McHenry Times

City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission met Sept. 3

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Greenman at 7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

On roll call, commissioners, Jeff Greenman, Laura Dzielski, Stacy Mason, Kathy Repholz, and Al Skluzacek were present. Bill Gronow and Scott Smith were absent. Mr. Greenman confirmed that a quorum was present.

City Planner Elizabeth Maxwell was present from staff.

Mr. Greenman informed those in attendance that the meeting was being recorded for broadcast and future playback on the city's website. He led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVE 2026 MEETING SCHEDULE

Mr. Greenman took item number four (4). The Commission reviewed the dates for the 2026 meetings.

Ms. Repholz made a motion to approve the 2026 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Schedule.

Ms. Mason seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members vote aye. Motion passed.

APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 6, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Greenman moved back to item number three (3). He asked if everyone reviewed the minutes and asked for a motion.

Ms. Mason made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 6, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Ms. Dzielski seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. Motion passed.

2025-133 1021 MAYHAW DRIVE VARIATION

Variation to allow construction of a six-foot privacy fence extending 32 feet into the required 50-foot setback for a rear yard abutting a street.

The petitioner and property owner, Bryan Bellah, stated he was requesting the variation for safety and privacy concerns. He explained his property is a double frontage lot and that he has small children and a dog. He indicated a 4-foot fence would not provide the necessary security. He also noted drainage would not be impacted as water could flow under the fence and the existing trees would remain. 

Mr. Greenman opened up the public comment portion of the hearing. No one noted they wanted to speak and he closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

Mr. Greenman asked staff for a presentation.

Ms. Maxwell presented the staff report, she explained how the subject property includes an easement for tree conservation within the rear yard. The Tree Conservation Easement language states no principle or accessory structures are allowed within that easement unless approved by the City, and a fence would be considered an accessory structure. She stated that there is a 50-foot rear setback and the petitioner is asking for the variation to encroach into setback for a six-foot fence.

Mr. Greenman turned it over to the Commission.

Ms. Repholz asked for clarification on the Tree Conservation Easement. Staff responded that the easement prohibits structures within said easement. Ms. Repholz also questioned if the request was only due to fence height and if changing to a 4-foot fence would allow for no variation needed. Ms. Maxwell indicated that if the fence were 4-feet, the setback variation would not apply, but the Tree Conservation Easement (TCE) still would.

Ms. Repholz asked if the petitioner was aware of the Tree Conservation easement when purchasing the home. Mr. Bellah responded that he was not. Ms. Repholz also asked what the petitioner would do if the fence was kept outside of the easement or the variation request were to be denied. Mr. Bellah stated he likely would not install a fence at all. She would like to see it outside of the easement.

Ms. Mason asked if there were any alternative solutions that the petitioner has been considering. Mr. Bellah stated forestry or wire fencing would not provide adequate security and aesthetics that him and his family are looking for. Ms. Mason was looking at any impact to the neighbors, she felt the fence would not fit in. She understands he has small kids and asked how the request is tied to hardship standards. Mr. Bellah stated the hardship was safety, privacy and the double frontage lot.

Ms. Dzielski asked if other fences back up to River Birch Boulevard. Mr. Bellah stated he did not believe so.

Mr. Skluzacek said he had no problem with the request and if the owner was ok with the conditions of approval. He noted he was.

Mr. Greenman clarified the setbacks and noted the hardship lies in the double-frontage lot combined with the Tree Conservation Easement. He asked if wrought iron fencing was considered. Mr. Bellah said no, they prefer vinyl for privacy reasons. They need a hardship identified in the 6 standards.

Mr. Greenman asked staff if there were more comments. Ms. Maxwell noted the public hearing was not opened. He replied that he had. A man from the audience stated he did not know that they could ask questions.

Mr. Greenman reopened the public comment portion of the hearing. 

Mr. Steve Coleman, 1015 Mayhaw, asked why the easement was necessary given tree ordinances. He was under the impression that you could not remove trees. Ms. Maxwell responded that single family lots under three acres are exempt from the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Tree Conservation Easement (TCE) was created by the developer to protect and preserve trees in this area to act as a buffer from the road to the homes.

With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Greenman closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked for more comments from the Commission or a motion.

Ms. Repholz stated the Tree Conservation Easement exists to preserve neighborhood character and she could not support the request. Mr. Greenman agreed with this statement, and said that the Tree Conservation Easement serves a specific purpose.

Mr. Skluzacek made a motion to approve the requested fence variation to allow a 6-foot fence to encroach 32 feet into the required 50-foot yard abutting a street setback and in the Tree Conservation Easement with the following conditions:

1. Fence application and installation shall be consistent with the information and testimony provided by the petitioner in the hearing and the following provided documents:

A. Application (Bellah, 5/20/25)

B. Site Plan (Bellah, 8/1925)

C. Work Estimate (Aronson Fence, 5/20/25)

2. Comply with the requirements of Section 4-700B (Fences, walls and screening), except as provided for under this variation.

3. The petitioner shall address all review comments and requirements of the departments of Community Development and Public Works & Engineering.

Ms. Mason seconded the motion. On voice vote members Dzielski, Mason, and Skluzacek voted yes, Members Repholz and Greenman voted no. Motion passed 3-2.

2025-145 330 N. ROUTE 31 SILVER JADE CANNABIS DISPENSARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT

Special Use Permit to allow a Cannabis Dispensary.

The petitioner, Omar Fakhouri of Silver Jade LLC, presented the request for a Special Use Permit to open the dispensary under the Mint Cannabis Brand. He stated that the site meets is away from sensitive usesall buffer requirements, that his group operates in multiple states, and that he accepts all conditions listed by staff. The previous dispensary at this location closed.

Mr. Greenman asked about his dispensary experience. Mr. Fakhouri said Mint Cannabis operates in multiple states including Illinois, they have a good track record and their goal is to extend their growth to Crystal Lake. 

Mr. Greenman asked if the petitioner had any concerns about the conditions. Mr. Fakhouri had no concerns and stated their hours are 8 am to 10 pm.

Mr. Greenman opened the public comment portion of the public hearing.

Ms. Deborah Parquette, owner of Purrfect Cat Rescue, raised concerns about prior management allowing consumption of cannabis on site. She said they would buy the product and smoke outside. Her car would smell of cannabis. She asked what would be different under new management.

Mr. Greenman asked if she reported it. Ms. Parquette said she had not.

With no other public wishing to speak, Mr. Greenman closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

Mr. Greenman asked staff if they were aware of any police reports that were filed on prior management.

Ms. Maxwell responded that she was not aware of any formal reports, but noted that violations had been issued. A formal letter of violation was sent regarding special event that they had on the property noting they are in violation of their Special Use Permit. Ms. Maxwell also confirmed that consumption of cannabis in public outside is prohibited under state law. She also noted that this is new management.

Mr. Greenman asked the petitioner about smoking outside or on site consumption. Mr. Fakhouri confirmed a zero-tolerance approach and detailed security, which includes guards, cameras, and alarms.

Mr. Greenman also asked if the petitioner would be open to engaging with residents, and neighboring businesses near the property. Mr. Fakhouri responded that he wants to maintain positive relationships with neighbors.

Ms. Mason asked about semi-annual meetings with police, number 8 on the conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Maxwell stated they would confirm with the police chief, Mr. Fakhouri had no concerns.

Ms. Dzielski had no questions.

Mr. Skluzacek asked if the conditions were acceptable to the petitioner. Mr. Fakhouri responded he was okay with and accepts the conditions.

Ms. Repholz asked about his relationship to the business. Mr. Fahkouri stated that he is a consultant with experience in the cannabis industry and owner of store in Willowbrook, Illinois. Ms. Repholz asked who owns the subject property. Mr. Fahkouri explained that 330 N LLC owns the property and Silver Jade

LLC would be lease for three years. Ms. Repholz asked staff if a security plan was submitted. Ms. Maxwell said yes, that it was included in the narrative. Ms. Repholz inquired why the prior dispensary closed. Ms. Maxwell stated there was an abrupt closed due to management issues.

Mr. Greenman expressed how he had no issues with the request, noting conditions will ensure compliance.

He said that the previous cannabis dispensary met all the standards so this business also meets all those standards. He encouraged outreach to neighbors.

Ms. Repholz made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit to allow a Cannabis Establishment with the following conditions: 

1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:

A. Application (Silver Jade LLC, received 08/11/25)

B. Narrative (330N LLC and Silver Jade, LLC, undated, received 08/11/25)

C. Site Plan (Architects 127, dated 12/17/21, received 08/11/25)

D. Floor Plan (Steep Architecture Studio, dated 12/16/21, received 08/11/25)

E. Elevations (Architects 127, dated 12/17/21, received 08/11/25)

2. Significant modifications to the business operation shall require a Special Use Permit Amendment.

3. Work with staff to provide landscape on the site along the building and around the sign if there is any dead or missing landscape.

4. The windows must be covered with an opaque film frosted, or solid grey or white

5. No Authorization of Work. This Ordinance does not authorize commencement of any work on the Subject Property. Except as otherwise specifically provided in writing in advance by the City, no work of any kind shall be commenced on the Subject Property pursuant to the approvals granted in this Ordinance except only after all permits, approvals, and other authorizations for such work have been properly applied for, paid for, and granted in accordance with applicable law.

6. Compliance with Laws. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Ordinance, the UDO and City Code and all other applicable ordinances and regulations of the City shall continue to apply to the Proposed Use and the Subject Property. The development and use of the Subject Property shall be in compliance with the Act and all laws and regulations of all other state and local governments and agencies having jurisdiction.

7. No On-Site Consumption. No cannabis or products that include cannabis (including cannabis infused products) may be consumed on the Subject Property. The Applicant shall be required to patrol the Subject Property to ensure compliance with this provision.

8. Staffing; Coordination with Police Department. The Proposed Use shall prohibit loitering on or around the premises. Staffing and security procedures shall be consistent with the Application Plans. In addition, the Applicant or Applicant's agents shall meet semi-annually with the Crystal Lake Police Department to review security plans and procedures for the Proposed Use, which plans and procedures may be modified or supplemented by written order of the Police Chief in conjunction with such semiannual meeting, provided that any such written orders are not inconsistent with this Ordinance, the Act, or applicable State regulations or licensing requirements.

9. Hours of Operation. The Proposed Use may be open for business operations only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

10. No Drive-Through Operations. Unless approved by further ordinance of the City Council, no drivethrough operations shall be permitted on the Subject Property. 

11. Transferees. The rights and obligations set forth in this Ordinance are binding on Applicant and upon any and all of their heirs, successors, and assigns, and upon any and all successor legal or beneficial owners of all or any portion of the Subject Property.

12. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of the Community Development Department.

Ms. Mason seconded the motion. On voice vote members Dzielski, Mason, Repholz, Skluzacek, Greenman voted yes. Motion passed 5-0.

REPORT FROM PLANNING

Staff noted the recent City Council approvals and announced that there are no agenda items for the September 17, 2025 meeting, and it will be cancelled. Mr. Greenman asked about the joint workshop.

The working session will include discussion on housing, signage, and a neighborhood pattern book.

COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION

No comments.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Skluzacek made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mason seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. 

https://www.crystallake.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24509/638932915927070000