NW Illinois News

City of Galena Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 8.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

23Z-2001 – CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Rosenthal called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Chambers at 101 Green Street on the 8th of November 2023.

23Z-2002 – ROLL CALL

Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Spivey, Gates, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

Upon roll call, the following members were present: Jim Baranski, Bill Spivey, Roger Gates, Steve Monahan, Dave Jansen, Desiree Einsweiler, & John Rosenthal.

Absent: None

Also, present were Jonathan Miller and Joe Nack

23Z-2003 – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM

Chairperson Rosenthal announced a quorum of board members were present to conduct city business.

22Z-2004 – PUBLIC COMMENTS

NONE

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

23Z-2005 – APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF October 11, 2023

Discussion:

Motion: Gates moved, seconded by Einsweiler to approve the minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of October 11, 2023.

The motion was carried by a voice vote.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Cal. No. 23S-07 Owner: RJR Holdings, Inc., and Applicant: Adam Johnson. Reading of the Finding of Fact for a Special Use Permit to allow a Commercial Animal Boarding Service in the Heavy Industrial Zoning District at 11471 Industrial Dr.

Rosenthal read the conclusions, determination, and decision to approve from the finding of fact in the agenda.

Motion: Baranski moved, seconded by Gates to approve the finding of fact to approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a Commercial Animal Boarding Service in the Heavy Industrial Zoning District at 11471 Industrial Dr. Cal No. 23S-07.

Discussion: None

Roll Call: AYES: Gates, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

RECUSED: Spivey

Cal. No. 23V-06 Owner and Applicant: Guys Towing and Service. Reading of the Finding of Fact for a Variance to allow a second internally illuminated wall sign at 11501 AJ Harle Dr.

Rosenthal read the conclusions, determination, and decision to approve from the finding of facts in the agenda.

Motion: Jansen moved, seconded by Monahan, to approve the finding of fact to approve the request for a Variance to allow a second internally illuminated wall sign at 11501 AJ Harle Dr. Cal. No. 23V-06.

Roll Call: AYES: Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski, Gates & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

RECUSED: Spivey

Cal. No. 23S-02 & 23S-03 Remand of the Special Use Permits previously granted to the Galena Lion’s Den, 109 S. Main St., to allow Outdoor Dining and Outdoor Entertainment as accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District.

Baranski and Gates recused themselves and left the room. Gates said he would be able to answer questions if needed as owner of the property.

Discussion:

Rosenthal said It was appealed to City Council that is why it is back to this board.

Monahan asked if what we needed to do was just clarify the specific days like Monday Tuesday Wednesday, Etc. Rosenthal said nothing prohibits the use of alley, it’s public property.

Monahan said it’s correct, it’s public property.

Miller clarified that behind the Lion’s Den is not an alley, it is the back of the building.

Rosenthal wondered why it even had to be clarified. He said they need to say no restrictions or go with it the way the originally stated.

Einsweiler said she felt they were very clear on it, and it should pass as is.

Miller said to maybe just clarify the days not weekdays / weekends only.

Monahan said if they met intent only specifications on dates.

Jansen concurred.

There was discussion on whether it goes back to the council with clarification. It does not unless there is another appeal.

Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Jansen, to approve as board had stated on 14th of June 2023, clarifying the one item of time of operation. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday not past 9 p.m. Friday & Saturday not past 10 p.m. for outdoor entertainment item # 23S-03.

Roll Call: AYES: Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Spivey, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

RECUSED: Baranski, & Gates

Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Einsweiler to allow Outdoor Dining as accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District item #23S-02 as stated on the 14th of June 2023.

Roll Call: AYES: Jansen, Einsweiler, Spivey, Monahan, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

RECUSED: Baranski, & Gates

Baranski and Gates re-entered the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Nack swore in all those wishing to testify.

Rosenthal reminded all to sign in if they wished to speak at any of the public hearings.

Cal. No. 23V-07 Owner: Lemfco, Inc., and Applicant: Abby Riewe. Request for a Variance to the parking standards in the Planned Commercial Zoning District.

This item was withdrawn as they no longer needed a variance.

Cal. No. 23A-04 Owner and Applicant: Alfred J. Fessler. Request to rezone 4 parcels in the Low-Density Residential Zoning District to Neighborhood Commercial. This item was a Public Hearing.

Motion: Monahan made a motion, seconded by Gates to open the public hearing for item 23A-04 Request to rezone 4 parcels in the Low-Density Residential Zoning District to Neighborhood Commercial.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the application

John Cox, 612 Spring St.- Cox stated Jonathan did a great job of summarizing what they want to do. This property has never been zoned correctly since there was a zoning board. The applicant is working to create a not for profit / tax exempt foundation to preserve the Belvedere, so it cares for itself into the future. It takes about $50,000 per year to maintain the Belvedere. Some money comes from tours, but that is minimal. Cox asked the board to see exhibit A in the packet. Alfred Fessler needs to consider transferring the title to the corporation. Cox believes the zoning should match the use. The property needs to have a structure that this property can go forward and retain the historic property. Many advertisements and ads with reference to Galena use photos of the Belvedere mansion. Cox stated it was built in 1857 by J Russel Jones. The general uses of the property will remain unchanged and, in the future on the lot facing Third St., they may want to build a garage for the antique cars they have collected for years. This would be near where the caretaker house is. Everything Fessler owns will be there to preserve and protect the Belvedere. This property has been non-conforming use for at least 40 years.

Cox asked that the current caretaker Jeremy White join him at podium.

Cox asked the following questions and White gave the answers to try and cover all the issues or questions the board may have.

Q. Could you state your name and address for the Zoning Board, please.

Jeremy White -316 South St. Galena

Q. What is your business or occupation and how are you connected to the property at issue in this Zoning Hearing?

I have been a contractor for almost 25 years. Two years ago, when Mr. Burlingame passed away. I was asked to become the caretaker for all the properties and do maintenance on the house. I have a lot of memories as a child being around this house and want to help keep it the way it is.

Q. Have you had discussions with the owner of the property related to how the Belvedere Mansion and Gardens will be owned and operated in the future and how such plans have related to and were instigated the need to have this map change approved.

Yes, Fessler wants it to operate for many lifetimes. No changes in how it operates now.

Q. Would the change being requested be contrary to the general welfare of Galena?

No, because it is a vast asset to the Galena.

Q. Would the change compromise the original purpose of the regulation?

No. Just making it conform to the area. It has been used as commercial property since 1971. It is located on the original property on existing zoning lots.

Q. Are there sites for the proposed use in existing districts that would permit such use?

No. It is already located in the district and operating there.

Q. Is the change contrary to the established land use pattern?

No, it will make it more compatible.

Q. Would the change create an isolated unrelated district?

No, just establishing correct zoning.

Q. Have major land uses changed since the zoning was applied to the subject property?

Small changes have been implemented over the years to land, but nothing major.

Q. Is the existing development in the area contrary to the existing zoning ordinance? To my knowledge, it is in total compliance.

Q. Can the owner of the property realize an economic benefit from the uses permitted by the existing zoning classification?

Yes, to the extent he continues to operate the Belvedere consistent with the zoning ordinance.

Q. Would the change of present district boundaries be inconsistent in relation to existing uses?

No.

Q. Would the proposed change conflict with existing commitments or planned public improvements?

No.

Q. Would the change contribute to dangerous traffic patterns or congestion?

No, as the actual use of the property will remain the same as prior to the change.

Q. Would the change alter the population density pattern and thereby harmfully increase the load on public facilities such as schools, sewers, parks, or other such facilities?

No, once again, the use remains the same after the change.

Q. Would the change adversely influence conditions in the vicinity due to any type of pollution?

No, it would not..

Q. Would property values in the vicinity be adversely affected by the change?

The use remains the same, property values should not be affected either up or down.

Q. Would the change result in private investment which would be beneficial to the redevelopment of a deteriorated area?

No.

Q. Would the change combat economic segregation?

I do not believe so

Q. Would the change comply with the City's Land Use Map?

To the best of my knowledge, it would.

Q. Are you open to answering any questions the Board may have?

Yes.

Rosenthal asked Cox to verify the property is the Mansion, houses and a storage shed, and coach house. Cox said the Belvedere, the adjoining garage, and the coach house.

Baranski- Who lives in the caretaker house?

Cox- Currently it’s Alfred Fessler, In the future, it will be the caretaker.

Baranski- Is this request a condition of the foundation? Neighborhood Commercial come’s with benefits. How will we know what comes in the future?

Cox said you can put it in that the caretaker’s home is a restriction.

Rosenthal- Third street will be neighborhood Commercial. Concern is that if they need revenue in 10 years can they sell it off? Will the next owner get the same rights as Neighborhood Commercial?

Monahan – Why does Fessler need this change?

Cox- Fessler wants assurance the structure is there to have preservation.

Monahan – Belvedere is the significance.

Cox- Foundation uses the whole complex.

Baranski- Vision for long term. Is that what we are looking at indoor sales? Is a Gift Shop anticipated? Cox said no, but he can’t say it won’t change.

Baranski said it’s a compatible use.

Cox asked if a garage is allowed to be built for car viewing.

Monahan said that is where his concern is. He needs a better picture of the plan for the future.

Cox wanted to mention there is no intention of making changes. The concern is a garage down the road for old cars for public viewing.

Rosenthal asked if the Carriage house & where Mr. Fessler lives is on one lot?

Cox stated the Coach house /Carriage house may end up as an office for the foundation which could be an issue for a single-family lot.

Miller said it could not be an office the way it is currently zoned.

Speaking in opposition of the application

Wendy Clark 1107 Fourth Street- Thanks for your time. I am not in opposition. Mr. Fessler is giving us an incredible gift. It’s wonderful.

I am specifically concerned about why they need Neighborhood Commercial. The Belvedere is non-conforming use, but city code 154.106 does allow it. I am somewhat opposed to this. Non-conforming uses can be used into perpetuity. Then it functions as its own zoning designation.

Memo 154.202 says tour homes are allowed with limits of two tours a day and a # of people there. If it gets rezoned it may need compliance. Default to residential and then they can get a special use permit. Wants them to consider all the questions. It may be the wrong time to make the decision. Spoke with Mr. Fessler this morning. He was very kind to take the time to talk to me. He is trying to make this bomb proof. If they would sell a piece, it could go against the neighborhood. Mr. Cox has clarified some things, but not knowing the proposed uses can cause an issue. Caretaker house needs to stay the same so it can stay a home. The future garage can also get approved at a future date. Precedence- there are 2 other parcels that were rezoned neighborhood commercial between the Belvedere and HWY 20. Wendy quoted Baranski from minutes of another meeting that they must do since they gave a variance before by precedence. (This was said at a meeting in reference to a sign) She stated the green house is also a non-conforming use. Clarke is very impressed with what Mr. Fessler wants to do. The last, last thing – Rezoning happens when there is a specified use that needs a rezoning decision. Clarke appreciates the board, as they are on track with questions.

Baranski asked – When you referred to precedence you made it sound like they go across all zoning decisions as precedence? He asked why she is saying this is precedence. Is it across all zoning decisions?

Clark said that making decisions to rezone without compelling need can set a precedence. Need to be really specific & why?

I feel it is not a specific or compelling use. Not opposed, but just consider some of what I am bringing up. Apologized she had to leave.

Monahan asked for clarification of when it was rezoned to Miller.

Miller stated in 2005, the zoning ordinance was done, and the new map was zoning map was created.

Cox said was once residential. Two properties by Belvedere wants everything the same to make a complex. Main goal is to get all uniform.

Monahan said to be all rezoned the same.

Rosenthal said you just want the Belvedere rezoned as Neighborhood Commercial because the Carriage House will most likely need to be the foundation office. Cox said the plan was for Burlingame to make a garage behind the house, that’s why he bought the other lots.

Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Jansen to close the Public Hearing.

Motion carried on voice vote.

Motion: Baranski made a motion, seconded by Gates to send a positive finding of fact to the City Council on the request to rezone 4 parcels in the Low-Density Residential Zoning District to Neighborhood Commercial.

Discussion:

Miller stated it will never be in complete conformance. This is not the proper wording, but it will be in better alignment as stated in the memo for the request.

Baranski stated that several years ago they looked at several properties to try and get them consistent with uses or generally compatible.

Neighborhood Commercial was kept limited. The good thing about Neighborhood Commercial is that it is the most restrictive at 25% FAR. The ordinance was written so what is in the neighborhood is compatible with neighborhoods. That makes them compatible. He understands Wendy’s concerns. Precedence doesn’t come into play as every case is different.

Monahan said he understands this except why do they want the two little lots added in? Baranski said it is contiguous to the plan. He is comfortable with the history of the property. Rosenthal agrees with concerns for business going there.

Gates said it’s in a flood plain, so can a building even go in there.

Rosenthal said to Cox the 2 lots are ditches for drainage. If it doesn’t get rezoned it may not go in foundation. Cox said they are wanting to just get a complex for the Belvedere.

Rosenthal said there is no real use for the two small lots.

Einsweiler asked if that could be re-examined at the next point for new development.

Nack stated it can be part of site and zoned differently.

Rosenthal said the Belvedere and Coach house will be the only change. He doesn’t agree with Wendy that there is any precedence in zoning because there are so many types of conditions.

Baranski read the Approval Criteria & Recommendation for Map Amendment:

In order to maintain internal consistency within this code and on the zoning map, proposed amendments to the text and zoning map must be consistent with the purposes stated herein.

In determining whether the proposed amendment shall be approved, the following factors shall be considered:

(1) Whether the existing text or zoning designation was in error at the time of adoption; Can make the case that it was.

(2) Whether there has been a change of character in the area or throughout the city due to installation of public facilities, other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, development transitions, etc.; Yes, adjacent properties have already been changed.

(3) Whether the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and defining characteristics of the proposed zoning district or whether there may be adverse impacts on the capacity or safety of the portion of street network influenced by the rezoning, parking problems, or environmental impacts that the new zone may generate such as excessive storm water runoff, water, air or noise pollution, excessive nighttime lighting, or other nuisance It is compatible.

(4) Whether the proposal is in conformance with and in furtherance of the implementation of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, other adopted plans, and the policies, intents and requirements of this code, and other city regulations and guidelines; Yes, there are provisions for historical preservation and tourism.

(5) Whether adequate public facilities and services are available or will be made available concurrent with the projected impacts of development in the proposed zone Yes

(6) Whether there is an adequate supply of land available in the subject area and the surrounding community to accommodate the zoning and community needs; There is

(7) Whether there is a need in the community for the proposal and whether there will be benefits derived by the community or area by the proposed rezoning. It is a benefit for the community and a gem.

Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Spivey, Gates, Jansen, & Rosenthal

NAYS: Einsweiler & Monahan

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

Motion carried.

CA. No 23V-08 Wolff Washes, LLC, and Applicant: Ridge Investment Group, LLC. Request for a variance to reduce the NE setbacks.

Motion: Jansen made a motion, seconded by Gates, to open the public hearing for item 23V-08

Motion carried by voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the application

Joe Flattery 11921 Rucky Dr., St Louis, MO. We are here again, because the board challenged us to go back and get a building that will fit the lot with a smaller setback. We went from a 16 ft variance, and then came up with the current plan of a 4 ft setback and a smaller building.

We have gone back with the client numerous times to come to this. Market research was done all over Galena that shows the commercial climate is best near Walmart. This is a unique property with challenges and a long list of restrictions. That list is in front of you (attached to back of the zoning notes) Walmart has restrictions in place as well as other property owners. We are forced to deal with all of this. This shows proof of hardship. Dollar Tree will be long term corporate lease and you will benefit from a shopping alternative for citizens. The Highway 20 Corridor plan has its own restrictions on building here that we need to meet. He went through a list of restrictions. We have to meet larger green spaces than we normally do. We did a site visit, and this sits about 12 ft about the Walmart lot. To the rear is a 30 ft rise to campground- no one, but campers will see. There are functional issues signage issue and visual issues. They have a unique property specific to need a variance.

Baranski asked if they are the owners of the property?

Flaherty said the owner was under contract. Mr. Wolff is the owner still.

Baranski asked, “How this is a hardship? Was the set back there when you purchased the property? He put the car wash there and made the lot smaller. How is this not self-inflicted?

Flaherty said it didn’t reflect at the point of purchase with Wolff. The initial site plan did not show the car wash shift. Initially he had the 16ft setback.

Baranski said he is trying to grasp this as the owner made the shift making it necessary for Dollar Tree to ask for a variance. He explained more of the criteria and how the board makes decisions.

Dan Wolff 14988 Derby Grange Rd. Dubuque IA.

The setback came when I added the canopy. I did not think this canopy would cause the building to be larger because it did not have sides. The lot was not subdivided at the time. The line was not established. The building had to look nice to fit the HWY 20 corridor set back.

Miller confirmed that it was not subdivided at that time.

Wolff – Well the city wants it to look aesthetically nice, so I have the canopy on all my buildings and wanted it to look nice from HWY 20. He could have chopped the canopy off and moved the building up 20 feet.

Baranski- How are you claiming this was not self-inflicted?

Wolff – I guess you can call it that if you want. I don’t know.

Craig Kiser, 17900 Homestead Bluff, St. Louis, MO. Owner of Ridge Properties, and part owner of Ridge Investments.

He was ignorant of the canopy issue. We had a good faith engagement with Mr. Wolff.

Wolff –said he could have removed the canopy and moved the property up 20 feet, but all his buildings have them. Kiser-Tried coming up with a master plan to work with all involved. Dan, the City and Dollar Tree. Due diligence in what they need. He is trying to grasp the self- inflicted part. He is trying to get an understanding. He made the point that all national retailers have a standard square footage design to meet sales. Projections- so deviating causes issues when trying to maximize the sales revenue.

Baranski said our decision needs to be based on meeting all the criteria if it doesn’t meet all you can’t be approved. How do we answer not a derivable use? Certainly, a commercial building can still be built on that property. It can, it just needs to be smaller.

Nack stopped and told Baranski he was lecturing and that they need to say who is speaking as they go along so we can track who is saying what.

Flaherty- Said closing on property and working to meet the client’s needs. They say this is what they need to operate there.

Kiser came back up to speak. Site characteristics and good faith engagement. Economic development and growth need to happen.

Dans problem now since he changed it. Economic Development /feasibility originally working with the original master plan then a 20-foot shift for the car wash issue. Wants to generate value and return to get the variance… tackling issues as they go. Limit value of property and what can go there in the future.

Dan Wolff stated he was having a hard time listening to all of this over 4 FEET. 4 FEET. He held up his 4 fingers. Next to the campground, Walmart, and us (carwash). 4 FEET. He said the economic impact for the city generating money for 4 feet. This is tough.

Speaking in opposition of the application

No one.

Motion: Jansen moved, seconded by Monahan to close the Public Hearing.

Motion carried.

Motion: Baranski mad e amotion to deny the request. They did not get a second motion died.

Monahan made a motion to approve 23V-08 the request for a variance to reduce the NE setbacks, seconded by Gates.

Monahan read criteria.

(1) Hardship unique to property, not self-inflicted. There are exceptional conditions creating an undue hardship, applicable only to the property involved or the intended use thereof, which do not apply generally to the other land areas or uses within the same zone district, and such exceptional conditions or undue hardship was not created by the action or inaction of the applicant or owner of the property; After hearing testimony Yes, this is a small lot with a hardship to the property due to the large setbacks.

(2) Special privilege. The variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands or structures in the same zoning district; The same consideration would be given to others.

(3) Literal interpretation. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; Yes

(4) Reasonable use. The applicant and the owner of the property cannot derive a reasonable use of the property without the requested variance; Yes, the applicant has made reasonable changes to the building.

(5) Minimum necessary. The variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of land or structures; Yes

(6) Compatible with adjacent properties. The variance will not be injurious to, or reduce the value of, the adjacent properties or improvements or be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. In granting a variance, the decision-maker may impose conditions deemed necessary to protect affected property owners and to protect the intent of this code; Yes, Very compatible

(7) Conformance with the purposes of this code. The granting of a variance will not conflict with the purposes and intents expressed or implied in this Code; and Yes.

(8) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of a variance will not conflict with the goals and principles in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Goals and principles of comprehensive plan. Yes, they will not.

Discussion:

Baranski said you can’t get past criteria #1 Wolff the applicant moved his building. He is applicant, he knew he was making the lot smaller; he created his own hardship. He moved the line 20 feet and made the lot smaller. He created this. This is the definition of self-inflicted. You cannot allow this.

Rosenthal said # 2 is allowing a special privilege. This is setting precedence for future applicants. Monahan, we have allowed variances in areas.

Rosenthal- variance very different change. Not in this zoning district.

Monahan- everyone is different. We are taking this way too literal. We have to look at each case separately. Rosenthal said always agreed to treat everyone the same.

Baranski- variances are for extenuating circumstances. Flat lot not a lot of issues. You’re approving this because they won’t make it smaller. Not reasonable if someone can build a smaller building. Is this reasonable for this property? Not for them because they want a 96 Sq foot building.

Really question reasonable for this property? It can be used for other commercial property.

Roll Call: AYES: Spivey, Gates, Monahan, & Einsweiler.

NAYS: Baranski

ABSTAIN: Jansen – abstained due to working at Walmart

ABSENT: None

Rosenthal said his vote doesn’t count.

CA. No 23HCO-03 Wolff Washes, LLC, and Applicant: Ridge Investment Group, LLC. Request for a Highway 20 Design review to construct a new building in the Highway 20 Corridor. This item was a Public Hearing.

Motion: Gates made a motion, seconded by Einsweiler, to open the public hearing for item 23HCO-03

Motion carried by voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the application

Craig Kiser- We did submit some plans and elevation renderings based on shifting of building. Willing to answer any questions about submittal will submit the rest of plan for lighting (only one illuminated/ side will be non illuminated, landscaping, will do what Jonathan signs.

Monahan asked about the front of building is it glass or stucco. It is an insulation type finish. They will add stone or brick if the board wants it.

Speaking in opposition of the application

No one

Motion: Einsweiler moved, seconded by Gates to close the Public Hearing.

Motion: Monahan made a motion to approve 23HCO-03 the request for a Highway 20 Design review to construct a new building in the Highway 20 Corridor, seconded by Gates contingent on approval of the final plans for landscaping and lighting.

Monahan read Approval Criteria & Decision for Highway 20 Development Permit (23HCO-03):

Highway 20 Development Permit - The application shall demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the following:

(1) All applicable site plan review criteria in § 154.914; Yes

(2) The overall context of the corridor and the goals for new development as described in Chapter III of the Design Manual; Yes

(3) The corridor development concepts described in Chapter IV of the Design Manual; Yes

(4) The proposed character of the applicable design districts as described in Chapter V of the Design Manual; yes

(5) The proposed pattern of development for the Highway 20 Corridor as described in Chapter VI of the Design Manual; n/a, site is under 10 acres in size.

(6) The standards for building orientation, design and materials as described in Chapter VII of the Design Manual; yes

(7) The standards for site features and elements as described in Chapter VII of the Design Manual. yes

Roll Call: AYES: Spivey, Gates, Monahan, Einsweiler, Baranski, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: Jansen

ABSENT: None

Motion carried.

OTHER BUSINESS

None

22Z-2006 – ADJOURNMENT

Motion: Gates moved, seconded by Monahan to adjourn.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.

https://www.cityofgalena.org/documents/filelibrary/side_tabs/agendas__minutes/zoning_board_agenda/2023/Zoning_Agenda_121323_BA8EC50B667A3.pdf