McHenry Times

McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals and Hearing Officer met March 13.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

1. Recommendation: Approve

2. Petitioner: Mark W. Gedde and Jane M. Gedde

3. Request: A variation request within the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to allow a minimum street setback of 25 feet instead of the minimum 30 feet required.

4. Location and size of property in question: The subject property consists of 0.25 acres and is located on the east side of Orchard Beach Road, approximately 2090 feet southwest of Kama Avenue. The common address of the property is 2020 Orchard Beach Road, McHenry, Illinois in McHenry Township. Property Index Number 09- 25-102-003.

5. Present at hearing:

Mark W. Gedde, Petitioner

Jane M. Gedde, Petitioner

Sean Foley, County Staff

John H. Boyd, Hearing Officer

6. Date, time, and location of the hearing: March 13, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. McHenry County Government Center, Ware Road Administration Building, Woodstock, IL 60098.

7. Items of evidence: Plat of Survey & Site Pictures.

8. Summary of Testimony at the hearing:

The Hearing Officer opened the meeting and explained that the Petitioner was requesting the variation described above. The Hearing Officer also explained the burden was on the Petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the standards found in the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance relating to this variation request. The Petitioners were informed that this petition and hearing only dealt with the setback issues applied for, and that other ordinances may contain additional requirements that must be met prior to any building on-site (i.e. Stormwater Management Ordinance).

The Petitioners explained that they sought these variations to allow for reasonable on- site storage and maintenance, and for the reasonable and general use of this riparian lot. All of this would be accomplished with the granting of the Petitioner’s variation request.

9. Planning and Development Report – comments and conclusions:

Adjacent land use:

North: Single Family Residential

South: Single Family Residential

East: Fox River

West: Single Family Residential and Vacant

Adjacent zoning:

North: R-1 Single Family Residential

South: R-1 Single Family Residential

East: Fox River

West: R-1 Single Family Residential & (McHenry) RS-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential

The subject property is designated residential and partly environmentally sensitive on the 2030 Plan, since it directly abuts the Fox River. Municipal plans within 1.5 miles are Johnsburg (no land use designation), Lakemoor (no land use designation), and McHenry (Low Density Residential designation).

The subject property contains a one-story frame residence, some paved areas, riparian piers on the waterfront and a small eight-by-eight shed (which will be removed if this variance is granted). All according to the plat of survey.

There are no wetlands found on the subject property. Due to the amount of previously disturbed soils on site, impact to natural resources from the proposed use is minimal.

Only the portion of the subject property directly abutting the Fox River is located in the 100- year floodplain with a base flood elevation of approximately 740 feet. A 1960 flood-of- record is also indicated for the portion of the subject property directly abutting the Fox River.

The site is not located in a zone with elevated aquifer contamination potential. There are no zoning violations currently open on the subject property.

10. Recommended findings of fact:

The Standards for Variation, listed in Article 5, under Section 5.2.F of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance, have been met and granting the variation is recommended. Proposed findings follow.

5.2.F.1 The particular surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.

The property in question consists of a riparian lot. The Fox River abuts the property to the east. In addition, the Petitioners explained there is a septic in the middle of the lot to the North, and septic pumps and fields covering nearly the entire western portions of the subject property. As such, building to the North, East and West is severely limited.

5.2.F.2 The conditions upon which the application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning district.

The matters described in factors A apply equally to this factor.

The uniqueness of the subject property result from its riparian character, septic location and orientation of the residence. The Petitioners testified, and the record reflects, that on-site storage is minimal, and the placement of a garage reasonably relating to storage at the property is limited due to the riparian character and septic placement. It is noteworthy that the Petitioners are merely attempting to remove a shed and add a garage that will be farther from the street than the shed presently sits.

5.2.F.3 The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the monetary gain realized from the property.

The Petitioners testified that this variation is sought so the property owner can enhance their use and enjoyment of the home. It is not sought for the purpose of monetary gain.

5.2.F.4 The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the Ordinance and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

The Petitioners testified that they did not create this lot, nor did they build, situate the residence, present garage or septic fields on the lot.

5.2.F.5 That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.

The granting of this variation will have no detrimental effect on the public welfare or safety. It will also have no detrimental effect on others’ property interests in the area.

The Petitioner testified, and the record reflects, that the variation request would increase the present street setback by approximately 5 feet. Moreover, there are numerous garages in the area that sit directly at the street. As such, the proposal will create a safer area and will have less impact on safety.

5.2.F.6.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the adjacent neighborhood.

The matters described in factors 5.2.F.5 apply equally to this factor.

The granting of this variation will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties or substantially increase congestion in the public streets, because the subject property (1) presently possesses a similar structure, (2) the proposal will set further from the roadway and (3) the variation will create greater site lines.

5.2.F.7.The granting of the variation requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings of the same zoning district.

The Petitioners were able to describe and provide examples of similar garages in the neighborhood. Moreover, there are numerous garages that sit at the street with minimal setbacks of one (1) to three (3) feet.

The Petitioners have met their burden of establishing that they satisfy all ordinance standards. Accordingly, the granting of the variations requested will not confer upon them any special privilege.

https://mchenrycountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3894&Inline=True