Me either. Nor did I think anything of it. Most reasonable people knew they were addressing the complaints of naked babies crawling around in storefronts, etc. Not the people living above their businesses. People have been renting apartments above business in downtown Streator forever. It was the storeFRONT dwellers that were the problem.
Well many people do read the paper where there public declaration of illegal was on the cover above the fold.
Maybe they should have come out publicly and say that they were only talking about the store front residents, but they refused to, even after I went to them and explained how bad it did hurt my son's business and asked them to acknowledge that he was not illegal.
Their refusal to acknowledge that we were not illegal is what makes me confident that was a deliberate attack.
Here's the article from The Times
STREATOR: City says most downtown residency illegal
Most people living in downtown Streator are doing so illegally.
In order to remedy a recent image concern with citizens moving into storefronts, the City Council agreed Tuesday people living in the Central Business District without a special use permit are violating zoning ordinances established in 2004.The ordinance, however, has not been enforced and some people are worried it may be too far reaching, especially since the city's comprehensive plan encourages second-floor apartments.
City Manager Paul Nicholson reported 27 known downtown residences. Of those, only two of them have the required special use permit. Three are first-floor or basement residences.
"The point is: In terms of the city's zoning ordinance, the majority of these (residential) uses, which have occurred since the adoption of the new zoning ordinance, are illegal," Nicholson said during a Committee of the Whole meeting.
The issue was brought up months ago when the City Council received citizen complaints about three first-floor residences occupying former Main Street storefronts.As some businesses closed, Nicholson reported the buildings became difficult to sell or rent for new businesses, leaving their owners to find alternatives to generate revenue to pay for maintenance or upkeep.
As a result, these buildings are being used for residential occupancy and two have caused concerns with other businesses and citizens — namely for their unsightly appearance.
The city received complaints of naked babies and cats running together in littered display windows at 214 E. Main St. — the former site of Ray's Paint and Wallpaper. The occupants chose not to comment to The Times. Former owner Randy Brown said he sold the building and is acting as the mortgage holder, similar to a bank. He cannot enforce residents to not live there. He said he sold the building on the assumption that they would be opening up a clothing store soon.
At 121 E. Main St., Budweiser, Coca-Cola and sports posters cover display windows. The building receives heavy foot traffic, but no business is registered at the site. An individual occupying the building told The Times it will soon open as a bait, tackle and hobby shop, but no timetable was given.
To their neighbors, these buildings are a detriment to Streator's downtown experience. Aside from their appearance, they take up Main Street parking designated by signs for customers.
Currently, there is no ordinance to enforce these signs, allowing residents to park wherever they wish for as long as they want.
"Areas that are zoned commercial should be used for commercial use," said Jim Pellino, owner of Harte's Cards and Gifts, 117 E. Main St., and president of the Streator Downtown Area Businesses.
"I don't have a problem with anybody living upstairs of a business, if they acquire off-street parking, but I don't think it's right to occupy a storefront."One business owner who wished to remain anonymous said she did not have a problem with residential occupancy in former storefronts because it is better than another vacant structure or the occupants being homeless.
"This is Streator, people are not rushing to buy up these spaces," she said. "I'm guessing most of these people are not paying rent either. It gives the building's owner some peace of mind to know their building is being watched over."
After Nicholson reported many of the downtown residences are not in compliance with the city's code, he said the council had the option to amend its ordinance or enforce it. He also said vacant businesses converted to warehouses are illegal without a special use permit.
Mayor Jimmie Lansford and councilmen Bruce Hart, Ed Brozak and Willy Williamson each said they want to see the city enforce the 2004 ordinance. Councilman Ed Benner was not present.
"I hear so many people say, 'If you have an ordinance on the book, why do you need something else? Enforce the one you have,' " Lansford said. "I say enforce it."
What's next?
Streator is asking people who live in the downtown business district to come to the city before the city comes to them.
To file a special use permit, go to City Hall, 204 S. Bloomington St., and fill out the necessary paperwork. The application fee for a special use permit is $300 to $400 and the applicant must reimburse the city for the cost of legal notices. A registration form can be found at the city's website.
After a permit is filed, a hearing will be conducted by the city's Plan Commission, including a public notice and finding of fact, then a recommendation will be given to the City Council for approval.
Providing off-street parking is a requirement of each of the two special use permits accepted by the city. Those in compliance are located above TyJax and the building on the northeast corner of Hickory and Bloomington streets.
Business owner, resident calls city's actions unfair
Downtown Streator resident Kyle Mitchell said living above his family's Main Street business is essential to its operation.
"If we did not live above the business, it would close," he said.
The Mitchell family, who live in a second-floor apartment above Flip's Exchange at 324 E. Main St., sees the City Council's decision to enforce a 2004 ordinance requiring a special use permit for downtown residency as a potential killer to their business.
And an unfair one at that, they believe.
"It's not just a 9-to-5 job," Mitchell said. "If we didn't live above there, my wife couldn't put clothes on the rack at 5 a.m. in time to get my son off to school at 7:30 a.m. or we couldn't put bar codes and price tags on merchandise at the dinner table ... Living there is essential for us to provide a quality family business."
Unlike occupied first-floor downtown storefronts considered by some to be unsightly, the Mitchells live upstairs in restored apartments and purchase off-street parking.
Fire Chief Tom Risley has been to the apartment to assure it is compliant with fire safety and the family pays a sewer bill for the apartment, but no city employees have warned the Mitchells they were not compliant.
It was not until Tuesday's meeting that Mitchell received the news and the City Council decided to enforce its ordinance.
"I'm a little ticked off at the city," Mitchell said. "I don't like to be labeled illegal without due process or at least some warning. Is that how they treat business here? Do they not want our business in town? ... It's not like I'm trying to hide or anything. Everyone knows we live there.
I understand where the city is coming from trying to clean up downtown. If they would've reached out, it would be a different story.
"Ignorance is no excuse to violate the law, but they could've told me about needing a special use permit before they come out and call us illegal."
Mitchell is hoping an ordinance in Section 17.32.050 protecting accessory use of a zoned property will save his family the burden of applying for a special use permit.
The code states: "Whenever an activity (which may or may not be separately listed as a principal use in that section) is conducted in conjunction with another principal use and the former use and is commonly associated with the principal use and integrally related to it, then the former use may be regarded as accessory to the principal use and may be carried on underneath the umbrella of the certificate or permit issued for the principal use."
City Manager Paul Nicholson said he is unsure if that code will protect residences within a family-owned business, but said the city would investigate it. Another downtown business, White Tiger Combat Academy on Main Street, has temporarily housed family members within its building and could fall under the same code.
"Historically, that has dealt with different types of businesses," Nicholson said. "I'm not aware of any individual residential occupancies, but we'll check it out."
Meanwhile, Mitchell believes the city should not require him to get a special use permit.
"I would've years ago, before we moved in," Mitchell said. "I don't believe I need one now. They've let it go and now want to come out against it."