Commission Overrides Staff Recommendation, Approves Manhattan Township Barn Expansion

Will County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting | February 17, 2026

Article Summary: A Manhattan Township homeowner received unanimous approval for three variances to expand a pole barn, despite county staff recommending denial for two of the requests. The approval allows the structure to exceed size limits and encroach on side yard setbacks.

Manhattan Township Variance Key Points:

• Property: 12517 W. Baker Road, Manhattan.

• Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission overrode staff recommendations to approve a 30-by-32-foot addition to an existing pole barn.

• Variances Granted: Increased accessory building area to 3,525 sq. ft., reduced side yard setback to 17 feet, and validated an existing non-conforming street setback of 60.91 feet.

• Vote: Approved 4-0.

JOLIET, IL – The Will County Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, sided with a Manhattan Township property owner, granting three variances to allow for the expansion of a pole barn at 12517 W. Baker Road.

Property owner Nicholas Peters sought permission to build a 30-foot by 32-foot addition to an existing metal pole barn. The request required variances to increase the maximum allowable accessory building area from 3,000 square feet to 3,525 square feet and to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 17 feet.

Additionally, the applicant requested a variance for the street setback from 67 feet to 60.91 feet. County staff noted that the existing residence (built in 2000) and the original pole barn (built in 2006) were constructed with permits despite encroaching on the street setbacks along South Indian Trail.

Staff Recommendation vs. Board Decision
County Staff member Alec Van Patten recommended approval for the street setback variance to bring the existing structures into compliance. However, he recommended denial for the building size and side yard setback requests.

“Staff finds that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances,” Van Patten said regarding the size and side setback. “The desire to build over the maximum accessory building area and into side yard setbacks is a personal desire and cannot be considered a hardship.”

Van Patten noted that a drainage culvert on the property creates some constraints but argued that a smaller addition could avoid the culvert and meet code requirements.

Applicant’s Case
Nicholas Peters testified that the proposed rearward expansion was the most structurally sound option. He was supported by his agent, Clint Baker of Morton Buildings.

“Aesthetically it makes adding onto it easier,” Peters said. “And then also structurally it’s more sound… instead of adding to the side and worrying about snow loads and stuff and reinforcing walls.”

When asked by acting Chairman John Kiefner about the potential impact on the culvert or drainage areas, Peters clarified that the expansion would extend toward an area of “tall grass” but would not interfere with the drainage features.

Despite the negative recommendation from staff on the size and side setback issues, the Commission voted 4-0 to approve all three variances (Ordinance ZC-26-002).