McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals and Hearing Officer met April 10.
McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals and Hearing Officer met April 10.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
1. Recommendation: Approve
2. Petitioner: Kenneth Clairy and Linda Clairy
3. Requests: A variation request within the R-1 single family residential district to
(1) allow a minimum rear setback of 5 feet along the east property line instead of the minimum 10 feet required, and (2) to allow a minimum side setback of 5 feet along the south property line instead of the minimum 10 feet required.
4. Location and size of property in question: The subject property consists of 0.25 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Starr Drive and Riverview Drive. The common address of the property is 118 Riverview Drive, Algonquin, Illinois, in Algonquin Township. The Property Index Number is 19-26- 376-008.
5. Present at hearing:
David Berryhill, Representative of the Petitioner
Sean Foley, County Staff
John H. Boyd, Hearing Officer
6. Date, time and location of the hearing: April 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. McHenry County Government Center, Ware Road Administration Building, Woodstock, IL 60098.
7. Items of evidence: Petitioners’ Affidavit appointing Berryhill as representative
Current Site Plan
Old Site Plan (w/topography and septic)
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 Petitioner was 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 Petitioner explained that they sought these variations to allow for the reasonable and general use of this dense forest 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:
South: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
North: R-1 Single Family Residential (1 family dwelling on 10,000 sq. ft. lot)
– Village of Algonquin
South: R-1 Single Family Residential
East: A-1 Agricultural
West: R-1 Single Family Residential
The subject property is designated R-1 Single Family Residential. Municipal plans within 1.5 miles are Algonquin (Estate Residential - 1 unit per acre), Barrington Hills (no land use designation), Lake in the Hills (no land use designation), and Cary (no land use designation).
The subject property consists of a split-level stone and frame residence according to the site plan. There are no wetlands found on the subject property. Due to the amount of previously disturbed soil on the site, impact to natural resources from the proposed use is minimal.
No floodplains are found on the subject property. No floods of record are indicated for the subject property. The subject property is not located in a zone with elevated aquifer contamination potential according to the sensitive aquifer recharge area map.
There are no zoning violations currently open on the subject property. The granting of this variation will make it possible for the Petitioner to apply for a building permit and to construct the proposed screen room that is the subject of this Petition.
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 lot with dense forestation around 50% of the subject property. This, along with the small brook that runs through the forest, creates a significant impediment for the reasonable use of the property since the back porch is nearly unusable in the Spring through Fall seasons due to bugs (in particular mosquitos). As such, the Petitioner is seeking to build the proposed screened in porch where the present porch sits. The Petitioner testified, to use the porch in a reasonable manner, it is not feasible to build it smaller than proposed.
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.
While there is a yard in the front of the lot, the septic fields are located there, making the frontage unusable for building purposes.
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. For example, as it relates to the side yard request, the impact of the requested deck is identical to the present deck (5 feet).
Moreover, the Petitioner testified, and the record reflects, that the variation request would not impose on any neighbors and was sought due to the recent increase of West Nile and similar mosquito borne diseases that have become a concern for seniors (such as the Petitioner). As such, the proposal will create a safer area.
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 request will be in the rear of the subject property where dense forest is found and (3) there are no neighboring structures near the request.
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 Petitioner was unable to point out similar structures. Still, a site inspection revealed that the neighboring lot contains a fully screened in gazebo on its property. As such, it is reasonable to deduce that this similar structure was constructed as a result of the same concerns and rationale as the Petitioner provided during their hearing.
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.