City of Harvard Planning & Zoning Commission met Dec. 2
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
Chairman Grieshop called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. City Clerk Logan called roll to establish a quorum. Commission members present: Mike Grieshop, J Albertson, Steve Creviston, Paul Hereley, Joshua Licht, Elvis Patnaude, and Hector Sandoval. A quorum was present. Also present were City Administrator Bejot, Code Enforcement Officer Nutley, Public Works Director Lamz, Director of Utilities Rousey, City Attorney Walters, and members of the audience.
Public Comment
Commissioner Grieshop opened the floor for public comment on matters not related to the hearings being presented. There were no comments from the audience.
Approve Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2025
A motion was made by Commissioner Albertson, seconded by Commissioner Patnaude to approve the minutes of October 7, 2025. Roll Call Vote: Albertson, aye; Creviston, aye; Grieshop, aye; Hereley, aye; Licht, aye; Patnaude, aye; and Sandoval, aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
Open Hearing – Cunat Inc.
Chairman Grieshop opened the scheduled public hearing for the petition submitted by Cunat Inc. He read the formal description:
“The Petitioner, Cunat Inc., along with Steve Aavang, property owner, are seeking a zoning map amendment pursuant to Section 14.2 of the Harvard Unified Development Ordinance to rezone property from RA, Residential Agriculture, to R6, Multifamily Residential District, for the purpose of constructing a Class A apartment complex.”
The subject property was identified as being located in Chemung Township, commonly known as Lonesome Road, Harvard, Illinois, with PIN 01-27-400-010.
City Clerk Logan confirmed that all statutory requirements had been met: the notice of hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 5, 2025; certified notices were mailed to property owners within 250 feet on November 5, 2025; and all required documents were entered into the record.
Staff Reports
Code Enforcement Officer Nutley presented the staff analysis. She explained that the parcel was currently zoned RA (Residential Agriculture), which had been rezoned from R3 (Single, Two-Family, and Multifamily) during the 2018 adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance. The petitioner was requesting to rezone the property back to R6 (Multifamily Residential) to construct a Class A apartment complex. She noted that staff had evaluated the criteria under Section 14.2(E)(1) of the Unified Development Ordinance, and the findings were summarized on page 3 of the staff report.
City Attorney Walters (Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle) addressed the Commission to clarify their role. He emphasized: “I do want to point out and remind you that what you’re looking at tonight is whether it is appropriate to make the recommendation to rezone from RA to R6. You are not voting on this particular project tonight.”
Attorney Walters stressed that while Mr. Cunat was presenting details of his proposal, the Commission’s decision pertained solely to the zoning classification, not project approval.
Public Hearing Pursuant to Section 15.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance
John Cunat, owner of Cunat Inc. (6102 Chickaloon Drive, McHenry), was sworn in. He stated that they are proposing approximately 330 apartment units on 26-28 acres. The property had previously been zoned multifamily and was currently zoned Residential Agriculture (RA). The proposed development included 110 garages, approximately 660 parking spaces, and a multipurpose building containing pools, a workout center, and rental offices.
Mr. Cunat stated that the apartments would be full market-rate units with no subsidies. He reported that the plan included a 100-foot landscape berm on the north side and a 70-foot berm on the east side, along with the planting of 70-100 additional trees. He stated that they are not requesting any fee reductions or exceptions related to permit, school, park, or fire district fees.
Mr. Cunat stated that rental qualification would generally require tenants’ rent payments to be approximately 30% of income. He noted that their existing Northfield Court Apartments were recently refinanced with an additional $2.5 million for improvements and were currently at 100% occupancy. He estimated that the completed project would generate approximately $426,000 annually in tax revenue for the school district, compared to the roughly $400 generated by the vacant land. Based on state estimates, the petitioner anticipated approximately 67 students from birth to age 18.
He reiterated that the proposed development would be market-rate housing with no subsidies and stated that the petitioner would pay all standard permit, school, park, and fire department fees without requesting reductions. He described the project as an approximately 330-unit development intended to help meet local housing demand. No additional oversight mechanisms or performance metrics were discussed beyond the standard City development review processes.
Discussion/Questions by Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Commissioner Albertson asked why the property was not zoned R6 during the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) restructuring. Neither the petitioner nor staff provided a definitive explanation, though it was suggested that the change may have been related to a TIF district. Commissioner Albertson also noted that the proposal appeared to be 33 parking spaces short based on the requirement of one visitor space per ten dwelling units. Mr. Cunat stated, “Then we would add 33 spaces. Not a problem.”
In response to questions about meetings with City officials, Mr. Cunat confirmed that the petitioner had met with the Police Department to review police call data. He reported that their Northfield Court property had “significantly less” police calls per capita than approximately 250 single-family homes. Commissioner Patnaude asked about the capacity of the electrical grid to support the development. Mr. Cunat stated that while 300 units would require substantial electrical service, he did not believe it would “shut the grid down,” and noted that ComEd would bring transformers as needed.
Commissioners also asked for clarification regarding the landscape berms. Mr. Cunat stated that the berms would average 6-10 feet in height with a 100-foot depth on the north side, noting that this area accommodates an existing east-west-running creek on the property.
Public Comment
Scott Schlendorf (Oak Grove Crossing, Harvard, IL)
• Stated he was not an official representative but believed he spoke for many residents of Oak Grove Crossing.
• Challenged portions of the staff analysis, stating that only 27.2% of the property boundaries were compatible with surrounding zoning.
• Expressed concern about the absence of retention ponds, noting that Northfield Road floods Lonesome Rd. during heavy rains and that storm sewer manhole covers have blown off due to excess at water pressure.
• Questioned the student impact estimates and cited information he said came from the school district president: elementary schools at mid-80% capacity, Harvard Junior High at 97%, and Harvard High School at 67% capacity but lacking adequate lab space.
• Cited state proficiency data, stating Harvard schools had 6% math proficiency (state average 27%) and 11% reading proficiency (state average 30%).
• Argued the proposed development was not consistent with area trends, noting nearby multifamily developments were 24–33 years old.
• Suggested the area would be more appropriate for R2, R3, or R4 zoning.
• Questioned the petitioner’s statement about no subsidies, stating that “all 15 Cunat apartment buildings in McHenry County accept subsidies.”
Joe Pienta (Oak Grove Crossing, Harvard, IL)
• Stated residents were not opposed to development but opposed rezoning for multi-story apartments.
• Expressed concern that apartment tenants “pay zero property taxes” and questioned whether the City preferred a homeowner-based or rental-based community.
John Lavallee (1607 Wildflower, Harvard, IL)
• Provided background on the 2016 CMAP Comprehensive Land Use Plan and subsequent UDO adoption.
• Noted that when the City was rezoned, eight locations were changed to RA because they were inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
• Stated the petitioner had 20 years to develop the property under R3 but did not and questioned the urgency after 7 years of RA zoning.
• Cited data indicating 40% renter-occupied households in Harvard compared to 19% countywide, stating the proposed development would increase that imbalance.
Rick Roberts (1905 Cherry Lane, Harvard, IL)
• Expressed concern about the perceived rapid timeline ofthe petition review.
• Supported development in general but not a 300-unit apartment complex in an area already containing multifamily housing.
• Referenced the City’s long-term plan which, he stated, did not designate the area for multifamily use.
Dr. Brandon White, Superintendent, Harvard School District 50
• Stated the district supports housing growth and seeks collaboration with the City.
• Reported capacity challenges: junior high operating at approximately 92% utilization, with other schools also near capacity.
• Estimated that an additional 100 plus students would push districtwide utilization above 90%, requiring significant planning and adjustments.
• Stressed the need for early communication, stating that when the district is brought in late, maintaining educational quality becomes more difficult.
Amy Dapper (302 W. Burbank Street, Harvard, IL)
• Expressed concern that the proposal was “too dense for that area.”
• Suggested considering a 55-and-over development as an alternative that would reduce school district impacts.
Jennifer Garafol (Oak Grove Crossing)
• Challenged the petitioner’s police call statistics, stating that between January 1 and November 3, 2025, there were 231 calls for service at Northfield Court Apartments.
• Reported that a FOIA request showed 45 calls for service at three Cunat properties in Woodstock during the same period.
• Stated that Cunat properties are well-known in law enforcement circles.
Todd Streit (Poplar Grove; former Oak Grove Crossing resident; VP of Hartwig Mechanical)
• Spoke in support of the petitioner.
• Reported positive experiences working on Cunat projects in Volo and McHenry, stating the developments improved those communities and that amenities were well maintained.
• Acknowledged public concerns but believed the developer would complete a quality project consistent with City requirements.
Lori Danczyk (1209 Willow Lane, Harvard, IL)
• Stated she had seen several Cunat properties decline in condition over time.
• Questioned the no-subsidies claim, stating properties cannot legally refuse applicants based on subsidy status.
Joe Gerdes (1203 Magnolia Street, Harvard, IL)
• Asked for clarification about the target market, stating earlier references to “Class A” units did not align with local income levels.
• Expressed concern the development would negatively impact property values in Oak Grove Crossing.
• Questioned whether renters of high-end apartments would choose schools that rank low on real estate metrics.
Christina Benitez (Woodstock; owns property in Harvard)
• Spoke in support of the development.
• Stated she had known Cunat for almost 30 years and believed their projects in Volo and McHenry added value to those communities.
• Noted that apartment housing often serves as a transitional stage toward homeownership and can benefit local businesses.
Cesar Pelayo (1204 Willow Lane, Harvard, IL)
• Expressed concern that the process felt rushed and that infrastructure issues-roadways, drainage, and school capacity-were not being adequately considered.
• Questioned the feasibility of adding 33 additional parking spaces, asking where they would be located.
Robert F. Dapper (302 W. Burbank Street, Harvard, IL)
• Raised traffic safety concerns, stating the development could add 660–690 additional vehicles to the area.
• Expressed concern that when Route 14 backs up, increased traffic would divert to Second Street, which he described as unsafe due to lack of sidewalks and high vehicle speeds.
• Emphasized risks to children walking to school in low-light conditions.
Cynthia Pelayo (1413 Sixth Street, Harvard, IL)
• Expressed concern that children living in the development may fall just under the distance threshold required for bus service but would still be too far to walk safely without sidewalks.
• Raised concerns about noise impacts and property maintenance, stating renters “don’t always take care of their property the same way.”
Additional Comments – Scott Schlendorf
• Returned to reiterate safety concerns regarding the Oak Grove retention ponds, referencing a past accidental drowning incident.
• Expressed concern about increased risk if the number of children in the area increases significantly.
Additional Comments by Petitioner
Mr. Cunat returned to address public comments. He reiterated the role of the Commission, stating that the petitioner was seeking a zoning change only and that any specific project proposal would ultimately be considered by the City Council. He stated: “Your job as the zoning board is to decide whether or not it could be rezoned.”
Mr. Cunat explained that during past blanket rezonings, properties typically reverted to the lowest-intensity zoning classification when unopposed, and that the RA designation was not intended solely for single-family use. He stated that several public comments were based on “guesswork” and defended the accuracy of the petitioner’s written materials, including police call data and student projections. He disputed estimates of 100-200 students, stating that such figures were inconsistent with their Illinois state projection of 67 students.
Regarding subsidized housing, Mr. Cunat stated: “We have no Section 8, nor do we have subsidized housing in 15 units.” In response to comments about police activity, he provided call numbers for Northfield Court: 156 calls in 2022, 223 in 2024, and 201 in 2025, and compared these to 605 calls attributed to approximately 250 single-family homes in 2024.
Vote on Petition
Commissioner Grieshop reminded the Commissioners not to “get mired in the details” and to focus on the zoning question, reiterating they were an advisory body to the City council.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hereley, seconded by Commissioner Licht to deny the zoning map amendment pursuant to Section 14.2 of the Harvard Unified Development Ordinance to rezone property from RA-Residential Agricultural to R-6 – Multi-Family Residential District for the purpose of constructing a Class A apartment complex. Attorney Walters clarified that a “yes” vote would be to deny the change and keep the current RA-Residential Agricultural zoning.
Roll call vote: Creviston, aye; Grieshop, aye; Hereley, aye; Licht, aye; Patnaude, aye; Sandoval, aye; and Albertson, aye. All ayes. The petition was denied unanimously.
Commissioner Grieshop informed the petition would come before the City Council on December 9, 2025, at 7:00 PM.
Clerk’s Report
City Clerk Logan reported that the rezoning petition would come before the City Council on Tuesday December 9th at 7:00 PM.
No items were scheduled for the January Planning & Zoning meeting.
Chairman Report
No Report
At 8:36 pm, a motion was made by Commissioner Patnaude, seconded by Commissioner Creviston to close the hearing. All ayes. Motion carried.
https://www.cityofharvard.org/media/27281
