[PAGE 1]
Plan Commission
Minutes of the Meeting on
March 19, 2026
Village of Homer Glen
14240 W 151st Street, Homer Glen, IL 60491
Village Board Room

[PAGE 2]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
1. Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:01pm by Chairman Hand.
2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Pledge was led by Commissioner Marshall.
3. Roll Call.
Present: Commissioner Foley, Chairman Hand, Commissioner Stanly, Commissioner Mesaf,
Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Marshall, Planning Director Gruba, Senior Planner Udarbe,
and Assistant Planner Kahn.
Members absent: Vice Chair McGary
4. Approval of Amendments to the Agenda
None.
5. Approval of the Agenda
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to approve the agenda as presented which was
seconded by Commissioner Lyons. A voice vote was taken, all were in favor, zero (0) opposed
and the motion carried.
6. Minutes.
a) March 5, 2026: Commissioner Foley made a motion to approve the minutes, which was
seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A voice vote was taken, all were in favor, zero (0)
opposed and the motion carried.
7. Public Comment.
Commissioner Hand asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak on anything that was
not on the agenda. There were no public comments related to items not on the agenda.
8. New Business and Possible Action
a) Case No. HG-2602-APUD: Marian Village (Public Hearing): A request for
approval of a Major Change to a PUD (Amended and Restated Final Planned Unit
Development Plat of Messenger Glen Amended No. 4) to permit the new location
of the Maintenance Building for certain real property located in the C-3 General
Business District at 15624 S. Marian Dr, Homer Glen, Illinois (PIN: 16-05-15-401-
003-0000).
Planner Udarbe introduced the case and stated that this is a request for approval of a major
change to a PUD and Preliminary Final PUD Plat. On behalf of Franciscan Ministries, the applicant
and project manager Ryan Sullivan is proposing to build a 48’ x 36’ (1,728 sf) maintenance
building with hybrid steel siding. The previous building was demolished due to the recently
expanded memory care units. The proposed building would have a smaller footprint than the
previous one while the access drive is increasing. Staff members received 2 calls from residents,
but they did not have any concerns.
Planner Udarbe included some history of the property including the clubhouse PUD amendment
from ORD 15-02. In 2017, the Village codified text amendments that changed where long-term
care facilities had been permitted with a Special Use Permit in C-2 & C-3 to only permitted with a
2 | P a g e

[PAGE 3]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
Special Use Permit in the P-1 District. Finally, in 2021, the Village granted an ordinance for a PUD
amendment for the memory care units under ORD21-025.
For Zoning Regulations, this case requires an amended PUD Plat, which triggers a major PUD
change; this request is for the maintenance building to be an exception to the existing blanket
easement. Site plan review was waived by the Zoning Officer because it is an accessory structure,
so no action is required from the Plan Commission for the site plan. Exterior materials would need
to be approved by the Village Board. If approved by the Board, the Village would require that the
final Plat to be recorded with the county.
Chairman Hand asked for clarity on the Blanket Easement and Planner Udarbe explained they
could review the history on the easement, but that the easement requires a Major Change to the
PUD. The proposed building would not alter the concept or intent of the PUD. The site has a
blanket easement, and the building would be an exception to the blanket easement on the
Amended PUD Plat (which does change the governing documents of that PUD). No engineering
issues came up for the Plat. Outdoor Lighting requirements do apply since the proposal includes
one building-mounted exterior light which is fully compliant.
Commissioner Lyons made a motion to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall. A voice vote was taken, all voting in favor, zero (0) opposed. The public hearing was
opened.
Petitioner Comment:
Ryan Sullivan said that Marian Village is trying to build a maintenance building on the property
and he was available for any questions.
Public Comment: No public comment.
Plan Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Marshall asked about the materials of the previous building. Ryan Sullivan said
that they are the same material because it will be constructed by the same company.
Commissioner Marshal noted this was likely okay since the material was approved before.
Planner Udarbe noted that the Messenger Glen PUD was approved with Will County before the
Village incorporated. She also noted that according to the PUD plat, the blanket easement is for
ingress/egress water and many different types of utilities (sanitary sewer, ComEd). Chairman
Hand confirmed that all those buildings are an exception to the blanket easement (ETBE). Director
Gruba said that it seems extreme that an accessory structure would be a Major Change to the
PUD, but a change to the Plat triggers a Major Change to the PUD.
Commissioner Lyons asked if they want to build further, would this be another zoning case with
a changed Planned Development. Planner Udarbe said that this would be an exception to a
blanket easement. Director Gruba said that if they are changing structures, then this would be a
Major Change to the PUD.
Director Gruba spoke with the Village attorney, and he suggested that before the Commission
votes on the item, the Commissioners should read through each Findings of Fact and reach a
consensus. If any Commissioners believe that the Findings are not met, then we will record that.
If the Commissioners do not agree with the standards, they should vote against the project.
Director Gruba read each of the 10 Standards for Planned Unit Development, and the
commissioners agreed with every standard.
3 | P a g e

[PAGE 4]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Lyons. A voice vote was taken, all voting in favor, zero (0) opposed. The public hearing was
closed.
Motions for Consideration
Findings of Fact
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to recommend approval of staff’s findings of facts, seconded
by Commissioner Foley, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and staff report,
for certain real property located in the C-3 General Business District at 15624 S. Marian Dr, Homer
Glen, Illinois [HG-2602-APUD]. The motion carries 6-0.
[1] SUP for Major Change to PUD
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to recommend approval, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, of a Major Change to a PUD to permit the new location of the Maintenance Building, in
accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and staff report, for certain real property
located in the C-3 General Business District at 15624 S. Marian Dr, Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-
2602-APUD]. The motion carries 6-0.
[2] Preliminary/Final PUD Plat
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to recommend approval, seconded by Commissioner Mesaf,
of a Preliminary/Final PUD Plat (Amended and Restated Final Planned Unit Development Plat of
Messenger Glen Amended No. 4) to permit the new location of the Maintenance Building, in
accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and staff report, for certain real property
located in the C-3 General Business District at 15624 S. Marian Dr, Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-
2602-APUD]. The motion carries 6-0.
This case will go to the Village Board on Wednesday, April 8, 2026 for final action.
a) Case No. HG-2606-V: Orland Oak Shopping Center (Public Hearing): A request
for approval of a Variance to permit a multitenant sign with twelve (12) tenant panels
where no more than six (6) are permitted for certain real property located in the C-1
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District at the common address 13033 W. 143rd
Street, Homer Glen, Illinois (PINs: 16-05-11-200-028-0000, 16-05-11-200-029-0000,
& 16-05-11-200-030-0000).
Planner Udarbe introduced the case for a sign variance for 12 tenant panels where no more than
6 are permitted in the Orland Oak Shopping Center. Kenny Atieh, the applicant and property
manager, has retroactively applied for the variance. One of the tenants called to ask staff about
the case, and the tenant said that they have no issues or concerns. On April 9, 2024, staff noticed
work without a permit with the added tenant panel, one of which had a typo. Staff notified the
owner that they needed to immediately remedy the sign with the condition that they should restore
it in 30 days or apply for an additional monument sign 300’ away from the existing sign. They
applied for a permit on Sept 3, 2024, proposing to restore the tenant panels. The building permit
expired after a year. The monument sign was granted variances in 2013 for height, sign face/copy,
number of tenant panels, and materials under ORD13-059. The applicant reconfigured the 12
4 | P a g e

[PAGE 5]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
tenant panels within the same size as the 6-tenant panel sign; so, the size of the sign has not
changed.
Commissioner Marshall made a motion to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Mesaf. A voice vote was taken, all voting in favor, zero (0) opposed. The public hearing was
opened.
Petitioner Comment:
The petitioner was not present.
Public Comment: None.
Plan Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Stanly asked if the plan was approved. Planner Udarbe said that the plan to restore
the sign (with 6 tenant panels) was approved. Commissioner Marshall asked if it exists today and
noted that we approved a monument sign before with more than 6 panels, across the street.
Commissioner Marshall asked if we require the signs to be uniform with all the tenants. Planner
Udarbe said that those other signs were newly built with a new site plan. Planner Udarbe added
that the variance standards do not consider hardships to be financial in nature.
Chairman Hand asked why 6 tenant panels were originally selected as the maximum in the code
and shared that this sign looks cluttered. Director Gruba said that a limit to the number of panels
allows the sign to be easily seen from the road. Commissioner Foley mentioned that all those
businesses would want their names on the sign. Commissioner Foley said that the sign is difficult
to read and too busy. Commissioner Stanly said he would prefer 8 tenant panels instead of 12.
Commissioner Lyons asked if there is a limit to colors on the sign. Director Gruba mentioned the
design standards in the Zoning Code where each business can have different colors for
monument sign panels.
The Commissioners reviewed each of the Standards for Variances. See the votes in bold
under each standard:
1. The Plan Commission shall not vary the provisions of this Ordinance as authorized unless
it has made findings based upon the evidence presented to it in the following cases:
(a) That the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zone.
Staff cannot determine if the subject property could or could not yield a reasonable
return. If permitted only under the conditions allowed by the regulations of § 220-
1005: Signs, an additional monument sign must be installed on the subject
property 300’ from the existing sign. This would allow 12 tenant’s names to be
displayed with 6 panels permitted on each sign.
Planner Udarbe said that originally, the business owner did not obtain a permit. In 2012, the
applicant received a variance from 4 to 6 panels. Then, the owner installed 12 panels with the
typo. Planner Udarbe mentioned that they used the same structure, and Chairman Hand added
that sign did not get bigger. Commissioner Stanly asked if the “Orland Oak Shopping Center”
letters could go on the vertical part of the sign so that there is more space for 12 tenant panels.
Planner Udarbe said that signs aren’t allowed on posts. Commissioner Lyons asked if the sign
could have 6 tenants on one side and the rest of the 6 tenants on the other side. Director Gruba
5 | P a g e

[PAGE 6]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
said that this would still be 6 tenant panels per side. Planner Udarbe mentioned that the alternative
would be constructing a new ground sign.
Commissioners came to a consensus and agreed this standard had been met.
(b) That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
The hardship is due to the unique circumstance of the subject property’s 12 tenant
building being served by an existing multi-tenant sign, which is permitted a
maximum of 6 tenant panels by right.
The commissioners were not in consensus that this standard was met with
Commissioners Foley, Stanly, and Marshall in disagreement and Commissioners Hand,
Lyons, and Mesaf in agreement.
(c) That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The Variance, if granted, likely will not alter the essential character of the locality
as the sign structure is not changing and the additional tenant panels have already
been installed.
Commissioners came to a consensus and agreed this standard had been met.
2. A variance shall be recommended to the Village Board only if the evidence, in the
judgment of the Plan Commission, sustains each of the three conditions enumerated in
Subsection C(1).
3. For the purpose of supplementing the above standards, the Plan Commission, in making
its determination, shall also take into consideration the extent to which the following
facts, favorable to the applicant, have been established by the evidence:
(a) That the particular surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific
property involved will bring a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished
from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations was carried out.
The current condition of the subject property’s 12 tenant building being served by
an existing multi-tenant sign, which is permitted a maximum of 6 tenant panels by
right, is creating a particular hardship upon the owner. Strict enforcement of the
ordinance would require a new ground sign be constructed on site at least 300’
from the existing sign. As the Orland Oak site sits around 6’ below the grade of
143rd Street, it is likely that this topographic hardship had warranted the approval
of the sign variances to increase height and size of the existing sign. Based on
this, it is possible that a new ground sign having to meet the maximum 15’ height
could face similar hardship with visibility due to topography.
The commissioners were not in consensus that this standard was met with
Commissioners Foley and Stanly in disagreement and Commissioners Hand, Lyons,
Marshall and Mesaf in agreement.
(b) That the conditions upon which the petition for variance is based would not be
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
6 | P a g e

[PAGE 7]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
While the subject property is unique, the physical topography may limit viable sites
for an additional ground sign to support the additional 6 tenants not permitted on
the existing sign. It may not be uncommon that commercial properties have more
than 6 tenants on a single site.
Commissioner Consensus for 3b: 5-1 with disagree (Commissioner Stanly) and agree
(Commissioners Hand, Lyons, Mesaf, Marshall, and Foley)
(c) That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively based upon a desire to make
more money out of the property.
The purpose of the variance is not exclusively based upon a desire to make more
money out of the property but to increase visibility of tenants on site.
Commissioner Consensus for 3c: 6-0, all in agreement.
(d) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person
presently having an interest in the property.
The topographical hardship that may hinder an additional ground sign on site was
not created by any person having interest in the property. The extra sign panels
were installed without permits and this retroactive variance is to allow them to
remain.
Commissioner Consensus for 3d: 3-3 with disagree (Commissioner Foley, Stanly, and
Marshall) and agree (Commissioners Hand, Lyons, and Mesaf)
(e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
unduly injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which
the property is located.
The variance would not harm public welfare or neighboring properties.
Commissioner Consensus for 3e: 6-0, all in agreement.
(f) That the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of any proposed structure
will not be so at Variance with the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan
of the structures already constructed, or in the course of construction in the
immediate neighborhood or the character of the applicable district, as to cause a
substantial depreciation in the property values within the neighborhood.
The existing sign structure was granted a variance (OR13-059) to allow the
aluminum materials, and the sign structure has not changed.
Commissioner Consensus for 3f: 6-0, all in agreement.
(g) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of air to adjacent
property, substantially increase the danger of fire, otherwise endanger the public
safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
7 | P a g e

[PAGE 8]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of air to adjacent
property, substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public
safety. Staff has no opinion on property values.
Commissioner Consensus for 3g: 6-0, all in agreement.
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Lyons. A voice vote was taken, all voting in favor, zero (0) opposed. The public hearing was
closed.
Motions for Consideration
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to recommend approval seconded by Commissioner Mesaf,
of a Variance to permit a multitenant sign with twelve (12) tenant panels where no more than six
(6) are permitted, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and staff report, for
certain real property located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District at the common
address 13033 W. 143rd Street, Homer Glen, Illinois [Case No. HG-2606-V]. The motion was
denied 3-3.
Commissioner Stanly made a motion to recommend approval of staff’s findings of facts, seconded
by Commissioner Lyons, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and staff report,
located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District at the common address 13033 W.
143rd Street, Homer Glen, Illinois [Case No. HG-2606-V]. The motion carries 6-0.
This case will go to the Village Board on Wednesday, April 8, 2026 for final action.
b) Case No. HG-2604-A: Various text amendments: A request for approval of several
minor text amendments to Chapter 220, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of Homer
Glen including the following Attachments and Articles:
• Attachment 1: Use and Bulk Tables for Residential Districts
• Attachment 2: Use and Bulk Tables for Nonresidential Districts
• Article III: Rules & Definitions
• Article VII: Nonresidential Districts
• Article VIII: General Provisions
• Article X: Site Development Regulations
The hearing was kept open from the March 5, 2026 meeting.
Director Gruba explained updates to the text amendments based on the March 5, 2026 meeting.
The consensus for motor vehicles was to remove the Special Use Permit in C-3 for vehicles over
10,000 lbs. We reached a consensus on banks, and the Planners provided updates to the EV
Charging Stations.
1. Changes to the Use and Bulk Tables for Residential and Nonresidential Districts:
a) Thrift Stores permitted in C-1, C-2, and C-3. All Commissioners agree.
b) Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS’s) allowed in I-1 with a Special Use
Permit. All Commissioners agree.
Planner Udarbe explained that we added the missing use of BESS’s to the Use and Bulk Table
and added a definition to differentiate BESS’s from other utilities.
8 | P a g e

[PAGE 9]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
c) Consolidating and clarifying uses for motor vehicles. All Commissioners agree.
• March 5, 2026 Consensus: For over 10,000lbs vehicles, take out SUP in
C-3
Director Gruba explained that he added definitions for automobile sales because new car dealers
also sell used cars. For new car dealers, at least 2/3 of merchandise must be new cars. We
removed vehicles over 5 tons so it’s only in the I-1 District. We separated automobile sales indoor
and outdoor. Finally, vehicle towing services need to be on a paved lot.
d) Separate and reorder the following uses that are currently combined: Boats,
campers, mobile homes, manufactured homes, motorcycle, and recreational
van sales, rental and service. All Commissioners agree.
Director Gruba said that we grouped manufactured homes with campers and trailers. We added
a category for aquatic boats.
e) Separate permitted Contractor or building trade office from storage yards,
which will require a Special Use Permit. All Commissioners agree.
Planner Udarbe explained that we separated contractor or building trade office from storage yard.
We added a definition for a contractor yard itself and clarified that it needs to be accessory to a
permanent building or office on site. We also changed the contractor or building trade storage
yard with screening requirements. Contractor offices are permitted by right, but the storage yards
that are associated with an office are a special use in the industrial district.
f) Change Crematoriums from by-right in the C-2 and C-3 zone districts to I-1
(industrial) with a Special Use Permit. All Commissioners agree.
g) Change Banks or financial institutions from by-right in C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and
C-5 zone districts to allowed in C-2 and C-3 with a Special Use Permit OR not
permitted at all in C-2 & C-3.
• Consensus: Commission recommends option 1, banks need SUP in C-2 &
C-3 and permitted in C-1. All Commissioners agree.
Director Gruba shared that right now banks are permitted in every zone district by right.
Commissioners agreed that banks need a special use permit in C-2 & C-3 and permitted in C-1.
h) Permit Body piercing establishments as an accessory use (it’s currently only
permitted as a primary use). All Commissioners agree.
Planner Kahn shared that body piercing establishments may be an accessory use.
2. Allow gas station pump spaces and EV Charging station spaces to count as parking
spaces toward parking requirements (as long as they are 9’ x 19’). All Commissioners
agree.
Planner Udarbe shared that gas pumps and EV charging stations would count as parking spaces.
3. Clarify requirements for hours of operation in §220-711(A)(11). All Commissioners agree.
9 | P a g e

[PAGE 10]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
Planner Kahn stated that we clarified the hours of operation for extend hours and 24-hours. Valid
liquor license holders would not need a separate special use permit if they are operating outside
of normal business hours from 6am till 11pm.
4. Address Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations in the Zoning Ordinance.
a) Consensus: Allow max of 6 EV charging parking stalls and amend
landscape/screening requirements
Director Gruba reviewed the changes made between after the last meeting. If multi-family or
attached single-family residences wanted EV Charging Stations, then they would need a special
use permit from the Plan Commission and Board.
Director Gruba explained that EV stations would not be permitted in front and corner side yards
(corner side yards were not mentioned last meeting). Director Gruba shared that we recommend
reducing the maximum ancillary equipment height from 9’ to 8’. Planner Udarbe said the height
for the EV charging stations proposed at Culver’s are 6’-10” while the maximum height of the
electrical equipment/panels is 8’; the electrical engineer working for Culver’s said that 8’ is the
tallest EV electrical equipment he has encountered. Director Gruba shared that any equipment
taller than 8’ would require a variance.
Director Gruba mentioned permitting pavement stencils for EV charging spots and allowing the
stalls to be painted solid green to reserve these for electric cars. Director Gruba shared that
screening would be required in all instances (even if it’s in the center of the parking lot). Director
recommended 1 tree required per charger/electrical equipment (instead of 2), and applicants
would need to provide a timeline for tree installation. The applicant would have to submit a
landscape plan and work with the Zoning Officer to decide on the location for the trees. The Zoning
Officer could waive landscaping if it is not possible.
Commissioner Lyons asked if there would be an inspection before they could start operating the
chargers. Director Gruba said that applicants would have to plant trees within 360 days of
installing the chargers. There will be an inspection once the chargers are installed.
Director Gruba said that we clarified that fencing cannot exceed 6’ for screening unless reviewed
by the Plan Commission. The electrical equipment could not be taller than the fence or
landscaping. Previously, display screens were prohibited, but Director Gruba said that we
changed the display screens to one-half square foot instead.
Commissioner Lyons asked for clarity on the advertising screens. Director Gruba said that
advertising bright screens would not be permitted. Planner Udarbe said that applicant can
blackout the screen and put a sign with instructions and a pay terminal instead.
Chairman Hand asked to see the renderings. Planner Udarbe showed the architectural rendering
of the proposed EV site at Culver’s and noted the transformer height is determined by ComEd.
Planner Udarbe shared other sites that were installed in different communities. They are required
to post signs stating, “EV Chargers Only”.
Director Gruba summarized that EV stations can’t be in the front yard or corner side yard,
applicants must plant 1 tree for every charger and provide a landscape plan. If the applicant
decides to screen electrical panel with a fence that is over 6’, then they would request a variance
before the Plan Commission.
10 | P a g e

[PAGE 11]
Plan Commission March 19, 2026
Chairman Hand mentioned that for Culver’s, the disconnect is along the retaining wall. Director
Gruba said that the Zoning Officer would advise the applicant on where to plant a tree or screen
the equipment with a fence. Director Gruba clarified that a 6’ fence would be permitted.
Commissioner Lyons thinks that the electrical access panels should always be behind a fence.
Planner Udarbe provided examples from other communities with a fence or landscaping.
Commissioner Lyons thinks that Culver’s would not have room for landscaping on-site. Lyons
mentioned that the EV chargers at Lockport’s Police Department have electrical equipment
underground; Planner Udarbe added that burying the electrical equipment would be very costly.
Chairman Hand said that they are installing new services with the electrical equipment. Planner
Udarbe showed an example of the EV stations in Roselle and that the equipment is encroaching
in the clear vision triangle. Planner Udarbe said that ComEd has not approved the final location
of the Culver’s EV transformer. Chairman Marshall asked if we are concerned about the screening
and aesthetics. Director Gruba said that if the panels are 8’, then it would come before the Plan
Commission. The equipment could not be higher than the fence.
Chairman Hand said that if we are letting the equipment be 8’, then the code should allow the
fence to be 8’. Chairman Hand said that he thinks that it’s not an ordinary fence.
Commissioner Lyons asked if there is a difference in regulations for commercial and residential.
Planner Udarbe said that for residential, the charger must be mounted on the house, within a
building, or integrated in the structure. For multifamily, it would be a special use permit for
freestanding structures. Director Gruba said that for EV Charging Stations in Hidden Valley or
Goodings Grove, this would be a special use because these would have more factors to consider.
Commissioners Lyons, Foley, and Hand agree that we should require fencing. Any fence higher
than 6’ would require Plan Commission review but not public hearing.
Consensus: Every EV charger needs a new tree planted, all electrical equipment requires a fence,
and any fence between 6’ to 8’ would require Plan Commission review.
Commissioner Foley said that he is fine with the green painted parking spot. Commissioner Lyons
asked what colors would be permitted for the stencil, and Director Gruba said that the stencil must
be white or yellow to align with Building Code. Planner Udarbe mentioned that the color of parking
stall lines needs to match all other stalls. Commissioner Marshall said that the stencils should not
have advertisements; Director Gruba added that the charging stations will already have signage
so no additional stencils would be needed.
Conditions of approval
1. Fencing is required for all ancillary electrical equipment, and any fencing between
6’ to 8’ requires Plan Commission review and approval.
2. No stencils on pavement
3. No landscaping required for ancillary electrical equipment
Commissioner Marshall made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Stanly. A voice vote was taken, all voting in favor, zero (0) opposed. The public hearing was
closed.
11 | P a g e