Zoning Commission

Village of Brookfield Agenda Zoning Commission Meeting Monday, May 4, 2026 @ 6:00 PM Edward Barcal Hall 8820 Brookfield Avenue Brookfield, IL 60513 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of the Minutes of the 01.28.26 Workshop 01.28.26 Draft Zoning Commission Minutes 2. Approval of the Minutes of the 02.26.26 Worksshop 02.26.26 Draft Zoning Commission Minutes 3. Approval of the Minutes of the 03.19.26 Workshop 03.19.26 Draft Zoning Commission Minutes 4. Approval of the Minutes of the 03.26.26 Workshop 03.26.26 Draft Zoning Commission Minutes IV. Public Comment V. Old Business 1. Discussion of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment VI. New Business VII. Other Business 1. Report from Staff VIII. Adjournment Individuals with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in any meeting should contact the Village of Brookfield (708)485-7344 prior to the meeting. Wheelchair access may be gained through the police department (East) entrance of the Village Hall. Page 1 of 16 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 6:00 PM January 28, 2026 Attendance: Present: Evans, Grund, Miller, Sabourin, Straka Absent: Svoboda, Weber Also present at Meeting: Trustee Jennifer Hendricks, Community Development Director Libby Popovic, Building Division Manager Michelle Niemeyer, Interim Planner Scott Viger, Noah Rife Management Analyst and Arista Strungys Principal at Camiros Ltd. Oath of Office Noah Rife, Administrative Analyst for the Village administered the Oath of Office as Zoning Commissioner to those Planning and Zoning Commission members present. Public Comment No members of the public stepped forward to be heard. New Business Chair Grund opened the public meeting and asked for the staff presentation. Director Popovic introduced Arista Strungys, Principal at Camiros Ltd., to present the Zoning Code Public Draft 2.0. Ms. Strungys, using a PowerPoint briefly reviewed Draft 2.0 and the changes made since Draft 1.0. She began with a broad overview and the structure of the Code. Then touched on the high points of each individual Section. There are no changes to Articles 3 and 19. IN Article 4 she reviewed the new Residential Districts including the proposed Traditional Lot Standards. Article 5 deals with the Commercial Districts, Article 6 is the Statin Area Districts where we proposed reducing the number of Districts from six to two: Downtown Core and Downtown Transition. Article 7 is the two Industrial Districts and Article 8 houses the Special Purpose Districts, Open Space (OS) Institutional (INST) and Sexually Oriented Business Overlay. Article 9 is Uses. In the Article uses are tailored to the purpose of each district. We propose a modern generic use approach. Select uses include standards to control possible impacts and we now propose to list all use types, Principal, temporary and accessory in one table. Additionally, updates to Article 9 now clarifies several use definitions and added new language on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being allowed above detached garages. 1 Page 2 of 16 Article 10 deals with General Development Standards providing controls on exterior lighting, fences, mechanical equipment and performance standards among others. Article 11 is Accessory Structures and Article 12 is for Off – Street Parking and Loading. Even if the requirement for parking is eliminated, we will maintain the design standards for parking and loading. Article 13 is Landscape where we have added Purpose Statement, species diversity requirements, minimum planting sizes along with minor modifications to perimeter and interior parking lot plantings. Article 14 is where we added Signs into the Zoning Code. Article 15 Code Administrators, Article 16 Application Procedures and Article 17 Zoning Approvals have no substantive changes. Minor changes are proposed to Article 18, Nonconformities. Then A. Strungys reviewed the proposed Zoning Map and the few areas where the proposal rezones various properties. This includes the Equivalence Chart where the current districts are identified with the proposed nomenclature. Zoning Commission discussion Chair Grund mentioned the number of comments the members of the Commission made after the last Workshop meeting and that some were incorporated into Draft 2.0 and others were not. A. Strungys referred to the 17 page Memorandum prepared by Camiros Ltd. that provided answers to the Commission questions. She stands ready to discuss any the Commission would like to review. The discussion began with Trustee Liaison Henricks who questioned Table 1-1 on page 1.4 dealing with Use Transitions. Specifically, that Special Uses that become permitted would no longer be required to abide by the specific conditions attached to a Special Use approval. A. Strungys stated it becomes an equity issue as a newly created use would not be subject to the conditions previously attached to a similar use approved as a Special Use, but the previously approved use would. A general discussion ensued dealing with specific conditions on Special Uses with all Commissioners participating. Trustee Liaison Hendricks asked for a listing of current Special Uses that would become permitted. Staff di not have that information. Commissioner Sabourin asked about traditional lots and if and when they would be considered nonconforming lots. Lots of 3,000 square feet would be conforming, this under 3,000 square feet would remain nonconforming. He also asked for clarification of the nonconforming site elements. A. Strungys used lighting, landscaping and parking lot design as examples. 2 Page 3 of 16 A general discussion on the Definition section (Article 2) and why all the definitions aren’t in one spot. Some are in the Definitions section while others are in the Use section. A. Strungys explained that the definitions are general, and the Use section is meant to be all inclusive and self-contained. Commissioner Sabourin found it cumbersome. Chair Grund agreed but has seen Codes do it both ways. Chair Grund brought up the impervious surface requirements followed by a discussion on gravel areas. It was agreed to eliminate paragraph “G 3” on page 2 -16. On page 2- 17 Paragraph J deals with Lot Depth. Trustee Liaison Hendricks asked for more staff to look at these issues again. The Commission asked if the new Code would have hyperlinks for cross references. Staff will check with IT; the current Code does. Commissioner Sabourin asked about fences and specifically “open fence” definitions and A. Strungys agreed to amend the 60% open to 75% open. Commissioner Sabourin felt the Planned Development section needs to be revised, stating that a Planned Development was not a process. A. Strungys commented that under the proposed Code a Planned Development is in fact a process rather than a specific Special Use permit. A discussion followed on the principal building definition, Billboards, standpipe and paragraph N on page 2-20 dealing with sign area measurements. Commissioner Evans asked about the Zoning Map and that why some schools are Institutional, but S.A. Grove Middle School is not and that the parks are shown as Open Space, yet Madlin Park is shown as Residential. It was agreed that the map should be consistent. Chair Grund asked about the proposed “C-02 65” District at Congress Park. After a lengthy discussion with all participating, it was decided to reduce the area within the proposed District by eliminating the single depth lots on Ogden Avenue that abut single family homes. Additional discussions ensued regarding Table 4-1 section 4.4 dealing with front loaded garages and that the transparency in 4.4 would be changed from 10% to 15%and that the graphic pf the single family home will be changed. need to add language to the multiple family sections on page 4-6 and 4-7. A brief discussion on enumerating prohibited or permitted materials. It was decided to retain the listing of prohibited materials. 3 Page 4 of 16 Commissioner Sabourin moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously. The Zoning Commission was adjourned at 8:16 PM. 4 Page 5 of 16 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 6:00 PM February 26, 2026 Attendance: Present: Evans, Miller, Sabourin, Straka, Svoboda, Weber Absent: Grund Also present at Meeting: Trustee Jennifer Hendricks, Interim Planner Scott Viger, and Arista Strungys Principal at Camiros Ltd. Chair Pro Tem In the absence of Chair Grund, R. Evans moved and C. Straka seconded to appoint T. Svoboda the temporary Chair for tonight’s workshop. Motion passed unanimously. Oath of Office Scott Viger administered the Oath of Office as Zoning Commissioner to T. Svoboda and M. Weber. Public Comment No members of the public stepped forward to be heard. New Business Chair Pro Tem Svoboda opened the public meeting and asked for the staff presentation. Arista Strungys, Principal at Camiros Ltd., briefly recapped where the Commission left off at the prior workshop and suggested that we go directly to Commission questions and discussion. Zoning Commission discussion The discussion began at Article 5. Commercial Districts. Trustee Hendricks asked the Commission if they were comfortable with the Purpose statement for the new C-2 District (31st Street). The current purpose statement (C-4) references convenience shopping for residents in adjacent neighborhoods, with limited services for nonlocal traffic. The proposed language is a little softer saying to serve both residents of the Village and attract those within surrounding communities. After a brief discussion the language was decided to be acceptable. 1 Page 6 of 16 In Table 5-1 does the 10’ minimum setbacks jibe with Energize Ogden? A. Strungys, yes. C-2 65 has a 65’ height with no residential on the ground floor, do we want to prohibit residential on the ground floor. A. Strungys, we want to create a vibrancy around the transit stop and commercial on the ground floor is meant to assist with achieving that goal. A general discussion ensued regarding Mansard roofs. It was determined not to prohibit them. Article 6 Downtown Districts J. Henricks asked for an explanation of the Townhome requirements found in Table 6-1. S. Sabourin recommended that under §6.2 Uses we reference Table 9-1 (typical for all District sections). All agreed. A. Strungys reviewed the Townhome dimensional standards in Table 6-1. J. Hendricks asked that the image on Page 6-3 be clarified. A. Strungys agreed. This is also a comment on a number of drawings/images found in later sections. A. Strungys will review all the graphics for clarity. There were no questions or comments on Article 7 Industrial Districts. Article 8 Special Purpose and Overlay Districts. A Strungys responded that this section is verbatim from the existing Code and it was written by the Village Attorney. There was a question on §8.3 Sexually-Oriented Business Overlay District. The question specifically was about §8.3 B where various Court cases are cited. Also §8.3 D where specific properties are listed. Staff can ask the Village Attorney if these cases should remain in the new Code. Some commissioners wanted it to remain. J.Hendricks asked about schools as Institutional? R. Evans agreed that schools be zoned Institutional. Staff will make that change. Why is Kiwanis Park split between Institutional and Open Space? It is all one parcel, so we show it all as one Land Use. Parks are permitted in the Institutional District. Article 9 Uses K. Miller asked about the definition of Body Modification Establishment. Generally, tattoo and body piercing. J. Hendricks suggested moving the definitions to after the table and before the standards. A. Strungys and the Commission agreed. 2 Page 7 of 16 S. Sabourin asked about “Eating and Drinking Establishments” and if that was all encompassing? Dine in, carry out, bars, taverns, drive in versus drive through? A. Strungys, yes all encompassing. Drive through is an accessory use and requires a Special Use. A use like a Sonic (Drive In)? A. Strungys yes, it is a drive through. Drive In is a Drive Through. We will add it in the definition. J. Hendricks brought up catering facility. Can we differentiate it from eating and drinking? We can include catering in Specialty Food Service. Concern that we wouldn’t want a catering in downtown, it wouldn’t drive foot traffic. We also have added Commercial Kitchen. We can create a definition for catering separate from Commercial Catering. Discussion ensued, was determined to create a catering definition and prohibit it downtown but allow it in C1, C2 & C3. R. Evans, 47th Street (IMU District) would be ideal for caterer. A. Strungys agreed. Lengthy discussion on so-called sin uses and their separation from each other and schools. R. Evans 1,000’ separation for body modification establishments from each other. We have two such uses across the street from one another. Is 1,000’ enough? How is 1,000’ measured? A. Strungys, from lot line to lot line. S. Viger is it “as the crow flies” or does it follow rights of way? A. Strungys, from nearest to nearest. 1,000’ is basically two residential blocks. A. Evans cannabis 100’ from schools? Is that state statute or our Code? This is the current language. M. Weber, can we include parks? Is the Commission comfortable with 100’? T. Svoboda 500 to 1,000 might be better. Do we similarly limit liquor stores? No. Can we call out liquor stores as a use like cannabis dispensary? It could impact retail uses, such as Jewel, or convenience stores etc. The requirement for a liquor license is the Village’s control. S. Sabourin do not keep a cannabis dispensary in C-2 (31st Street). J. Hendricks disagreed. S. Sabourin can the Village limit the number of dispensary uses similar to liquor licenses? General discussion on the Special Use Permit standards. It was determined to leave dispensaries as a Special Use in C-2. Increase the distance from 100’ to 500’ to 1,000? Have staff look at these distances from the schools in the community. A use could seek a variation from the distance requirements. C. Straka 500’ sounds good,1,000 seems like a lot. The views of Body Modification 20 years ago are the views of Cannabis Dispensaries today. Tattoo shops were looked down on years ago now they are more of an art form. Currently, cannabis dispensaries are generally kept away from schools. J. Hendricks, we should include vape and smoke shops in the distance requirements. R. Evans, do we include vape and smoke shops currently? A. Strungys we can add 1,000’ separation from schools and day care centers. 3 Page 8 of 16 R. Evans, we need to carry over coffee roasters into the new Code. A. Strungys, that is not in our draft. Commission felt based on the history here in town, we should add it. Allow it as a Special Use in the Industrial Districts (IMU and IG). J. Hendricks, referring to the Use Table, we have amusement facility indoor and outdoor not be allowed in the Open Space and Institutional Districts, should we allow them in the parks? A. Strungys, these refer to commercial facilities (Dave & Busters, Top Golf) and our Parks definition is very broad so that revenue facilities (golf course etc.) would be permitted. Animal Care facility in downtown? Boarding etc. in the downtown? A. Strungys there is a requirement that animal exercise areas must be in the rear or covered. If the concern is outdoor area, we can break that out. S. Sabourin stated the uses should be segregated indoor, outdoor boarding. A. Strungys, so IMU (47th Street) for outdoor and all others indoors. Community Residences. Would it be appropriate in R-4 and downtown? Fair Housing considers these as single family, so we have them in the single family districts. Residential Care Facility only in Special Use in C-3 and Institutional, why not downtown and R-4? Cantata is R-4. A. Strungys we can add them to R-4 as Permitted, Special Use in DC. Walkable neighborhoods are good location for these uses. Discussion on Community Gardens. It was decided to retain them as permitted. Outdoor storage yard requires a “solid fence”. Chain link with slats is not a solid fence. General discussion on screening with plantings. Should plantings be on the inside or outside of the fence? A. Strungys recommends them being on the inside so that the planting can be maintained and the fence is the clear demarcation of properties. J. Hendricks felt if the plants were on the inside of the fence in industrial areas, the plants would not be maintained and would have limited benefits to the community. Can we have plantings to soften the fence along a street or alley. Code can be amended to include a 7.5 or 10’ setback for the fence with shrubs toward the street. Abutting residential uses the buffer yards will apply. Discussion on parking lot and parking structure as a principal use. Could be done along Ogden Avenue. Let’s take it out of the Open Space district, all agreed. Could it be solely municipal owned lots and structures? Village lot on 31st Street. Can they be Special Uses in the commercial districts and downtown? These refer to parking lots not associated with a business, the parking is the business. The Commission agreed on having a Special Use for standalone parking in the commercial districts. Let’s say that a parking lot cannot be across Ogden Avenue in the C3 district and 31st Street in the C2 district from the principal use. Should we look at the Street Classifications? 4 Page 9 of 16 Vehicle Repair and Service and outdoor vehicle storage yard. A lot of trucks parked along 47th Street. Trucks are taller than the allowable fence. Under vehicle repair we can say the storage of vehicles has to be 15’ back from the property line. A truck storage yard is a separate use, a parking lot. Draft says vehicles can be stored no longer than 15 days. Let’s add truck parking / storage and add standards for them. It could be a Special Use in the two Industrial Districts. Should we have a drop off space requirement for Day Care Centers? Difficult in our commercial areas, but in strip retail they can be signed. Can we have a sign or something denoting the party responsible for maintenance of a community garden. We can come up with contact information on management of the community garden to be submitted to the village. S. Sabourin brought up curb cuts at gas stations. General discussion ensued. These are engineering standards and best left there. J. Hendricks asked about screening at gas stations and along the street frontage. That can be added. Can we allude to a preference for municipal properties for wireless communications? As a non-home rule community there are limitations on what we can do. We can ask for a location study. J. Hendricks brought up ADUs, good that they can be added to a garage and permitted in single family districts. Outdoor sales and display of merchandise, does that apply to the sale of mulch at gas stations? Is it an issue? We use “customarily sold on the premises” the determinant, its an interpretation. Can be looked at as an enforcement / nuisance issue. Discussion and review ended at §9-5. Other Business S. Viger reviewed the upcoming petition at 3415 Maple Avenue for variations on March 26th. There being no further business, Commissioner Sabourin moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion passed unanimously. The Zoning Commission was adjourned at 9:01 PM. 5 Page 10 of 16 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 6:00 PM March 19, 2026 Attendance: Present: Evans, Grund, Miller, Sabourin, Straka, Weber Absent: Svoboda, Weber Also present at Meeting: Trustee Jennifer Hendricks, Community Development Director L. Popovic, Building Division Manager Michelle Niemeyer, Interim Planner Scott Viger and Arista Strungys Principal Planner at Camiros Ltd. Public Comment No members of the public stepped forward to be heard. New Business Zoning Commission discussion. Discussion began at Section 9.5 Temporary Use Standards. Commissioner Miller inquired about housing chickens on residential property and Body Modification Establishments. Trustee Hendricks asked about Catering and is that included in “Eating and Drinking Establishments” and Industrial Artisans referencing the candle maker that was on Prairie Avenue. Community Development Director Popovic recapped the situation with the Candle Maker. A brief discussion of Industrial Artisans ensued and why they would not be appropriate in the downtown. Commissioner Svoboda asked about live musicians at a restaurant or bar. A. Strungys stated would be an accessory use and would not be considered a “Live Performance Venue”. Commissioner Evans asked about the 1,000 foot separation of cannabis dispensaries from schools. L. Popovic said the 1,000 foot separation is a state requirement that we could not reduce but could increase. A. Strungys will add “Vape Shops” to the draft with a 1,000’ separation (Ordinance#2023-36). Article 10 General Development Standards. 1 Page 11 of 16 R. Evans asked about 10.1C Interpretation of Irregular Lots and felt that might leave staff open to “being the bad guy” without any backing. A. Strungys, someone has to make the decision. Any such decision can be appealed. We do aim to be logical. J. Hendricks felt that the Conservation Commission would be interested in lighting provisions that minimized the impact of lighting on the night sky. A. Strungys referenced the full cutoff / shielding required in the lighting standards, meaning that the light is to shine downward rather than up into the night sky. We can add a definition of “luminaire” to assist residents. J. Henricks felt including hedges with fences was odd. A. Strungys stated it is a boundary issue rather than landscape issue. M. Niemeyer agreed that it was unusual, but difficult to enforce. A. Strungys felt it is in the Code for sight vision triangle matter. S. Viger agreed it was an outgrowth of the vision clearance triangle and the prohibition of front yard fences and has been a standard enforced by complaint in many Codes he has administered. Hendricks would like it removed, except for the vision clearance triangle. M. Niemeyer agreed. Commissioner Straka has complained about hedges right up to the street himself. The Draft Code says a hedge in the front yard is limited to 3 ½ feet. It was decided to remove hedges from this section. T. Svoboda questioned fences on through lots, asking for an explanation of the “functional front yard”. A. Strungys called our attention to the diagram in Section 11.1. It is the same for accessory structures. C. Grund brought up Section 10.4 Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment, particularly air conditioner condenser units and the requirement for them to be 5’ from the interior lot line. With the number of small lots in town this is problematic. Commissioner Evans had to leave the meeting. M. Niemeyer stated that the current Code requires them 10’ from the abutting principal building. Lengthy discussion followed, it was determined to retain the current Code’s language of 10’ from the abutting principal building. C. Grund asked about 10.2 Roof Mounted Equipment, the screening requirement is vague. The intent is good, but it is vague, it implies that you bring the parapet wall up. Staff should “clean it up” a bit. J. Henricks asked about Section 10.3B(8) that requires 12” between fences. Currently the Code prohibits back to back fences. M. Niemeyer has homeowners asking about this weekly and believes we should permit back to back fences, the distance is open to discussion. C. Grund agrees, but what happens in the 12”? 2 Page 12 of 16 J. Henricks brought up 10.32(a), why are fences required to be 75% open? A. Strungys, that is for front and corner side yards. It is open to discussion. It is for their operations area not a parking lot. J. Hendricks and C. Grund felt the fence should be opaque. K. Miller agreed. J. Hendricks is glad that Performance Standards are included in the code and hopes that they are not too onerous to enforce. A. Strungys introduced Section 11.2 Specific Accessory Structure Standards. J. Henricks brought up Section 11.1F, is the maximum height of 14’ is that applicable to a detached garage. No, Section11.2G(4) allows detached garages to be 18’ to the peak of the roof, unless there is an ADU there. This is a change from the current Code. J. Hendricks began a discussion on Section 11.2L and sheds not being allowed in the Side Yard. The draft permits them only in the Rear Yard. After a discussion it was determined to retain the draft language. They are prohibited in the Required Side Yard, so that larger lots could have a shed on the side of the house. Allow them in the rear and interior side yard, but not in the required setback. Not in the corner side yard. Are free standing solar panels permitted in residential districts? Yes but 10’ from property line and limited to six feet in height. We are skipping Article 12 Off-Street Parking and Loading and will focus on parking at a subsequent workshop. Article 13 Landscape J. Hendricks appreciated the prohibition of invasive species. T. Svoboda asked for clarification on Section 13.2G General Landscape requirement. All surfaces must be landscaped, does that include stone? Seems over regulated. A. Strungys this intends to prohibit a “dirt yard”. Some landscape stones are acceptable. Discussion on Section 13.3A(4) that reduces the four foot width to three. It was determined to keep the reduction to three feet. A Strungys introduced Article 14 Signs, and our requirement to be “content neutral”. C. Grund, Section 14.6F Noncommerical Message Exempt signs, doesn’t limit the number of signs? A. Strungys, correct but we do limit the total square footage of signs to 16 square feet. J. Hendricks, we don’t limit the number of signs? A. Strungys, correct. We are looking for it to be proportional. C. Grund so for wall signs you have a total square footage but not the number. 3 Page 13 of 16 Pole signs are prohibited. Brief discussion Audio Components, such as drive through and gas station pump video screens. No changes to the draft were made. T. Svoboda asked about 14.7 Signs Requiring Permit (F)6 Marquee allowing only one sign and it being over the principal entry and below the second floor window? It was determined to delete the reference to the second floor windowsill and have a minimum clearance of eight feet. And in F5 there is only one marquee over the principal entrance to the building. Article 15 Zoning Administration T. Svoboda questioned 15.2F & G that states the PZC makes final decisions on zoning appeals. A. Strungys, for appeals yes, for Historic signs lets have PZC make a recommendation to the Village Board. Other Business There being no further business, Commissioner Miller moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously. The Zoning Commission was adjourned at 8:00 PM. 4 Page 14 of 16 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 7:48 PM March 26, 2026 Attendance: Present: Evans, Miller, Straka, Svoboda, Weber Absent: Grund, Sabourin Also present at Meeting: Trustee Kyle Whitehouse, Community Development Director L. Popovic and Interim Planner Scott Viger. Chair Pro Tem In the absence of Chair Grund, C. Straka acted as the Chair Pro Tem Public Comment No members of the public stepped forward to be heard. New Business Chair Pro Tem Straka opened the public meeting and asked for the staff presentation. S. Viger stated that we have four more Sections (16 – 19) of the draft Code to review (not including Parking which will be a stand-alone meeting and expressed that it might be possible to review these last four sections tonight. Zoning Commission discussion The discussion began at Article 16. General Provisions. Commissioner Svoboda identified several typographical and grammatical errors on page 16 -1. Commissioner Evans inquired about the Public Notice requirements and if they are in compliance with State requirements. Article 17 Zoning Approvals and Permits S. Viger introduced the Section. T. Svoboda asked about 17-4 C (1), says Site Plan Review is NOT required for Planned Developments. The Site Plan requirement is spelled out within the Planned Development section. It was agreed to strike the last sentence of 17.4C (1). 1 Page 15 of 16 R. Evans commented on page 17-7 F(g) “…and any conditions as part of approval.” Why is it deleted? S. Viger felt it might have been redundant. Are conditions allowed? Yes, after discussion it was decided to retain the wording. Article 18 Nonconformities S. Viger gave a brief overview of the Section and when nonconformities could be rebuilt. And the extension of a nonconformity for say a second floor over a nonconforming setback for the first floor. R. Miller and C. Straka agreed this was a good revision. R. Evans asked about nonconforming houses damaged “regardless of the percent of damage, it may be rebuilt to its original condition…” 18.3F (1). He felt this was a good change. K. Miller agreed. R. Evans sked about 18.6 Nonconforming signs. When can we eliminate pole signs, that are nonconforming and in some cased impede development of properties in town. The nonconforming signs never seem to be removed. General discussion ensued. Article 19 Enforcement T. Svoboda identified a typographical error in 19.2 There were no further questions or comments. Parking will be discussed at the next Workshop. Other Business There being no further business, Commissioner Evans moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion passed unanimously. The Zoning Commission was adjourned at 8:14 PM. 2 Page 16 of 16