no problem with the facility.
                                                    4
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


It was brought to attention by a BOARD MEMBER in regards to Petitioner Karen Cedergren’s
statement that “only one litter a year” was to be implied as ‘one litter per female per year.’
The Petitioner’s Attorney, RAY FERGUSON, assured the Board that with the 7 females it would be a
maximum of 7 litters per year.

JUDY NEWCOMB conveyed that she was good friends of the Petitioner. She informed the Board
that she is a retired dog trainer of 26 years and during all her years as a dog trainer and in many dog
clubs and so forth, she had never seen anyone do as much as the Petitioner has done with her dogs.
Ms. Newcomb claims that the Petitioner’s office is inside the pole barn and that she is there all day long
with the dogs, so the dogs are not in there all by themselves. In her opinion, the dogs are Karen
Cedergren’s everything’ and that these dogs have a better life than most. She continues on to say that
the Petitioner usually rescues a dog once a year, takes care of it, trains it, and then places it into a home.
According to Mr. Newcomb, one dog is going to Florida to be with a disabled little girl. Judy
Newcomb attested to the Board that the Petitioner’s facility has 6 foot double gates so that only one
would be opened and closed before the other so that the dogs could not escape. She admitted that one
little dog barks when the doorbell first rings, but that she never heard any excessive barking from the
kennel. Ms. Newcomb stated that when you first enter the kennel, the dogs may bark, but only 4 or 5
times in a row, then quiet down, claiming that is the normal dog bark. She purports that these dogs
have been trained so well and that there are no problems with barking or the way the kennel is set up or
anything like that.

When asked by a BOARD MEMBER if she was familiar with the incident that Attorney Ferguson
had explained earlier regarding dogs getting out, Judy Newcomb’s response was that the incident that
she knew of was when the Petitioner had first moved there and that was before all of the safety fences
had been put up.

PAT KISER stated that she lived right across the road from Karen Cedergren, the Petitioner, on the
corner of Knapp and Harrison Roads. She supported that she did not hear the Petitioner’s dogs bark
any more or any less than anybody else’s. Ms. Kiser shared that they did not bark any more than her
own two dogs and that she had little ‘yappers.’ She confirmed that on Monday night there was a
concern that some of the people in the community thought that the property values would drop.
However, she did not feel that that would be a problem. Ms. Kiser communicated to the Board that
she has 9 grandchildren that have all been on the Petitioner’s property around her dogs and her dogs
have never even acted like they were tempted to bite or anything and that was another of the concerns
of some people in the neighborhood.

KAREN CEDERGREN, the Petitioner, affirmed to the Board that she has 15 dogs on her premises
and have lived at the address for about a year. She further stated that the purported incident happened
on a day when concrete was being poured on her property. Ms. Cedergren claims that the dogs were
out for only about 10 minutes and that the very next day she installed locks on the gates. She said that
she was also having a fence around the deck of her house moved out so that her dog (named Kia)
could not jump from the deck over the fence. Karen Cedergren testified that no dogs are outside
when she is not home. The Petitioner imparted that she works hard on her trying to be courteous in
her neighborhood. She continued that before she had the two air conditioners, she would leave the
pole barn doors open with a gate in front of it and would call her neighbors on both sides to find out if
doing that had been disturbing them in any way. She professed that there were no complaints of any
kind or she would have closed the pole barn doors.


                                                      5
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

When the Petitioner became aware of a ‘barking issue’, she purchased “Bark collars”. Ms. Cedergren
contends that because of this, she has worked with a behaviorist 6 times to make sure that everything
was fine with the dogs and that they decided to enact proper training with a regular trainer to include to
only bark on demand. Karen Cedergren confessed that she would hate to be given a voice but never
be able to use it in sympathizing with the dogs. However, she stresses that she would not let her dogs
excessively bark, agreeing that that would be annoying to everyone, including herself. The Petitioner
argues that when dogs run and play, there will be the occasional barks; it is only natural. Ms. Cedergren
reported that her dogs always have a playmate and they are rotated multiple times a day so that they get
the fresh air, sunshine, and playtime. She added that the dogs had a little swimming pool and toys.
The Petitioner informed the Board that she was in the kennel a lot and acknowledged that the dogs
meant a lot to her. Monday night, when asked how a person could love 15 dogs, she responded with
how could she not. She conceded that she has a friend who has 10 children and that she could not do
10 children like her friend could. Her justification was that everyone has there own gifts and own
capacities. Karen Cedergren has asserted that she has done a lot as far as insulating and trying not to be
a nuisance or a problem in her community. She feels that she has enhanced her property instead of
bringing down anyone else’s property values.

One BOARD MEMBER questioned the Petitioner regarding the current 15 dogs and wanting up to
20 as a maximum. The confusion and concern was that if there were only 14 kennels, not all dogs
would have a pen. Karen Cedergren presented that at the current time, there were 6 dogs in her home.
She explained that she did not want to have kennel dogs and that they all get rotated throughout her
house and were part of her family. Otherwise, she admits that she would have to move out to the pole
barn, one of the two. The Petitioner then announced that she had room in the pole barn to add more
kennels, but that the kennels were 5 x 5 x 6 foot tall instead of the 6 x 6 x 6 foot as Attorney Ferguson
had stated earlier. Ms Cedergren continued that although each kennel could house 2 large adult dogs,
they do not. She added that the dogs have elevated beds, kennel mats, radio, and TV.

Another question asked by the BOARD was that of boarding (extra) dogs (up to the limit of kennels)?
Karen Cedergren explained that she was not interested in boarding dogs. However, she found out that
she could not take in a neighbor’s dog for a couple days, as a friendly gesture, as that would constitute
boarding and boarding is kenneling (for which you need a license). The Petitioner insisted that she did
not want a ‘kennel’; she just wanted to raise her own dogs. Ms. Cedergren conveyed that she would like
to help train dogs. She recounted the story of the puppy going to a disabled child in Florida who could
not afford to purchase a service dog. She provided that ‘we’ were working with getting trainers in
Florida to assist with the service training. With her litters, the Petitioner proposed plans to donate to
different search and rescues or to whatever services needed. Ms. Cedergren hoped the Board would
understand that she didn’t know if she would even get to the maximum of 20 dogs, but that she just
wanted 20 as a maximum in case she might be asked to ‘baby-sit’ a friend’s or neighbor’s dog
temporarily and then, at the same time, have a ‘rescue’ dog come in. She expressed that she works
with a behaviorist who comes out and does an analysis on the rescue dogs, prior to their training,
because it helps if they know if the animal had been abused or neglected.

The amount of activity coming in and out of the property was another question of a BOARD
MEMBER, especially regarding the breeding of the dogs. Karen Cedergren answered that she had
been there one year and had placed one dog and now the puppy that was going down to Florida. She
stated that there was not activity enough to socialize her own dogs. With her breeding and sale of the
pups, the Petitioner announced that a lot of the puppies were pre-sold and that the internet was her
resource for major correspondence. In addition, she contends that she does not allow more than one
client on the premises at a time and that she was very particular about puppies being 4 weeks of age
                                                    6
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

before being seen by clients due to their not having proper immunity before then and that clients could
always be carrying some disease on them. Ms. Cedergren said there is not much activity or traffic
coming in or out. With Attorney Ferguson’s explanation that he understood the BOARD
MEMBER’s question meant how many cars a week would be visiting the property, Ms. Cedergren
offered that if she went into a full breeding program and included a ‘rescue’ and a little bit of training,
she estimated an average of one car per week. Her reasoning was that you do not have litter after litter;
you do not breed every time they go into heat; and that she breeds her dogs only once a year and
sometimes not even that, depending of the health of the dog.

Karen Cedergren insists that the ‘kennel’ dogs are all in by 9:45 pm so that the ‘house’ dogs can have
their ‘run’ and be in by 10:00 pm. She claims that she has a very structured program including the radio
goes off, the TV comes on, they are told ‘Goodnight’, and then the lights go off. She also affirmed that
the dogs were not brought back out in the morning before 7:00 am.

A BOARD MEMBER asked Ms. Cedergren to expand on the ‘Barking’ issue referred to by earlier
testimony, to include how many times it occurred and any complaints thereof? Karen Cedergren
indicated that she has one dog that barks so now wears a bark collar whenever it goes outside. She
confirmed that she does have a neighbor across the street from her who she believes fears that she will
be opening up a kennel for 50 continuously barking dogs. Ms. Cedergren claims she does not hear
what they are hearing; so because she does not want trouble, she went out and bought the bark collars.
She did admit that the dogs do bark in the morning.

When asked if she has received complaints by other than the person across the street, Ms. Cedergren
upheld ‘No’, although she did acknowledge that the township of Harrison received 2 verbal phone
complaints. One was from the people across the street and the other from a person that was about
point 75 (.75) miles away, who lives next to someone who owns 9 dogs. She argued that between their
house and her house, there were a total of 12 dogs. These people apparently felt that the noise was
from her dogs barking. She tendered that these were the only complaints she had heard of. The
Petitioner proported that she had asked the people who walk their lab down the street and live a half
mile away if they could hear her dogs; they claimed they did not, even though they leave their windows
open 24/7. She went of to say that the woman did say that she had heard a pack of dogs running and
felt that they were hers. Ms. Cedergren alleged that she runs her dogs out in pairs; they do not run as a
pack, so she was not sure what that comment was.

Another BOARD MEMBER asked the Petitioner how long she had been at this location
(Answer=one year) and that she had the 15 dogs the whole time (Answer=Yes). The BOARD
MEMBER understood from the testimony given that these dogs were considered ‘her’ dogs, not dogs
available for sale, but the Petitioner’s pets (Answer=Yes). The BOARD MEMBER then asked the
Petitioner if she had had an opportunity to read over the suggested conditions recommended by staff.
The Petitioner said that she had, although she was not sure she understood them. Karen Cedergren
communicated that she had a problem with putting the dogs away at 7:00 at night and not letting them
out until 8:00 in the morning. She struggled with the difficulty of the dogs having to hold ‘it’ for 13
hours, comparing it to her doing the same, contending that it was not good for the kidneys. The
Petitioner went on to say that at 11:30 at night, during her own ‘wind down time’, she would sit out on
her deck and hear dogs from all over the neighborhood bark and that they were not hers.

When asked by a BOARD MEMBER regarding letting the dogs out to run in the evenings and
mornings, the Petitioner declared that she only let the dogs out in groups of 2 and one group of 3
females even though the morning is the most chaotic time when all the dogs want out at once. Ms.
                                                     7
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

Cedergren reported that while the one group of 2 were out, she would do their food dish, then the 2
would go back in and the next group would go, and so on.

In response to a BOARD MEMBER’s question of the breeding being incidental to the maintaining
the Petitioner’s pets, Ms. Cedergren professed that it helps to pay their costs. The Petitioner advocated
that she had a whole presentation that she had explained at last Monday night’s meeting. She proceeds
that you get a dog; you love this dog; you research the breed; then you want to share that. The
Petitioner breeds German Shepherds, asserting that they are loving, loyal, and versatile. She continues
that they can do Search & Rescue, service, bombs, narcotics, working for the military or police, stating
that they have a heart that’s about this big and that they’re incredible to her.

A BOARD MEMBER asked if the majority of the Petitioner’s dogs were German Shepherds and to
explain the term ‘rescue’ that the Petitioner uses (as in ‘rescue’, ‘rescue dog’, or ‘rescued dog’) Karen
Cedergren stated that she has one German Shepherd that she uses for breeding and another that was a
rescue, but the majority of her dogs were not German Shepherds. She explains that if she finds a dog
that is neglected, abused, or mistreated, that is in her own feces or urine, tied up to a leg, vomiting
worms, or being extremely mistreated, that’s a rescue. The BOARD MEMBER states, therefore, a
rescue dog would be one that you saved, not a dog trained to rescue other dogs or helps people. The
Petitioner affirmed that her dogs could not jump over a 6 foot fence, reiterating the additional moving
of a fence around the deck due to the aforementioned deck-jumping dog, Kia.

When asked directly if she was in the commercial business of kenneling, boarding, or breeding of dogs,
Karen Cedergren attested that she was a breeder, not commercial yet nor wanting to become
commercial, but evidently having to because she has to have a license to do what she wants to do for
the dogs on her property. The Petitioner stated that she didn’t understand the question or understand
how to explain the answer. She answered that she did not know if she made any money off of it, but,
yes, it was a business.

In answering a question from another BOARD MEMBER regarding it being a business or not, Ms.
Cedergren surrendered that she guessed so because she was going to be breeding dogs and bringing in
income, even though she did not consider it a business now. She informed the Board that since she has
lived on the PIQ, she has not bred any dogs, not intentionally. Upon further exam, the Petitioner
admitted that there had been one unintentionally breeding.

Witnesses of Objection:

JON KAEMMERLEN, the first objector to speak, addressed the language of the Variation for the
PIQ. He was concerned and confused about the terminology ‘side’ yard setback instead of what he
thought was actually the ‘back’ yard, and fearing problems could come up in the future using such
terminology.

GREG TILLY explained that because the PIQ was on a corner lot, you don’t have the traditional
interior lot where there’s a front, the sides, and a back because there’s really only 3 sides to the lot. The
property owner has the option to call this particular boundary of his lot a ‘rear’ or ‘side’ yard, based
upon the configuration of the residence where the outbuildings set. Because it’s an odd-shaped lot,
there is some leeway or options that the Petitioner is looking for. The way the building is currently
positioned there, it was better addressed as a ‘side’ yard versus a ‘rear’ yard.



                                                      8
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

Greg Tilly, along with SARA HOHE, reassured a BOARD MEMBER and Mr. Kaemmerlen that this
Variation was for this site plan and only this site plan. They emphasized that a Variation is per site
plan, for the boundary, not for the buildings. Greg also answered that if another building was to be
built at that location and it was on this site plan, this Variance would cover that, yes. The setback
requirement is for the boundary. If they were to put another building up, they would have to submit
another site plan.

COLLEEN HENNELLY passed around red packets to the BOARD MEMBERs. Most of the
testimony she relates is in this red packet. She denies ever saying 50 dogs, nor anything about dogs
running in a pack. Explaining what happened on September 26th, their driveway alarm was going on
and off and woke them to 8 dogs chasing their dog around in their yard. She then went out to her
truck and went over to the Petitioner’s house to let her know that her dogs were out. Her daughter was
there and told her to go get her dogs. When she got back home, they weren’t there, but she attests the
dogs were there for a good 15 or 20 minutes before anyone came to get them. Ms. Hennelly testified
that the Petitioner never spoke to them after that. As to the barking, Ms. Hennelly accepted that when
the Petitioner first moved in there would be a lot of barking until the dogs were acclimated, believing
that once the dogs got used to the new surroundings, they would quiet down a little bit. Ms Hennelly
admits that they complained about it, took it to all the neighbors, who let it go for the winter. She
asserted that they could still hear them in their house throughout the winter. Ms. Hennelly doesn’t
understand how the people testifying for the Petitioner that there was no barking could possibly know
because they were not there all the time; she is home all the time and she hears it. She said she was told
by a person down at the health department (she had called there to find out what they could do about
it) that she should document the barking. Therefore, Ms. Hennelly started documenting the barking on
May 24th and that from May 24th until July 31st, in that 69 days, there were 10 quiet days.

The Petitioner apparently didn’t know that there were problems until Ms. Hennelly went to speak to
her about it. After that, it appeared that the dogs were getting a little less loud. Now, she submits that
they (the dogs) are very quiet, but that they have shock collars on them; they’re not going to bark. She
proceeded to tell the Board that she had testimony from her family who couldn’t be here due to their
being on their family’s annual vacation. They didn’t go, they were here instead. She implied she had a
letter from her family members who had been at her house and had heard it. Ms. Hennelly admits that
there have been sounds of fighting dogs. Karen Cedergren, the Petitioner, would explain to her that
when Shepherds play, they sound like they’re fighting because they are very ------. However, Ms.
Hennelly defended that it sounded very loud and stressed that there were more than 2 dogs out in the
yard, too.

Another thing that she wanted to disclose to the Board was that when the doors were opened up on
the pole barn, the ‘massive’ barking, at that time, was very disturbing. Ms. Hennelly assured the Board
that now the dogs are a lot quieter. But up until then, even with her office’s east window closed, the
barking was so annoying that she couldn’t concentrate on doing her work. Ms. Hennelly continued; her
bedroom window faced the east; it would be open with a fan in it. She furthers that they have heard
the dogs bark well after 10:00; as late as 11:30 pm and 1:30 am.

Ms. Hennelly provided to the Board that they had owned and lived on their property since 1994 and
have worked very hard to make the property as beautiful and serene as possible. She referred to
pictures in the red packets, which included before and after pictures of what the property looked like
when they first purchased it and how it looks now. She tried to convey how important the situation
was.


                                                    9
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

In the Petitioner’s testimony, Karen Cedergren had stated that there was a step-off to the distance from
the PIQ to the front door of Ms. Hennelly’s property. Mr. Hennelly contends that in order for the
Petitioner to account for that distance of 230 feet, they would have had to come onto their property
without permission to step that off. She yielded that Jon was not allowed on her property. To the
point, she announced that Jon stepped it off from the survey marker because they were told that they
would be arrested if they went onto the Petitioner’s property. His calculation was 200 feet, not 230’;
her bedroom is under the 200 feet; from across the berm, it was 60 feet. Ms. Hennelly implied that it
was not as far as the Petitioner maintained. She then referred to Attorney Ferguson calling 2 small
homes as definitely inaccurate; her home is large (see pictures in packet).

Ms. Hennelly exclaimed that they have 80 signatures from people that are opposing this issue. She
included that some of them were her family because they are there so often throughout the summer;
the rest of them are people that live in the vicinity.

JON KAEMMERLEN continued with testimony stating that the Petitioner was 200 feet from their
door. He upheld to the Board that the woman moved in 11 months ago. He affirmed that it was true
what Mark (should be Brian?) Hill was right that people come from other areas out to the country,
think they can do what they want to do. But he argued that there was a lot to that on both sides of the
fence. Mr. Kaemmerlen declared that what he was getting at here, in addition to the Board’s raising
many questions regarding commercial kennels, was that he had contacted 5 kennels. He resolves that
the Board had given these 5 kennels the ‘okay to ‘. He set forth that these kennels claimed that there
was no way that you could properly run a facility that Ms. Cedergren wants to run with less than an acre
of ground. He proclaimed that that was one thing; he added that another thing that these kennels told
him was that they thought there were restrictions of 5 or more acres to run a kennel. Everybody that
he talked to, he alleged, had more than 5 acres; that they were up to over 10 acres. Mr. Kaemmerlen
acknowledged that these kennels had applied for permits and licenses to run legitimate facilities. He
followed that these kennels had researched all their sites before they got into this. Mr. Kaemmerlen
reminded the Board that they were talking about a facility that is an acre or less and it is 200 feet from
our front door. He reminded the Board that the Petitioner is talking about having 7 female Shepherd’s
that can have pups; she’s got 15 of her own; she wants 5 more. He exclaimed that this was a lot to
swallow. He yielded that if she had more acreage and a better site, maybe her feelings that what she
was looking for and her right to do was fine. But Mr. Kaemmerlen contends that the facility just
doesn’t make it. Something else that was brought to his attention was that he asserted that one man
told him he really thought that it was bad that people have kennels without the proper certification, dog
training, and without having permits and licenses before they start.

COLLEEN HENNELLY interjected that at one time there were at least 6 cars in the driveway and
people were all standing around the dog pen out in the front yard. She testified that that had happened
throughout the summer and that the neighbors could attest to that also. Ms. Hennelly included that
there has been more than one litter of pups there.

JON KAEMMERLEN reported that they have had no communication with the Petitioner; that they
had tried one time and it failed. He stated that he had told Charlie down in Zoning that it had failed; he
understood. Mr. Kaemmerlen purported that he had so many points to bring out but there was not
enough time for there were so many people that wanted to speak. He related that the dogs in question
that were in there their yard was at 11:30 at night, that it wasn’t an issue right during the day. He
professed that all these things were non-factual. Going on, he questions if people say that they do not
hear the dogs bark, then where were they? He submits that he doesn’t know where they are.


                                                   10
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

COLLEEN HENNELLY states that she wishes she had recorded the ------.

JON KAEMMERLEN interposed that they needed to talk about the issues for this SUP regarding
the Standards. Referring to Standard #2’s not being injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
properties, Mr. Kaemmerlen laughs, “Come on!.” He furthers that the dogs bark 24/7 over there. He
admits it has been quiet the last 2 or 3 weeks and that the Petitioner did a good job there. However, he
understands that the Petitioner uses bark collars, which he asserts offensively are collars that shock the
dog when they try to bark. Mr. Kaemmerlen extends that this SUP will impede on their enjoyment,
that they have friends over and the dogs are barking all the time. He recites Standard #3 and reminds
the Board that the PIQ is only an acre of ground. He adds further that there are a lot of people that
have property in their area that would be more suiting for the Petitioner to run this facility, meaning
there were properties with more acreage available. Mr. Kaemmerlen provided that at Monday’s meeting,
the Petitioner gave account of all the money she spent. He faltered and concluded that it was extremely
difficult for them to deal with.

 COLLEEN HENNELLY pointed out that they had been made out to be the ‘bad’ people in that
they were calling the County on her all the time. She proceeded that Jon had called Animal Control the
day after the incident where the dogs got out and into their yard and that was the only time that the
dogs had been at their house. She continued that when she went to talk to the Petitioner in May, she
had accused them of calling Animal Control 5 times. She added that the neighbor across the street
accused them of calling. Through the Freedom of Information Act and Animal Control, we found out
that the one phone call that was recorded was Jon’s.

JON KAEMMERLEN iterated that that was the day after the 8 dogs were in their yard at 11:30 at
night chasing his dog around.

COLLEEN HENNELLY added that she had called Animal Control after the Petitioner told her to.
However it was not recorded because Animal Control never went to check it out.

JON KAEMMERLEN exasperates that it is hard to deal with all the untruths being told.

One BOARD MEMBER inquired to Mr. Kaemmerlen’s about his speaking to a variety of kennels.
One question was if they were all in Winnebago County? (Answer=Yes). Another was about there
being a restriction on the property size? (Answer: A kennel that he had talked to said that they didn’t
believe that they would ever grant a SUP for somebody that had less than 5 acres. He contributed that
another person told him that they weren’t granted one because they didn’t have enough (acreage). The
BOARD MEMBER questioned Staff regarding this.

JOHN CANTRELL answered that there was nothing in the ordinance for commercial kennels
regulating their lot size.

Another BOARD MEMBER wanted to bring up a point on the matter. Looking through the
information regarding lot sizes, their own impression was that the PIQ was ‘legal non-conforming’,
ascertaining that to being a lot of record prior to 2004 and why it’s on an AG property being smaller
than a quarter quarter section, with a household?

GREG TILLY said that he could research that, but there were many, many small AG lots throughout
the County that have been there for years. He continued that the issue with a legal lot of record is
when you want to build a new home. He proceeded that it was not for an old home, but that the old
                                                   11
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

home could be split off of a larger tract and this would be what’s left; the house was already there so it
was permitted to continue.

The BOARD MEMBER projected then that if there was any separate issue that came before the ZBA
as far as an AG District with a home being built on it, we would need at least a quarter quarter section.
With that, his perspective then was that since this was not a quarter quarter section, as far as AG zoning
goes, it did not fit into the AG zoning other than it was just chopped apart, and that is why it was left
as it is. He suggested that they (the kennels) were getting to the point that they needed at least 5 acres
in order to have a residence on AG zoning and in order to get a SUP.

GREG TILLY advised that there was not a restriction on the lot size in AG to have a home. He
informed the BOARD MEMBER that it would have to be a legal lot-of-record to build a new home
or it would have to be an existing legal non-conforming use. Continuing that to add on and such
would then become issues. Mr. Tilly reiterated that there were many small, one point four (1.4) or one
point two (1.2) acres of AG zoned property throughout the County that are still zoned AG. He
affirmed that the AG uses were permitted within that property, regardless of the acreage. Mr. Tilly
concluded that he believes there is confusion when someone comes in seeking to build a new residence
on a smaller than 5 acre tract or smaller than a quarter quarter section or a legal lot-of-record.

A third BOARD MEMBER stated that it was obvious that the objectors (Ms. Hennelly and Mr.
Kaemmerlen) had put a fair amount of effort into gathering the number of signatures of the people
who were opposed to this kennel. Two specific questions the BOARD MEMBER had were: 1) What
kinds of objections did the signers have, and 2) How close were those signers to this particular PIQ?

COLLEEN HENNELLY responded that some of the objector’s issues were the barking and the fear
of opening up the area for other kennels to come in. She pointed out that on Stephens Road, 17 of
those people said ‘no’ and it was just that they didn’t want it to happen next to them for it could open it
up for other people to come in with a kennel.

JON KAEMMERLEN commented that once these dogs start barking, then their dogs start barking,
then the other dogs start barking; it was a lot of barking.

COLLEEN HENNELLY checked who signed this petition, noting that there were only 2 or 3
people that did not sign.

CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE announced to Mr. Hennelly that they would need that (original)
signed petition of objectors as testimonial evidence. [A copy of the signed petition is in the red packet].

A BOARD MEMBER asked the objectors when the petition was signed.

COLLEEN HENNELLY answered that they had started it on July 22 (2007) but that the last batch
didn’t put a date on it, just there addresses. She disclosed that she did not do any particular format
maybe that she ought to have used.

JON KAEMMERLEN presented that they didn’t know about this going into effect; they did not
have time to get proper consultation.




                                                    12
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

COLLEEN HENNELLY alleged that Charlie called them on (last) Wednesday; they received their
(notification) letter on Friday, and that they started the petition on Sunday. She made note that the
Petitioner, Karen Cedergren, started cleaning her yard up that weekend also.

A BOARD MEMBER asked Mr. Hennelly what she meant by ‘cleaning up her yard’?

COLLEEN HENNELLY clarified by stating that when the Petitioner moved there in September,
there was a stand of pines in the dog run area in which the Petitioner trimmed up branches that were
there. She purported that those branches laid there from September until July 21st, when they were
removed from the dog run. Adding on, she presented that the yard in the back yard was not mowed
until mid-May, at which time there was 11 inches of grass out where the dogs were running. Ms.
Hennelly denies it ever being cleaned up.

JON KAEMMERLEN testified that the sides and back of the house were filthy from dog prints.

COLLEEN HENNELLY rebutted that the Petitioner’s sketched portrayal showing the dog fence
away from the house was wrong. She contends that the dogs were right up to the house and that it is
all mud there and on the side of the house where the downspout was torn off.

JON KAEMMERLEN and COLLEEN HENNELLY together indicated that Charlie and Greg
had come out to take pictures and that those pictures should show that the weeds around the proposed
kennel were 3 to 4 feet tall and were not removed until recently. She began to add in something about
ticks and fleas, but JON KAEMMERLEN intervened asking that she not get something started.

JON KAEMMERLEN indicated that Ms. Hennelly’s comments reminded him to bring up an issue of
property values. He feels that property values would take a serious ‘hit’ with a kennel next door,
denoting that he did not know of anybody that would buy a house next door to a kennel or looking for
a rural setting and requesting a kennel next door.

COLLEEN HENNELLY comments to the Board that if the Petitioner did get the SUP, it would be
a lot of work for her. She surmises that the Petitioner might not be able to keep up with what she had
done in the last couple of weeks to make it look good; there was a lot of work to do.

JON KAEMMERLEN concluded their presentation that he was sure that Ms. Cedergren was a good
person but that they had not seen anything true.

KRIS PROUDFOOT entered her testimony as questioning the proper ownership of the PIQ and that
it was not the Petitioner, Karen Cedergren, but her mother, Johnny Miles, who owned the PIQ,
according to the property’s publicly recorded information (i.e. mortgage and property taxes). She
suggested that there was something wrong as the legal paperwork established Johnny Miles living on
the property, but that she had understood her to be living in Schaumberg. She upheld that the
Petitioner was not the owner of the property.

JEANNIE HUBER started with her testimony acknowledging the fact that she was not completely
familiar with a lot of the kennel regulations for the State of Illinois. She, however, had researched
online and found a website of some (Illinois) Kennel Regulations including a Chapter 19-30. She
proceeded to inform the Board that it did go over different by-laws and regulations that a non-
commercial kennel may only be maintained upon a parcel zoned AG or on parcels not less than 5 acres
in size, zoned R-1-A (?) or RE—(?). She confirmed the public record for the PIQ shows it is actually
                                                  13
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

zoned rural, not AG. To her understanding, the PIQ would need to be larger (than the 2 acres) in size
in order for her to have a kennel.

Another thing that Ms. Huber wanted to add was that she, herself, also volunteers, with Mid-America
Border Collie Rescue. Ms. Huber has complete respect for what the Petitioner does (rescues) and
doesn’t argue the fact that the Petitioner loves her dogs as she does her own. However, she contends
that she spoke to her own veterinarian and that not only bringing in dogs from a rescue increase the
risk of bacteria and viruses and parasites in the local vicinity, but that it also poses a risk to the rescue
dog that is being brought onto the property. She understood that when you brought in a rescue, you
were there to rehabilitate the dog in a family setting in order to place the dog into a proper caring
home. She resumed that if you were rehabilitating a rescue dog in a kennel, you weren’t giving it the
attention and care that it needs and required in order to be rehabilitated, and that it would more than
likely be rehabilitated to a ‘pack’ mentality because there are so many dogs, no one on one interaction.
The Petitioner did state that it was unfortunate that her dogs do not get the socialization that they
should require. So, in turn, the rescue dog would not get the socialization that it requires in order for it
to be rehabilitated into a proper loving and caring home. She imparted that she does not take in rescue
dogs because of the fact that her 2 dogs are very young and that it’s not an appropriate home (for
rescues). She said she would be concerned about a rescue dog coming in and being correctly
rehabilitated in the way that it should be. Ms. Huber discloses that a lot of time you don’t see traits that
come out right away when you have that many dogs.

Regarding the bark collars on the dogs to keep them quiet, Ms. Huber thought that was great!
However, she argued that she didn’t know of any battery that lasts or wouldn’t go dead or that collars
sometimes come off during play time, then the barking would begin all over again. Ms. Huber asserts
that barking cannot always be completely controlled through a concern for her neighbors. She
professed that they have all heard the barking from all of their dogs in the neighborhood and that
barking is not something that you can and never stop, so barking dogs will continue. She exclaims that
barking can be contained, though. Again through the internet, she found regulations on kennels stating
that all kennels had to be constructed of a material which contains the sound one foot away from the
kennel in any direction so that at no time the sound level exceeds 55 decibels as measured by a meter.
She related that just putting in a little bit of insulation and Plexiglas doesn’t take care of sound.
Another thing that Ms. Huber related to what the Petitioner testified to was the size of the kennels
being 5 x 5 x 5. She noted that an actual indoor shelter where animals are caged have a minimum of
26 square feet per dog. Those kennels (Petitioner’s) are actually one foot too small; German Shepherds
are a large breed and they need the room to run and live. Ms. Huber’s concern is the fact that having
more dogs when it comes to 7 breeding females, even though she claims she will only have one litter
per year out of each female, accidents do happen. Furthering, she insists that males can and will, when
another female is in heat, take the opportunity, ending up with more than one litter per year, especially
when you have that many dogs. Ms. Huber‘s concern, again, is that if this is an actual kennel, she said
she would not want to live next to it.

A BOARD MEMBER inquired of Ms. Huber regarding the regulations and laws she had looked
online for and if they were pieces of legislation or of recommended practices by a kennel association.
Ms. Huber answered (read from her paper) that it was Chapter 8.05 Standards for Animal Facilities or
Shelters and that she did not know as she had not called and talked to actual kennels, but that is what
she found when she typed in Illinois State regulations for kennels and shelters and it did say Standards
for Animal Facilities or Shelters.



                                                     14
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

MARK HART began by sharing where his property sat in relation to the Petitioner’s, being about a
half a mile across the field on Stephens Road. He laughed to “whoever said the dogs don’t bark”, saying
it was an understatement He said that they have heard the dogs for a period of time and such,
admitting that it has been a lot quieter lately. He goes on to say that they do have dogs next door at
their neighbors on the other side of them and that it was not uncommon to hear the barking begin to
relay around the whole neighborhood. He explained that out in the country, sound travels distances
easily across the fields, and even though he works at Chicago O’Hare Field where there were extreme
sounds, no matter where you are, noise is all relative to what you’re used to. He affirmed that they hear
the dogs.

Mr. Hart communicated that what concerned him more than anything else was that, although he did
not have any scientific evidence, in the 15 years that they had lived at this property, they had never had
a problem with coyotes. He furthers that on 3 occasions he chased multiple coyotes out of their yard.
He referenced that he had a small child and that neighbors had small children and they feared for them.
He granted that he was not a biologist who would know these things, but implored why all of a sudden
they have coyotes. Mr. Hart revealed that they have cats instead of dogs and believes they have lost
multiple cats to coyotes. He attested that he knows specifically of one cat that had grappled with a
coyote, being dragged 100 yards away from their property and killed. He believed that his neighbor had
ducks, geese, and swans missing all due to coyotes.

JILL BEYER addressed a couple concerns, one of which was that the Petitioner claims that she had
not taken in boarders, but she had a Labrador mother there raising her pups and selling them off the
property. She exclaimed that those were not German Shepherds and that was a separate issue. The
other concern was that she had ( ? some sort of) attitude toward rural properties, citing that if the
Petitioner had 15 dogs, could she have brought in 15 pigs with no concern for neighbors and that it
must be okay due to no regulations. She assumed that there is some sort of mandate on the number of
pigs or cows on a particular tract of land, stating that there was grazing areas or whatever. She believed
that you were supposed to have a certain number of grazers on a particular property. She inquired
about there must be some sort of limitation on even dogs as small livestock? The idea of an unlimited
number of animals bothered Ms. Beyer. She contends that her neighbors could bring in 37 pigs right
next to her, or whatever, implying that there should be some concern for the neighbors when you
invade their territory, emphasizing that they were a community, not separate entities.

She gave account that she had been there for 34 years never before having issues like this before.
Admitting that although the community has cats and dogs and so forth they do look at their animals,
not as livestock, but as personal pets. She set forth that she was the ‘Lab lady’ aforementioned in
testimony that walked her Lab around the block when a dog had jumped the fence 3 times. She affords
that the dogs have been quiet, but she is very uncomfortable with the fact that the reason they are quiet
is because shock collars and confinement is not the way she would want her dog raised. Ms. Beyer
ended that this (SUP) would be a perfect setup for a ‘puppy mill’.

A BOARD MEMBER sought affirmation from Mr. Hart interpreting his belief regarding the
connection of the Petitioner’s dogs and the prevalence of coyotes. Then he asked Mr. Hart if he was
aware of the fact that the coyote population throughout Winnebago County had exploded in the last 3
or 4 years?

The BOARD MEMBER then besought Mr. Hart why he thought that the Petitioner’s dogs would be
a greater attraction for coyotes than hundreds of (easy prey?) in the area?


                                                    15
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

MARK HART started that from 2 am there was cackling of these coyotes.

The BOARD MEMBER assured Mr. Hart that he was not in any way, shape, or form denying that
there are many coyotes in the area. However, he accentuated and questioned that Mr. Hart’s reasoning
for the coyotes was these 15 dogs.

MARK HART denied that implication, clarifying that the dogs attract the coyotes. He implored that
he made no implications that they were multiplying due to this operation.

The BOARD MEMBER charged that that is exactly what he had said previously.

At that time MARK HART requested to then run the tape back. He sustained that he did not say that.
Nevertheless, he supplicated that he stands corrected in the case of their belief that he had said that.
He avowed that what he was trying to say was that he believed that it (the dogs) attracts the coyotes.
He remarked that he had counted at least 3 that had been hit along various different roads in the area,
but that he had seen numerous ones running. He added that on 3 occasions he had run 2 out of his
yard.

That same BOARD MEMBER reiterated Mr. Hart’s most recent response as confirming his earlier
testimony implicating dogs attract coyotes.

MARK HART agreed, vehemently detailing that when coyotes hear other dogs barking, they are
attracted by the barking.

One BOARD MEMBER wanted to put some information out for the record stating that she lives in
Machesney Park and they have a pack of 3 coyotes that run through their back yard every night at 8:30
and hear them all night long, remarking that she was right in the middle of the town near Rock Cut
State Park. She went on to explain that a lot of the growth was because they were becoming more
comfortable in coming up to houses, plus with all the subdivisions coming in, it’s taking them out of
their territory. Ms. Verstraete repeated that that was why Mr. Hart was seeing such an increase of the
visibility of coyotes. She upheld that it was not because of dogs being there.

KORRINA KISER gave account that she had researched online through a Google search finding
Chapter #8.05 of the Standards For Animal Facilities And Shelters. She read that “a kennel at any lot,
building, structure, enclosure, or premises where upon holding 5 or more dogs over 5 months of age
are kept or maintained for any purpose including boarding, breeding, buying, grooming, letting for hire,
training, for feed, or selling.” Then she inquired if the Petitioner had a business license because it also
stated that “each kennel must have a current valid kennel license and a current valid business license in
those areas which require a business license in addition to a kennel license.” She was curious if those
were requirements in the area, and, if so, if the Petitioner did have them. She wanted to say that she
heard a few people say that other neighbors dogs do bark and things like that, but if the other
neighbors’ dogs bark, that might be 2 or 3 dogs; nobody else in that neighborhood has 15 dogs barking
at once. Ms. Kiser also has seen multiple groups of puppies being sold; she had seen Labs being sold at
the Petitioner’s house; she’s seen 5 or 6 cars at a time in her driveway; also puppies in turn-out puppy
panels. She denotes that there was a lot of “BS” going on.

A BOARD MEMBER requested clarification from Ms. Kiser what she meant by multiple cars in the
driveway and if it was solely for the purpose of picking up puppies?


                                                    16
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

KORRINA KISER answered that she didn’t stop and ask anybody, but to the best of her knowledge,
she believed so attributing the fact that they were all in the front yard standing around a group of
puppies inside a puppy pen.

The BOARD MEMBER affirmed that Ms. Kiser could not be certain of why the cars were in the
driveway.

JUDY MOORE responded that what Ms. Kiers felt was exactly how she felt. Being a dog lover with a
Miniature Schnauzer, she would not want to live next to 15 dogs; it was too many. She worried that
one couldn’t give that many dogs that same one on one that you could give a normal pet. As far as
having a kennel, she assumes that it affects not just those people, but a whole surrounding area;
anything that is brought it. She continued that if it is a business thing, it does affect. She admitted that
she didn’t live right next door, she lived at the far end of Stephen’s Road toward Meridian, but she
knew other people that have heard the multiple barking. Ms. Moore then supported that what Mr.
Kiser and the other 2 girls had said it for her of how she feels.

JOHN CANTRELL advised that in regards to the SUP, one of the conditions was that the premises
of the kennel was to be operated in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes,
ordinances, rules, and regulations., explaining that that was a requirement of the SUP that they would
have to follow.

JUDY MOORE petitioned that she had been living there for a year with 15 dogs wondering why
anything had not yet been obtained.

JOHN CANTRELL counseled that there was no limit on the number of dogs that a person could
own.

A BOARD MEMBER had a question for the staff that if there was no limit on the number of dogs
that a person can keep on their property, then why was she (the Petitioner) being asked to get a SUP?

JOHN CANTRELL directed that it was because the Petitioner wanted to board overnight and be
able to sell
something. He reads from the Ordinance (Article X. References, Sec. 90-400. Glossary of definitions
and terms) “Commercial Kennel means any lot or premises or portion thereof, on which more than
two dogs, cats and other household domestic animals, over four months of age, are boarded for
compensation or kept for sale”, indicating that it was pretty clear that with the definition of a
commercial kennel, even if they are selling one dog, it is still considered a commercial kennel, or
boarding them overnight.

 The BOARD MEMBER then accorded that there would be no limit if they were not selling. He then
inquired if that definition included breeding.

JOHN CANTRELL referenced that the Ordinance stated over the age of 4 months; it did no
mention anything about breeding.

The same BOARD MEMBER then queried that with the SUP would she be allowed to have the dogs
bred?



                                                     17
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

JOHN CANTRELL answered that there was no definition for breeding under ‘Commercial Kennel’;
it just talks about them being boarded for compensation or kept for sale. He submitted that was all it
referred to. Then he made an exception that actually there was because she (the Petitioner) was asking
for a maximum of 20 dogs, limiting the number of dogs, indicating that as part of the SUP.

The BOARD MEMBER points out that the Petitioner is asking for a SUP for a kennel, but the
County’s definition of kennel does not include breeding.

JOHN CANTRELL agreed that it does not include breeding, suggesting it was like a bureaucratic
‘loophole’, because he had talked to the health department and the humane society here in the County
and they have no limit on the number of dogs somebody can keep. Mr. Cantrell said it obviously didn’t
indicate there in ‘Commercial Kennel’ if breeding was allowed or not, so he wasn’t sure how to answer
that question.

GREG TILLY responded that the interpretation of the office has been that breeding is part of a
kennel, one of the reasons that you have or seek a SUP for a kennel is to be able to board, breed, and
train. He surmised that those operations are what are traditionally done within a kennel. He presented
reasoning that although the definition in the glossary does not specify every little detail as to what goes
on in a kennel, we (the Zoning Dept.) would not feel that it would be in violation if the SUP were
granted and the kennel did breed.

JUDY MOORE continued by proclaiming that even though she did not live across the street from the
Petitioner, she would not, in any way, want to live next to them. She defended that from her
knowledge, any dog may act differently when put in a ‘pack’ situation. She was apprehensive that the
dogs may get out or away from the Petitioner and that anyone close, such as Jon and Colleen who live
across the street and spend a lot of time in their yard, could be in danger. Ms. Moore disputes that the
dogs may not be safe around somebody else; that they may act totally different with their owner than
they do around other people. She argues that anything with teeth can bite, so she doesn’t see how it
could be safe with that many dogs.

ED FROELIGER, the last objector, told the Board that he lived on the north corner of Harrison and
Stephens Road, the first house to the north of the Petitioner. He goes on to say that he hears the barks
even though he lives three-quarters of a mile (3/4) away. He believes the reason he hasn’t heard them
bark lately is because the corn is up and helps to block the sound, but in the spring you do hear them.

RAY FERGUSON, the attorney for the Petitioner, gave his rebuttal. He begins by reviewing the
testimony that part of the problem was that the Petitioner, Karen, moved into the area and brought her
dogs. He associates this as her being the foreigner, or the person moving in, invading the rural quiet
community by having her pets. He argues that she could have 20 dogs, 50 dogs, or a 100 dogs of her
own, but it becomes an issue if she decides to breed a dog and tries to sell a pup, she needs to have this
SUP. He exclaimed that’s why we’re here. He states that his client has voluntarily limited herself to 20
adult dogs; it would not be a ‘puppy mill’. Attorney Ferguson divulges that there has been a lot
speculation and conjecture and hearsay of the Petitioner’s dogs; the bringing in the coyotes, her dogs
barking; three-quarters (3/4) of a mile away, the people can hear the specific dogs and who’s they are;
even objections on the rehabilitation portion. He believes that they made it clear that the Petitioner
rehabilitates or rescues dogs; there have been 7 in 10 years, not even one a year. He continues on that
the Petitioner goes through making sure the dog has its shots; it’s quarantined; it’s taken car of
properly; and brought out of the situation where the dog was in a bad situation or running loose
spreading diseases and bringing it in and taking care of it.
                                                    18
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


Attorney Ferguson maintains that none of the speculation and hearsay addresses the specific issues,
nor addresses her property, expounding that if one dog barks in the neighborhood, another dog barks;
there are a lot of dogs in the areas. According to Attorney Ferguson, to blame everything that happens
on the Petitioner is not appropriate. In reviewing, He attested that there were no limitations on the
number of dogs the Petitioner could have; no limitations to the number of pigs or cattle on an acre;
there are none. He yielded that what the Petitioner is trying to do is to voluntarily reduce the numbers,
breed a few of her dogs, and sell a few, insisting that she was not interested in boarding dogs for money
or having people drop them off or taking care of them. However, he contends that if the Petitioner
does do dog training, it would be easier to have the dog there for a week, rather than having people
bring the dog, train the dog, and leave to reduce traffic. Attorney Ferguson recommended that relative
to those people supposedly in the yard, watching the dogs and buying them, that the Petitioner should
address the issue of the personal conflict that occurred with Jon and Colleen and why they were told to
get off the property, if you would do so (to Petitioner, Karen Cedergren)

KAREN CEDERGREN accepted and recounted that one day she had a friend over and they were
standing outside in the yard when a truck pulled up. Then she gave account that she had only met
Colleen and Jon one other time when she first moved in, her dogs did get out. She continues that her
daughter called her who said there was a lady screaming and yelling at her, then the phone was yanked
out of her daughter’s hand and a voice came on the line demanding she get home now, etc., and that it
was Colleen on the phone. Because the Petitioner was just down the road looking for a Dalmatian, she
went home, grabbed the car, went right in and saw Jon on the property. She furthers that she thought
he had one of her dogs, but when she greeted him, she related that he was abrupt, ordering her to get
her dogs off his property. She and her daughter left. According to her, that was the only incident.

Then she goes back earlier to when the truck came up on her property when her friend was there,
asking if she was Karen. Upon affirming that it was, the person ordered her over to the truck. At that
time, she claims they started yelling that her dogs have been terrible all winter and now it is worse in the
spring. Hearing this, she guessed that they were Jon and Colleen. When they admitted they were, the
Petitioner told them to leave. The Petitioner then accused Colleen of laying on the horn and staying on
it until she turned to go call the police, when Jon jumps out of his car, screaming and yelling and
charging at her and her guest. She testifies that when she did call the police, dialing 911, the two of
them removed themselves from the property going over to Charlie and Vera’s, who have not had an
issue with her dogs and asked for support, which Charlie wasn’t willing to give.

Ms. Cedergren explained what happened when the police arrived and asked them to listen to test if they
hear any noise. She went on to say that whenever Harrison Township came by and dropped off their
ladder, she had 5 dogs in the house and they all charged out when they rang the doorbell, inquiring if
they were hurt or injured when he said no and that the dogs didn’t seem vicious to him. So the
Petitioner requested that he listen for a couple minutes for any noise, noting to the Board that she had
2 dogs out in the back without bark collars, none of the dogs in the house had bark collars on, and
most of the dogs don’t wear bark collars on unless they are going outside so as not to disturb anyone.
When questioned, the Petitioner says that the man couldn’t hear anything. She then proceeded to
explain that she has surveillance cameras with audio in her kennel that runs 24 hours a day. She admits
that the dogs are rowdy in the morning, after that it is a quiet day, and then at night, they get tucked
into bed and it’s quiet.

Ms. Cedergren indicated that when she went outside on her deck at 11:30 at night, she was not hearing
her dogs, she was hearing someone else’s, though she doesn’t complain because she makes noise like
                                                    19
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

her neighbors make noise. She generalizes that when you move out to the country, you don’t remove
yourself from noise, but you move into different types of noise. She asserts that you no longer have
heavy traffic; you might not hear your neighbors on top of each other. Adding that instead you hear the
farmers; you hear everybody else’s dogs. Ms. Cedergren heard the coyotes, not knowing what they were
before, thinking that somebody had a dog loose and it was in pain because they have such high yelps.

Ms. Cedergren said that she does hear Jon calling his dog. She comments on the objectors talking
about protection, wondering herself how they get protection. She reported that she had built a 6 foot
fence with deadbolt-keyed and locked gates, whereas most of the people out there had inground
fencing that used batteries on the wire that might go out and, therefore, let the dogs run loose, which is
worse than her dogs barking. She testified that she’s home most of the time, just like Colleen is. She
continues that if she hears her dogs bark for whatever reason and it’s not just a little happy bark, they
come in; play time is over or the bark collar goes on. Ms. Cedergren exerts that she has really bent over
backwards trying to accommodate the neighborhood, assuring that she did not come there to cause
conflict. She reflects her love for her dogs by stating that she moved in with them and she will move
out with them or she will stay there with them, also admitting sleeping with about 4 or them any given
night. She presents that it is just her difference of opinion on dog ownership; others have outdoor
dogs, not knowing if they have adequate water or food or shelter because they are outside all day and
night, not stepping a foot into a house. She reclaimed the statement that she didn’t get enough traffic
in her own house for socialization; she did not say her dogs were not socialized; she said that in her
own home she didn’t receive traffic. She furthermore added that there were 2 dog parks in the
Rockford area; her dogs go not only there, but go to Pet Smart and PetCo; they go all over the place
with her; meet people; permit people to give her dogs treats (that she provides herself for the purpose).
Reiterating that just because she doesn’t bring a lot of people into her home doesn’t mean she doesn’t
mean they don’t socialize.

 Once again, she admits her dogs apparently got out 3 times after she first moved there, but nobody
was ever harmed; she does not have vicious dogs; she ardently proclaims not to raise vicious dogs. She
testifies that she has had and rescued dogs for 10 years. She denotes that her neighbors in Belvidere at
her previous address called her and let her know they were offended when they had been asked for an
interview. She converses that she had lived there with dogs, being basically on top of each other, right
in front or behind each other, and her neighbors called her that they were offended and couldn’t
understand why these people were attempting to interview them. Ms. Cedergren struggled; she had
never had this issue before.

RAY FERGUSON interrogated Ms. Cedergren enquiring that if the ZBA was to place time
restrictions on #2 (condition), would she supplicate the Board for the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am so
that she could close the doors, get the dogs in, and then let them out in the morning?

KAREN CEDERGREN consented to that and offering that 9:00 pm to 6:00 am or anything similar
would also be fine; something along those hours.

RAY FERGUSON recited that the Petitioner was willing to restrict the number of dogs on her
property to 20 adult dogs even though she could have many more. He imposed that a kennel permit
was needed in order to sell a dog.

KAREN CEDERGREN confirmed that was what she was told and that was the whole reason for
this kennel SUP.


                                                    20
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

RAY FERGUSON continued the redirection inquiring if Ms. Cedergren intended to board dogs for
hire or commercial purposes.

KAREN CEDERGREN denied that purpose exclaiming that was not her intentions. However, she
reminded the Board that she wanted to have the opportunity to keep and care for friend’s dogs while
they were away.

RAY FERGUSON made aware that because it would not be her dog, she wouldn’t be able to keep it
there (without the permit.)

KAREN CEDERGREN remarked that was correct and that she wouldn’t be able to do the
neighborly thing like everyone else does.

The CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE queried the Petitioner about the hours for the previously
mentioned condition #2.

RAY FERGUSON suggested the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The Petitioner corresponded that if
the Committee thought 9:00 pm to 6:00 am or hours similar would be acceptable.

KAREN CEDERGREN disputed that 15 hours was unreasonable and unhealthy for the dogs. She
refuted that especially since there are so many outdoor dogs.

RAY FERGUSON suggested that Ms. Cedergren briefly explicate her intentions on the breeding of
the dogs.

KAREN CEDERGREN articulated that she had 7 females and that each female would breed once a
year or less, depending on their reaction and recovery of motherhood. She apprised the Board that a
female dog usually stops breeding at the age of 7. However, she charges that some people breed their
dogs much longer than age 7 or 8. She continued that pregnant dogs are given vitamins, high quality
and extra food, like yogurt and cottage cheese. Ms. Cedergren concludes that the dogs are very well
taken care of.

A BOARD MEMBER inquired of the Petitioner that if condition #2 was changed to 9:00 pm to 7:00
am, if she would be willing to include a stipulation on the maximum number of dogs that would be out
at the same time?

KAREN CEDERGREN agreed, accepting that she had one set of 3 girls that she usually let out
together. She contributed that most of her dogs run in pairs. She, however, again suggested that if the
time was set at 9:00 pm, if the morning time could be set at 6:00 am, for it was a long holding period.
She added that she would rather not do the 6:00 am, instead preferring the 10:00 pm to 7:00 pm,
implying that that was already asking them to hold it for 9 hours.

One BOARD MEMBER asked the Petitioner if she knew what was involved with getting a license to
operate a kennel.

KAREN CEDERGREN answered that she had some information on what’s involved to get a license
to operate a kennel.

RAY FERGUSON reinforced that the Petitioner would comply.
                                                  21
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


Another BOARD MEMBER questioned when the Petitioner would be obtaining the license to
become a commercial kennel.

KAREN CEDERGREN asserted that once her petition was approved by the County to be a kennel.
She reported that recently a lady in Boone County was granted, but even though she had received her
licensing for kenneling from the State, she wasn’t allowed to operate until she was approved by the
county.

The BOARD MEMBER reviewed to the Petitioner a stipulation on the SUP that the SUP would
expire when of if the property ceases to be actively used as a commercial dog kennel for a period of one
year, noting that the one year time span would start from the time that the ZBA granted the SUP. He
solicited that if she would not be obtaining a commercial license within 2 years from now, it would not
make much sense to do it (get the SUP) now. Ms. Cedergren affirmed that she understood.

Deliberation:

Upon closing the testimony period and going into deliberation, BOARD MEMBER ED CONKLIN
entered a statement for the record that due to receiving a letter from Mike Crandall, Burrett Township’s
Supervisor, he wanted the record to show and make the Board aware that Mr. Crandall was a nephew
of his.

Another BOARD MEMBER, in bringing up discussion of the Variation for the setback of the
property, stated that since the adjacent property owner where the Variation would be was not opposed
to the Variation, then he would look favorable to granting that Variation.

Entering discussion on the SUP, one BOARD MEMBER presented that they had heard a great deal
of testimony this evening. He acknowledged it was apparent that the two most adjacent neighbors have
completely differing opinions of the nuisance involved in this PIQ. Adding to that, he surmises that
the closest neighbor spoke in favor of this SUP; that the second neighbor clearly went to a great deal of
effort to send a point of view in the neighborhood. The BOARD MEMBER professed confusion
imploring how 2 neighbors living by the same facility could view it so completely contrarily. He related
that it was clear that this person wishes to raise her dogs and she considers them her dogs, not a kennel
in the classic sense of turning over or selling large numbers of dogs. He recites that the petitioner did
wish to breed and sell registered German Shepherds, which requires that she has status as a kennel,
according to the testimony given by staff. The BOARD MEMBER found it very hard to imagine that
granting this SUP would adversely affect property values a mile away from this site, although many
signatures were collected that far from the site.

That BOARD MEMBER concedes that there had been testimony questioning limitations on the
number of pigs, geese, or ducks; the answer was no, defending that this was rural land. He then adds
that farm animals are essentially unlimited in number. Referring to this case about dogs, he accepts the
fact that dogs barking can be a nuisance. He continues that there are noise ordinances and if this
facility is operating in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances,
rules and regulations, barking dogs would be outside of local ordinances. All things considered, it was
this BOARD MEMBER’s beliefs that this is an appropriate SUP and he would support it.

A second BOARD MEMBER agreed with everything the previous BOARD MEMBER said,
believing that the agricultural atmosphere wouldn’t be agricultural if it wasn’t for crops and animals,
                                                    22
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

arguing the fact that that was the place for them. He did grant that here they were talking about a more
domesticated animal, the dog, but that this animal is allowed on the agricultural setting with a SUP. He
supported that if the owner was willing to agree to full compliance of applicable federal, state, and local
statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and be subject to the Zoning Office to visit and inspect the
property to check for the compliance of the SUP, then he thinks this would be an appropriate place for
it. He indicated that he would vote favorably for that Petitioner also. He furthered that regarding the
conditions that they had set, the Petitioner agreed to a limit of 20 adult dogs; no more than 3 dogs out
at any time; and requested a time from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am.

This BOARD MEMBER brought up that he wanted to discuss the items of the 3 dogs out at a time
limit and the limit of 20 adult dogs. He would look to have those 2 conditions removed from the SUP,
but he felt that the time frame was appropriate.

JOHN CANTRELL intervened that the staff would like to recommend that the Board try to keep to
the 7:00 pm to 8:00 am time frame in consideration of the noise nuisance and the proximity of the
surrounding land owners. He repeated that the Petitioner did admit that the dogs are loud when you
first put them out in the morning at 7:00 and that some people like to sleep in till 8:00 or 9:00. He
noted that one of the neighbors did have an issue with it.

Another BOARD MEMBER asked Mr. Cantrell if he had considered the fact that there would only
by 3 dogs out at any time?

JOHN CANTRELL indicated that was another issue that would be difficult to enforce, stressing that
staff could not be out there all the time watching to see that only 3 dogs are going out at a time.

The BOARD MEMBER argued how much racket could 3 dogs make? He acknowledged a problem
with 15 or 20 all out at the same time.

JOHN CANTRELL addressed that as another concern questioning if there were only 3 dogs out at a
time during the entire day or all 15 out at the same time in the yard.

The second BOARD MEMBER recommended that condition be removed, not feeling there should
be a condition on the number of dogs out at the same time.

Assistant States Attorney SARA HOHE interposed notifying the Board that there actually are
regulations to the number pigs, geese, and stuff and that the Livestock Facilities Management Act
controls the density of livestock that you can have in proximity to residences that are not on the
property of owners of the livestock. She granted that she did not know all the bills off the top of her
head because, as an example, a goose would count less than a cow does.

The second BOARD MEMBER assumed that the applicable federal, state, and local statutes would
govern the kennels in a similar way as the livestock regulations would govern livestock. He restricts the
issue before the Board to be on the zoning issue. He added that in respect to the neighbors, if 7:00 pm
to 8:00 am is what the staff recommends, then he would be fine with that because that is what is
considered a courtesy to the neighbor. He continued that is what the Board is dealing with in zoning is
not only the constructed development of the community and the preservation of agricultural land but
also the respect of the neighbors wherever the development.



                                                    23
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

CHAIRMAN CAROL WILKE advised that it would need to be the consensus of this group to
decide on the time frame, whether we agree with the staff’s recommended times or work with it and
expand it.

A fourth BOARD MEMBER spoke up recognizing the fact that when the Petitioner stated that she
would only let 3 dogs out at a time, that you wouldn’t have that noise build up like you would if you let
out all 15 out at 9:00 or 10:00 at night. She concedes that it is difficult to have a dog wait 13 or 14
hours; that is too long a time for an animal. Then she asks how to distinguish the difference between
limiting the time on the Petitioner’s dogs and not limiting it on the neighbors’ dogs. She was struggling
with the difference and any time limits.

The second BOARD MEMBER reminded the last BOARD MEMBER that it was the Petitioner’s
voluntary decision to run it as a kennel, clarifying that if wanted to just have her dogs, she could take
the dogs out at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 in the morning to go to the bathroom. Therefore, this BOARD
MEMBER adjudicates that it was the Petitioner’s voluntary decision to enter into this agreement for
zoning.

CHAIRPERSON WILKE requested the Board to discuss the quantity of dogs, making aware that
none of the conditions actually stated the total number of dogs allowed. The Petitioner, she continues,
has requested that she have up to 20, but no where in the conditions of the SUP state that she is limited
to 20 and if it is not stated here, it could not be regulated. She advises that the topic should be
discussed.

The first BOARD MEMBER repeated that CHAIRPERSON WILKE was perhaps suggesting that
there be a #7 added to the conditions of the SUP that the number of adult dogs should be limited to
20. Upon the Chairperson’s confirmation, he concluded it was a very good suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE suspected that it might be hard to police, but the request is that
if it is not put as a condition, there is nothing to hold them to.

A fifth BOARD MEMBER regarded that as appropriate.

The first BOARD MEMBER wished to revisit condition #2 again because he agrees that 13 hours is
a long time. He offered as a compromise that a dog shall not be outside the enclosure between the
hours of 7:00 pm and 8:00 am, except that up to 3 dogs may be outside at a given time between the
hours or 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm and 7:00 am and 8:00 am.

GREG TILLY asked for clarification on that condition.

The BOARD MEMBER furthers his explanation that there would be no limitation on the number of
dogs that could be outside between 8:00 am and 7:00 pm. Indicating that between the hours of 7:00 pm
to 10:00 and 7:00 am to 8:00 am, up to 3 dogs could be exercised at any given time. He realizes that
there is an enforcement issue there but he thinks the Board needs to accommodate the physical needs
of animals, also, without the potential of creating a noise problem.

GREG TILLY responded that it was his understanding through testimony by the Petitioner that she
had no intentions of having more than 3 of the dogs out at any time; she always let them out in pairs to
exercise (except the threesome) In lieu of tweaking with the hours and the number of dogs per hour,
why not simplify it by stipulating that no more than 3 dogs would be permitted outside the facility at
                                                    24
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

any one time during the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm and that between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am, dogs
aren’t permitted outside. He was attempting to reduce the amount of restricted time when there were
no dogs allowed.

The fifth BOARD MEMBER questioned Sara Hohe regarding there being any local or state noise
ordinances.

SARA HOHE advised that there were not any noise ordinances for Winnebago County other than
ones within the village or city limits because the county cannot govern agricultural uses. She reasons
that when it’s time to get your crops in, people are going to be up all night long running their combines
or whatever and that’s partly why the County basically cannot have a noise ordinance. She adds that
there is no authority in state law to give a county the ability to have a noise ordinance and that the State
does not have a noise ordinance. Upon a further question from the BOARD MEMBER, Sara states
that the federal law may have one regarding airports, but not one for counties.

The BOARD MEMBER referenced that according to testimony regarding all applicable federal, state,
and local statutes and ordinances were given a reason to not be concerned about the noise, if there are
no federal, state, or local statures or ordinances governing noise, so admits to a bit of a quandary
concerning the issue of noise. Reviewing the testimony given earlier, he recites that people were
bothered by the noise, and that he was usually sympathetic to lots of neighbors coming in saying they
had a problem with a nuisance. He felt that was what zoning should be concerned with. However,
upon his reexamining of the testimony, there was one point he kept going back to and that was that he
didn’t hear any objectors say that the noise has continued up to this time, claiming they all said that it
had been quiet for the past 2 or 3 weeks. His concern was what was going to keep it quiet?

The sixth BOARD MEMBER agreed with that BOARD MEMBER on that issue, adding that the
way he looked at it was that not a lot had been said about the breed of dog, a German Shepherd. He
believes that a lot of times, the neighbors are intimidated by the breed; a German Shepherd is a big dog
(to him) and can make a lot of noise. Furthermore, in agreeing with that BOARD MEMBER, the
noise had stopped now. His opinion was that he didn’t think that granting zoning how they could
control the noise, but that it would be up to her to be a good neighbor. He sees the point of what the
neighbors are claiming against it and he agrees with it. However, he feels that the Petitioner has been
controlling the noise and that by granting this petition that she would continue to control the noise and
be a good neighbor.

The fifth BOARD MEMBER turned to the staff if they had any ideas about the noise issue.

JOHN CANTRELL responded that if the dogs are really loud, that could technically affect property
values to some extent, but they don’t really have any kind of ordinances to regulate that. He resolved
that limiting the number of dogs outside at a time would be the only way to limit the noise.

GREG TILLY reminded the Board that as the States Attorney (Sara Hohe) pointed out, we don’t have
a noise ordinance because of the activities that create noise particularly in the AG area. He brought
forth a question of inference regarding loud dogs versus combines, grain dryers, or other agricultural
activities. He asserted to the Board that whether there was a kennel there or no kennel, the dogs could
still make this noise and that granting the SUP does not create or negate the noise.

On picking up what Greg Tilly had said, the first BOARD MEMBER accepted that granting the SUP
with the conditions that they had there, it limits the number of dogs outside, gaining an element of
                                                     25
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

control that they would not otherwise have. For the most part, he continues, the dogs will be
contained in soundproofed buildings.

The second BOARD MEMBER stated that it would be his position to argue that it was the scope of
the ZBA that it is not our intent to control the noise just as it isn’t the intent for any state, local, or
federal governments in unincorporated portion Winnebago County. He continues that they are looking
to somehow be good neighborly by putting in some conditions on the times that the dogs can be out.
He made a case that he didn’t think there should be any restrictions on how many dogs are out, only on
the times that they are out.

The fifth BOARD MEMBER reminded the Board that the Petitioner testified that she never had
more than 3 out at a time; it was not her practice.

The second BOARD MEMBER extended his discussion that since this was an agricultural area, this is
where a kennel could be put up, but can it be put up in the middle of a suburban residential
neighborhood? He discerns that this is the area that the County has set up for a kennel to be set up on
a SUP; that’s what the County is telling us by the zoning code that this is where they go. So, put it there
and in order to be good neighbors about it, he insists to just limit the hours during daytime hours, not
the evening hours.

CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE recommended that they review the list of conditions.
[See Exhibit A of Staff Report]

Regarding Condition #1: All BOARD MEMBERs are okay with Condition #1.

Discussion on Condition #2: Regarding the time frame restriction (1) and the number of dogs allowed
out at one time (2).
(1) The 4th BOARD MEMBER apprises that the Petitioner wanted it to be 7:00 am; she didn’t want it
at 6:00; too early for her. She will accept that time, from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The rest of the Board
agreed to that time frame.
(2) The first BOARD MEMBER voiced that the point he would like to make here was that much of
the testimony that was received from the objectors was due to the problem of noise. Concurring that if
the Board could control the noise by controlling the number of dogs that were out at any particular
time and the owner has said that they are willing to go along with that restriction, then it seemed to him
to be prudent to go ahead and make that restriction to minimize the potential for noise during the time
that the dogs are allowed outside. Reiterating if the practice was usually 2 but no more than 3, he
would have no problem with putting that limitation on it.

The fifth BOARD MEMBER articulated that he think that they should include it, making sure that it
is specified adult dogs.

The third BOARD MEMBER consented that the 2 or 3 dogs was fine.

The second BOARD MEMBER wouldn’t agree with it, but in the matter of compliance, he would
vote favorably for the petition if it did include it.

The sixth BOARD MEMBER agreed to the condition as set forth.

The forth BOARD MEMBER also accepted the condition.
                                                    26
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


GREG TILLY verified the condition as “no more than 3 dogs outside of the enclosed buildings at any
given time between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. At no time will more than 3 adult dogs be
allowed outside”. He returned the Board a suggestion to scratch out the words ‘enclosed buildings’ and
just say “no dogs would be allowed outdoors or outside”? Upon approval, he rephrased the condition
to say, “Dogs shall not be allowed outside between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. At no time will
more than 3 (adult) dogs be allowed to be outside.”

The second BOARD MEMBER entered that he really hated to beat this to death; however, he wanted
to get it on the record in case it came up in the future. He proceeded to a case on point that if the
Petitioner has 20 dogs and has a litter of 6 younger dogs but doesn’t sell all of them, and now that the
younger dogs are older, she now has more than 20 dogs on her property. Reasoning that because she is
not selling them, does that mean that she ceases to exist? (the SUP). The BOARD MEMBER was
referring to that possible problem implying that this would be a thing of enforcement, not a thing for
the Board here tonight. But for the record, he continues, if the Petitioner does decide at any point not
to be a commercial kennel, then the SUP would not even apply at that point and she could have more
than 20 dogs?

GREG TILLY addresses what he interprets the BOARD MEMBER’s reference was to by asserting
that if the Petitioner is not selling, not training, and not operating as a kennel, and she ceases that for a
period of one year, then she would have to provide evidence that her license has lapsed or whatever
and that she wants to do that.

Regarding Condition #3: All BOARD MEMBERs agreed to Condition #3.

Regarding Condition #4: All BOARD MEMBERs accepted Condition #4 as is.

Regarding Condition #5: All BOARD MEMBERs approved of this Condition #5.

Regarding Condition #6: All BOARD MEMBERs agreed upon Condition #6.

Discussion on Condition #7, regarding the maximum number of dogs set at 20:
The first BOARD MEMBER interjected ‘Adult’ dogs.

MOTION to approve Petition SU-13-07 with amended conditions recommended by staff made by
Richard Brown, SECONDED by Ed Conklin.
MOTION PASSED 7-0

MOTION to approve Petition V-08-07 made by Richard Brown, SECONDED by Pete Scordato.
MOTION PASSED 7-0

NOTE: Petitions #4 (Z-14-07), #5 (SU-14-07), and #6 (V-09-07) [Butler] were discussed
together but voted on separately:

4.      Z-14-07: A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE 1.29 ACRES FROM R-1,
        ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO AG, AGRICULTURAL PRIORITY DISTRICT,
        requested by Richard Butler for property located at 15332 Best Road, in Laona Township.
        P.I.N.# 01-31-226-002                                                           C.B. District 1
        LESA SCORE: N/A                                   CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: NO
                                                      27
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


5.     SU-14-07: A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACTOR’S OFFICE AND
       BUILDINGS AS AN ACCESSORY USE BY THE OCCUPANT OF A SINGLE-
       FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE AG, AGRICULTURAL PRIORITY DISTRICT,
       requested by Richard Butler for property located at 15332 Best Road, in Laona Township.
       PIN #s: 01-31-226-003 & 01-31-226-002                                           C.B. District: 1
       LESA SCORE: N/A                                  CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A

6.     V-09-07: A VARIATION TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO HAVE AN
       AREA OF 2400 SQUARE-FEET INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 1200 SQUARE-
       FEET, IN AG, AGRICULTURAL PRIORITY DISTRICT, requested by Richard Butler for
       property located at 15332 Best Road, in Laona Township.
       P.I.N.#: 01-31-226-002                                               C.B. District 1
       LESA SCORE: N/A                                 CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A

Swear in:        Attorney Ferguson, Attorney for Petitioner, 216 N. Court St., Rockford
                 Richard Butler, Petitioner, 15332 Best Rd., Davis, IL.

Discussion:

RAY FERGUSON announces that the request concerns 2 pieces of acreage (one 10 acres and the
other 1.29 acres), already in the process of being combined, he requesting for these 2 parcels to be
merged and zoned AG so that he could build a house and an accessory building. He described the
accessory building as a typical pole shed with 2400 square feet. Because of its being 2400 sq ft, and the
house’s 1st floor level is only 1200 sq. ft. (total of 2000 sq. ft.), it exceeds the maximum, so the
Petitioner needs the Variance to allow it. He goes on to depict that there are 2 large ponds; wet area;
another building on the property that is approximately the same size that he needs to move and tear
down and eventually get rid of. Attorney Ferguson assures that the changes will not affect the
adequate light or any of those things nor affect property values. He accounts that it’s an AG area and
actually probably more consistent to have the 2 parcels together (11 acres) all of it as AG. He sets forth
that the accesses are still there; everything is going to be absolutely the same except that Mr. Butler
wishes to have the 2 parcels together and build one new pole building to store his equipment so that it’s
not out front.

One BOARD MEMBER inquired about the area that Mr. Butler wanted to put the pole building up
on because that area had severe or very severe soils for the construction of a building, wondering what
he thought about that. He asked if it was because the Petitioner already had a driveway there.

RICHARD BUTLER answered that there was a parking area there and it was away from the house.

The BOARD MEMBER returned to the point of the severe soils and Mr. Butler’s reply to any
problems with the soil or subsoil.

RICHARD BUTLER responded he didn’t think there would be a problem, that he had dug holes and
that it had all been filled down there. He wasn’t sure why that particular designation was made on that
soil.

The BOARD MEMBER noted that he believed the borings for the soil survey had been done in the
early ‘70s.
                                                   28
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


RICHARD BUTLER agreed with the estimate, adding that he had put a lot of fill in there himself
within the last 5 years.
CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE asked the Petitioner if he had gone over the recommended
conditions by staff and had any questions or problems with any of them.

RICHARD BUTLER inquired about the landscaping buffer (Condition #3).

JOHN CANTRELL stated that as long as the tree line was there guarding the area it would be fine.

RICHARD BUTLER returned that the condition of the tree line would be fine with him. He
referenced that when Mr. Tilly and Mr. Cantrell were out there, one of them asked him where the
building was going to be and which direction it would be. Because of the 40 foot setback, he suggested
that maybe he should put the building east and west than north and south and if that would be a
problem.

RAY FERGUSON recommended that the Petitioner should specify now and then build it the way
you had it on the sight plan, directing that if he wished to rotate it, he should request it now so that they
(the Petitioner & attorney) could change the site plan.

RICHARD BUTLER conveyed that if he had 60 foot north and south and 40 foot east and west, the
doors would face the pond. With distance of the setback, it would be better if the building was 60 foot
east and west and 40 foot north and south, rotating the building so the doors faced south. He
determined that it would be easier to get in and out of the building then.

RAY FERGUSON submitted to the Board that Mr. Butler was requesting to amend the site plan to
reflect the rotation of the building.

JOHN CATRELL made note to the Petitioner that they would need to provide a new site plan
showing the changes.

GREG TILLY counseled that the site plan would have to be received within a week or so.

RAY FERGUSON offered that he would provide by this week on Friday.

GREG TILLY directed that the site plan should be brought into the office by Friday and that he
would date the site plan as of August the 10th with the only alteration to the site plan being the location
of the building and subject to review and the approval by the Zoning Office. He afforded the evidence
in the case of the sited plan being questioned 10 years in the future. Mr. Tilly iterated that this was not
a blank check on the site plan, but that the only alteration was for the one change of the rotation of the
building.

A BOARD MEMBER reiterates that Condition #1 would then reflect that “the SUP shall conform to
the site plan received August 10, 2007, indicating the rotation of the building on the site plan.

No witnesses of objection.




                                                     29
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

Deliberation:

One BOARD MEMBER made comment on Z-14-07 that he believes all the Standards were met and
that the Staff Report outlines that accurately.

That same BOARD MEMBER stated that he thought that all the Standards were met and would for
approval of SU-14-07 with the amended conditions.

Another BOARD MEMBER assumed that the reason the building was proposed at the present size
would be so that it would be large enough to incorporate equipment stored inside rather than outside
and that it was somewhat limited by the Ordinance because of the size of the square feet of the
principal residence, therefore he regarded V-09-07 as being an entirely appropriate request.

MOTION to approve Petition Z-14-07 made by Pete Scordato, SECONDED by Brian Erickson and
Tami Verstraete.
MOTION PASSED 7-0

MOTION to approve Petition SU-14-07 with amended conditions recommended by staff made by
Tom Walsh, SECONDED by Richard Brown.
MOTION PASSED 7-0

MOTION to approve Petition V-09-07 made by Ed Conklin, SECONDED by Tom Walsh.
MOTION PASSED 7-0

NOTE: Petitions #7 (SU-15-07), #8 (V-10-07), & #9 (V-11-07) [Blackhawk Fire Dist.] were
discussed together but voted on separately:

7.     SU-15-07: A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION TO AN
       EXISTING FIRE STATION IN THE R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
       DISTRICT, requested by Blackhawk Fire Protection District for property located at 3738
       South Main Street, in Rockford Township.
       P.I.N.#: 15-03-328-016                                                        C.B. District 6
       LESA SCORE: N/A                             CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A

8.     V-10-07: A VARIATION TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 14 FEET
       INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60 FEET IN THE R-1, ONE-FAMILY
       RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, requested by Blackhawk Fire Protection District for property
       located at 3738 South Main Street, in Rockford Township.
       P.I.N.#: 15-03-328-016                                                C.B. District 6
       LESA SCORE: N/A                                 CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A

9.     V-11-07: A VARIATION TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET
       INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 6 FEET IN THE R-1, ONE-FAMILY
       RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, requested by Blackhawk Fire Protection District for property
       located at 3738 South Main Street, in Rockford Township.
       P.I.N.#: 15-03-328-016                                                 C.B. District 6
       LESA SCORE: N/A                                 CONSISTENT W/LAND USE PLAN: N/A



                                                  30
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007

Swear in:        Louis Bowman, Attorney for Petitioner, 401 W. State, #600, Rockford.

Discussion:

LOUIS BOWMAN opened by stating the purpose of the petition was to allow expanding the fire
station building for apparatus storage, adding a bay onto the south of the existing building. He
provided that it would have the same frontage as the existing building and that the rear would extend to
the existing building. Attorney Bowman furnished that currently there is apparatus in all of the existing
building except for one room in the rear and another small room toward the front. The intention of
the fire department was not to increase the amount of apparatus, but to put most the apparatus into the
new space so that they would have room in the back half of the existing building to build personnel
spaces, a couple of offices, and have some training space.

He goes on to explain that fire service is getting very complicated with training issues and this fire
department just doesn’t have any space for storage; there’s no training space; they have to take trucks
out of the fire station to have a place where they could just have this much space to have their training
on a weekly basis. Attorney Bowman disclosed to the Board that this district is one of the poorer
districts in the County. He continued that they initially planned to put personnel spaces in the new
property for 2 reasons, which one was because its limited access due to it being on North Main and the
curb cut is limited. He shared that they had found out that economically the district could not support
the construction of personnel spaces here, it’s far more expensive. Then the engineers advised them
that if they used that back area for personnel space and they build on the addition for the apparatus,
with it being a lot less expensive, then it could be done, that’s why the fire department shifted to that.
Just today they inquired of the State and asked them if they would be allowed to extend the curb cut as
it caused a limited access and because there was a drain right there.

 The gentleman from Kankakee in the northern Illinois area who is responsible for a great portion of
supervisory control of the IDOT offices in Dixon called him this morning communicating to him that
he didn’t need to go out to the fire department, that he had looked at aerials and read what the
department had presented to them, and declared that they would approve for the curb cut for access
out onto the street even though it was a limited access street.

He asserted that they would not alter the amount of equipment and that they had adequate parking in
the back with an alley on one side and a public alley on another so that they can move around the
building. Attorney Bowman noted that the department had just acquired a parcel next door through
litigation. In order to accommodate the standards for a fire station, he supported that the apparatus
bay would need 40 feet. He contended that they had already had about 5 feet past the building that was
fire district property; the new acquisition was 40 foot to the public alley, giving them 45 feet.
Continuing, he acknowledged the setback is only 6 feet; hence the Variation (5 feet), giving them the
space they need to get around the trucks, do repair and maintenance on the vehicles, and to store the
turnout gear for quick response on calls. Attorney Bowman defended that just one foot can make a
workable difference. He yielded that the reason for the Variance for the setback from the front was
because when the first part of the building was originally built, in 1954 or 1955, it was a long way from
the street, and that South Main had been widened over the years and has come up close to this building.

In regards to the SUP, Attorney Bowman knew that they were non-conforming because it had been
there for so long as a SUP in R-1 zoning. He implied that no one ever build a house on that 40 foot
strip. He confirmed that nothing would change except that the building would be 30 feet wider to the
south and have a couple big doors.
                                                    31
ZBA Minutes
August 8, 2007


Attorney Bowman concludes that if the Board felt it necessary to go through all of the Standards for all
3 petitions, he would, but it appeared to him that all the Standards were responded to by the Zoning
Office and all are in favor of granting the SUP and 2 Variances and without any conditions. If anything,
Attorney Bowman challenges any that it would improve the property values because it’s an
infrastructure for safety that’s been there for a lot of years. Realizing that there is not enough room for
any extensive training on site, he informs the Board that they have to go out to different fire stations
and so forth that do have the facilities to train on.

One BOARD MEMBER questioned the height of the new addition.

LOUIS BOWMAN assured that the height would be the same height as the existing building, 19 feet.

No witnesses of objection.

Deliberation:

A BOARD MEMBER acknowledges that the staff had made specific comments on each of the
required Standards and that he was in complete agreement with the staff’s assessment of each of the
Standards and, therefore, feels that each of the 3 petitions meets the required Standards across the
board.

CHAIRPERSON CAROL WILKE contributed that there were no conditions for the SUP as well.

MOTION to approve Petition SU-15-07 made by Ed Conklin, SECONDED by Pete Scordato.
MOTION PASSED 7-0.

MOTION to approve Petition V-10-07 made by Brian Erickson, SECONDED by Tami Verstraete.
MOTION PASSED 7-0.

MOTION to approve Petition V-11-07 made by Tom Walsh, SECONDED by Ed Conklin.
MOTION PASSED 7-0.

OTHER BUSINESS:                 NONE

MOTION to adjourn made by Richard Brown, SECONDED by Pete Scordato.
MOTION PASSED 7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.




                                                    32

								
To top