McHenry County Zoning Board met Sept. 8.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. HEARING OFFICER REPORT TO THE MCHENRY COUNTY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PETITION #2020-027, #2020-026, AND #2020-014
HEARING OFFICER REPORT TO THE MCHENRY COUNTY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PETITION #2020-027
1. Recommendation: Approve
2. Petitioner: Matthew P. Rogulic, Owner of Record
3. Request: A Variation within the E-1 Estate District to allow for a side yard setback of thirteen point five (13.5) feet instead of the minimum twenty (20) feet required along the south property line. (Unified Development Ordinance Table 16.36-1)
4. Location and size of property in question: The subject property consists of 1.09 acres and is located on the west side of Meadowbrook Lane, approximately 525 feet north of Monica Trail.
Common address: 5707 Meadowbrook Lane, Crystal Lake, Illinois, Nunda Township
PIN: 14-35-402-004
5. Present at hearing:
Matthew P. Rogulic, Owner of Record
Craig Krandel, Petitioner’s Attorney
Michael J. McNerney, Hearing Officer
Kim Scharlow, County Staff; Andrew Fackler, County Staff
Krista Rogulic, Jennifer Krcik
6. Date, time and location of the hearing: September 8, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. McHenry County Government Center, Ware Road Administration Building, Woodstock, IL 60098.
7. Items of evidence:
Official Site Plan
Petition to allow variance
Plat of Survey
Homeowner’s Association Letter of Approval
Neighbor letters of support
Natural Resource Information Report, McHenry-Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District Letter of July 1, 2020
8. Summary of Testimony at the hearing:
The Hearing Officer opened the meeting and summarized the request and property location.
Attorney Craig Krandel stated that there is currently a permit application on file, and during that process, it was noted that a variation would be required. Matt Rogulic stated that he is the current owner of the subject property and has resided there for 4 years. Mr. Krandel showed a Plat of Survey of the property as Exhibit
A, and Mr. Rogulic explained that he plans to add a garage and new laundry room to the south side of the property. A site plan of the property, showing the proposed addition was submitted as Exhibit B. Mr. Rogulic pointed out that the closest distance of the addition to the side property line is 13.93 feet. He noted that there are no other locations on his property that this addition would work. He also pointed out that they have received approval from the homeowner’s association with regard to the proposed addition. The approval was submitted as Exhibit C. In addition, several letters of support from neighbors were submitted as Exhibit D. Mr. Rogulic addressed the Approval Standards for Variation.
The Hearing Officer stated that the standards have been met, and he was in favor of the request. 9. Planning and Development Report - comments and conclusions:
Current Land Use: The property is designated Single-Family Residential on the Current Land Use map. Adjacent land use:
North: Single-Family Residential
South: Single-Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential and Open Space
West: Single-Family Residential
Current Zoning: the property is currently zoned E-1 Estate District
Adjacent zoning:
North: E-1 Estate
South: E-1 Estate
East: E-1 Estate
West: E-1 Estate
2030 Plan: The property is designated Residential on the McHenry County Land Use Plan Map.
Municipal Plans within 1.5 miles:
Cary: No Land Use Designation; Crystal Lake: Estate Residential;
Oakwood Hills: Single-Family - Low Density; Prairie Grove: No Land Use Designation
Improvements: The subject property contains a two-story brick/woodframe residence, deck, and asphalt drive, according to the plat of survey.
Natural Resources: No wetlands are found on the subject property. Due to the amount of previously disturbed soils, impact to natural resources from the proposed use is minimal, according to Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) Letter L20-032-4297.
Flood Hazard Areas: No floodplain was found on the site.
Flood-of-Record: No portion of the property is located within a flood-of-record area.
SARA: The site is located in a zone with elevated aquifer contamination potential, according to the McHenry County Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Area (SARA) map.
The Affidavit of Posting, mailings and legal notice were checked and found to be acceptable. The McHenry-Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District determined that a full report was not necessary. 10. STAFF COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS:
* The granting of the variation will make it possible for the petitioner to complete their building permit application for a residential addition.
*An Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) report was not required for this Project.
11. Recommended findings of fact as to the Request for the Variation:
The Standards for Variation, listed in Sec. 16.20.020.F of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance, have been met and granting this variation is recommended.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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
Witness testified that it would.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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 Witness testified that is true.
Sec. 16.20.020F.3: The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the monetary gain realized from the property.
The Witness testified that this is correct.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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.
Witness testified that the difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and not by the applicant.
Sec. 16.20.020F5: 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 Witness testified that the request, if granted, would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood.
Sec. 16.20.020F6: 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.
Witness testified that it would not.
Sec.16.20.020F.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 evidence establishes that the property owner would not be gaining a special privilege by the granting of this request, as it is a reasonable request that should be granted to other property owners, if they so requested.
The Witness has met his burden of establishing the necessary ordinance requirements. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the petitioner’s request be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/: Michael J. McNerney
Michael J. McNerney
HEARING OFFICER REPORT TO THE MCHENRY
COUNTY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PETITION #2020-026
1. Recommendation: Approve
2. Petitioner: William R. Wroga and April D. Wroga, Owners of Record
3. Request: A Variation within the E-2C Estate District to allow for a setback of nine (9) feet instead of the minimum twenty (20) feet required along the east side property line, and to allow a setback of ten (10) feet instead of the minimum thirty (30) feet required along the south rear property line. (Unified Development Ordinance Table 16.36-1)
4. Location and size of property in question: The subject property consists of 1.89 acres and is located on the south side of Castleberry Drive, approximately 1,025 feet west of Cherry Valley Road in Dorr Township, McHenry County, Illinois.
Common address: 8307 Castleberry Drive, Woodstock, Illinois.
PIN: 13-24-426-009
5. Present at hearing:
(8/11/20)
William R. Wroga, Owner of Record
Chris Russo, Petitioner’s Architect (ALA Architects)
Michael J. McNerney, Hearing Officer
Kim Scharlow, County Staff; Andrew Fackler, County Staff
Christopher Mackie, Anne Wieboldt, Patricia Fisk, Ty Stein, Peter Burbulis, Maria Rynkowska, Laura Rightmyer, Randall Rightmyer, Jeff Gebhardt, David Yost
(9/8/20)
William R. Wroga, Owner of Record
Chris Russo, Petitioner’s Architect (ALA Architects)
Michael J. McNerney, Hearing Officer
Kim Scharlow, County Staff; Andrew Fackler, County Staff
Bob Fisk, Peter Burbulis, Anne Wieboldt, Randall Rightmyer
6. Date, time and location of the hearing: August 11, 2020 and September 8, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. McHenry County Government Center, Ware Road Administration Building, Woodstock, IL 60098.
7. Items of evidence:
Official Site Plan
Petition to allow variance
Petitioner letter to neighbors, Engineer letter, and photographs
Natural Resource Information Report, McHenry-Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District Letter of June 24, 2020
8. Summary of Testimony at the hearing:
8/11/20
The Hearing Officer opened the meeting and summarized the request and property location. He noted that the existing residence was built in 1999, and a detention easement on the property was vacated in 2001. He explained that the Petitioners wish to apply for a building permit for a proposed garage addition.
William Wroga stated that half of his land is a detention pond, and that was the reason his home was built up in the corner of the property. He indicated that the required setbacks for an attached structure are greater than the 10-foot requirement for detached structure, but the covenants of his subdivision do not allow for detached accessory structures.
Chris Russo, architect for the Petitioner, stated that the majority of the property is not buildable, due to a detention area, and with the location of the existing driveway, the proposed location was the most logical. Mr. Russo pointed out that, while the proposed addition is a large footprint, the street side elevation would be subtle. With regard to the connection to the house, he explained that there would be a completely enclosed breezeway space adjoining the structures.
The Hearing Officer asked why a portion of the detention easement on the property was vacated in 2001. Mr. Wroga explained that fill was added so that they could have a usable back yard. He indicated that a surveyor came out to verify there was still enough retention area to hold 100-year flood waters, and the vacation was approved through the County. When asked if he had done anything to the detention area since owning the home, Mr. Wroga mentioned that he had utilized a French drain installed by the builders to try to make it drain better. He also noted that there is a natural berm along the rear of his property
Mr. Wroga stated that four people live in his house and all are drivers. They currently have three vehicles and a three-car garage, and they would like the additional two-car garage to park a fourth vehicle and to have extra room. In addition to being a garage, the proposed addition would be utilized for a workshop, office, and golf simulator.
Mr. Wroga mentioned that, during strong rain events, water tends to run down the driveway toward where the addition would be proposed. He mentioned that they would need to work with an engineer to design drain tile or some other way of having the water flow around the structure.
Peter Burbulis, of 8513 Castleberry Drive, asked what the roof runoff from a structure of this size would do to the detention situation, both on the subject property and the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Russo responded, noting that they would work with a civil engineer to determine where the downspouts are located and calculate the amount of runoff from the roof. Randall and Laura Rightmyer, who live adjacent to the west of the subject property, also had concerns about water runoff and whether it might impact their property. Ms. Rightmyer pointed out that the detention pond is holding water longer than it ever has and that Mr. Wroga has pumped some of it to the agricultural area behind him many times. Ty Stein, owner of the property directly to the east of Mr. Wroga, stated that the back corner of his lot is the low point and continues to drain down toward the detention pond. He is concerned that putting a building within 10 feet of his property line will affect the drainage off of his lot. Mr. Russo pointed out that they work on a lot of house on the river with a flow-through foundation, so the proposed addition can be designed, if necessary, to allow water to drain underneath the building, except for the concrete floor of the garage.
Christopher Mackie, of 8302 Castleberry Drive, stated that Mr. Wroga has pumped the water from the retention area into the farm field behind his house every spring since at least 2005. Other members of the public continued to express concern for potential drainage issues due to the proposed addition. Dave Yost, of 8108 Castleberry, also indicated that neighbors were objecting to the size and location of the proposed structure, relative to the original design and intent of the neighborhood. Anne Wieboldt, managing partner of KHW Investments, stated that she owns the farmland adjacent to the subject property and she objects to water being pumped onto their land.
9/8/20
The Hearing Officer opened the continuation of the hearing, and gave opportunity for additional evidence or comments. Mr. Wroga stated that he had hand-delivered a letter to 19 of his neighbors, along with a letter from Schmidt Engineering, outlining their findings with regard to drainage. He also included two pictures showing his property from the east and the west, and he noted that his backyard could not be seen from the neighboring yards due to tree cover. Mr. Wroga mentioned that none of the neighbors he spoke to when delivering the letters were opposed to the request. Mr. Russo also provided a floor layout for the proposed structure, noting that it was more than a garage. He explained that he understands that compliance with the Stormwater Management Ordinance would need to be met. He indicated that Al Schmidt, the civil engineer, would be preparing drawings to be submitted for stormwater review.
Mr. Burbulis stated that he is concerned with the large footprint of the proposed addition, and noted that it is larger than the footprint of the existing residence. He indicated that the precedence would be set for a structure the size of a second home. Ms. Wieboldt expressed concern that the retention area on Mr. Wroga’s property is not adequate to handle the drainage, especially in recent years, when he has been pumping the water off of his property.
The Hearing Officer stated that his duty is to apply the standards of the Ordinance as it is written, and any water flow or drainage issues would be addressed through the permitting process and the Stormwater Management Ordinance. Mr. Wroga addressed the Approval Standards for Variation. The Hearing Officer stated that he was in favor of and recommended approval of the request.
9. Planning and Development Report - comments and conclusions:
Current Land Use: The property is designated Single-Family Residential on the Current Land Use map. Adjacent land use:
North: Single-Family Residential
South: Agriculture
East: Single-Family Residential
West: Single-Family Residential
Current Zoning: the property is currently zoned E-2C Estate District
Adjacent zoning:
North: E-2C Estate
South: A-1 Agriculture
East: E-2C Estate
West: E-2C Estate
2030 Plan: The property is designated Residential on the McHenry County Land Use Plan Map.
Municipal Plans within 1.5 miles:
Bull Valley: 2-2.99-Acres Residential; Crystal Lake: Estate Residential;
Woodstock: No Designation
Improvements: The subject property contains a 2-story frame residence, a frame shed, paver patios, and an asphalt driveway, according to the plat of survey.
Natural Resources: No wetlands are found on the subject property. Due to the amount of previously disturbed soils, impact to natural resources from the proposed use is minimal, according to Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) Letter L20-030-4295.
Flood Hazard Areas: The south central portion of the property is designated as an area of historical flood zone.
Flood-of-Record: The Flood of Record (Hydrologic Atlas) for the area indicates previous flooding within the drainage easement located on the property. Since the proposed garage is not within this area, no further action is necessary, according to the Soil and Water Conservation District.
SARA: The site is located in a zone with elevated aquifer contamination potential, according to the McHenry County Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Area (SARA) map.
The Affidavit of Posting, mailings and legal notice were checked and found to be acceptable. The McHenry-Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District determined that a full report was not necessary. 10. STAFF COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS:
* The granting of the variation will make it possible for the petitioner to apply for a building permit for the proposed residential addition.
*An Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) report was not required for this Project.
11. Recommended findings of fact as to the Request for the Variation:
The Standards for Variation, listed in Sec. 16.20.020.F of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance, have been met and granting this variation is recommended.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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
Witness testified that it would.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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 Witness testified that is true.
Sec. 16.20.020F.3: The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the monetary gain realized from the property.
The Witness testified that this is correct.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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.
Witness testified that the difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and not by the applicant.
Sec. 16.20.020F5: 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 Witness testified that the request, if granted, would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood.
Sec. 16.20.020F6: 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.
Witness testified that it would not.
Sec.16.20.020F.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 evidence establishes that the property owner would not be gaining a special privilege by the granting of this request, as it is a reasonable request that should be granted to other property owners, if they so requested.
The Witness has met his burden of establishing the necessary ordinance requirements. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the petitioner’s request be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/: Michael J. McNerney
Michael J. McNerney
HEARING OFFICER REPORT TO THE MCHENRY COUNTY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PETITION #2020-014
1. Recommendation: Approve
2. Petitioner: David H. Bottcher, Jr., Owner of Record
3. Request: A Variation within the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to allow for a height of twenty five (25) feet instead of the maximum eighteen (18) feet allowed for a detached accessory structure. (Unified Development Ordinance §16.56.050.A.2.a.2)
4. Location and size of property in question: The subject property consists of.31 acres and is located on the north side of Finch Trail, approximately 50 feet west of the intersection of Finch Trail and Althoff Drive. The subject property is vacant and immediately adjacent to the west of 714 Finch Trail, McHenry, Illinois, McHenry Township.
PIN: 14-35-402-004
5. Present at hearing:
David H. Bottcher, Jr., Owner of Record
Michael J. McNerney, Hearing Officer
Kim Scharlow, County Staff; Andrew Fackler, County Staff
6. Date, time and location of the hearing: September 8, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. McHenry County Government Center, Ware Road Administration Building, Woodstock, IL 60098.
7. Items of evidence:
Official Site Plan
Petition to allow variance
Natural Resource Information Report, McHenry-Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District Letter of July 22, 2020
8. Summary of Testimony at the hearing:
The Hearing Officer opened the meeting and summarized the request and property location. He noted that there is currently a pending building permit on file for the proposed structure.
David Bottcher stated that he has owned the subject property for 12 years. He intends to construct a garage with storage space above on the vacant lot adjacent to his home, which he also owns. He explained that it needs to be detached because the current footprint of the residence does not allow for an attached garage. Mr. Bottcher also pointed out that there is an existing culvert and driveway on the vacant lot. He indicated that he would not need to remove any trees on the property, which was another reason for the proposed location for the structure.
Mr. Bottcher stated that he spoke with 6 or 7 of his neighbors, and they were all in support of the requested variation. The Hearing Officer asked what the purpose was for the proposed structure, and Mr. Bottcher explained that he currently has a vehicle parked in his one-car garage and two cars parked in the driveway. He would like to be able to keep them all inside. He noted that the proposed structure would also have storage space above. The current footprint of his home is small, and he currently rents a storage facility. Mr. Bottcher addressed the Approval Standards for Variation.
The Hearing Officer stated that he was in favor of the request.
9. Planning and Development Report - comments and conclusions:
Current Land Use: The property is designated Vacant on the Current Land Use map.
Adjacent land use:
North: Vacant
South: Single-Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential
West: Single-Family Residential
Current Zoning: the property is currently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential District
Adjacent zoning:
North: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
South: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
East: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
West: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
2030 Plan: The property is designated Residential on the McHenry County Land Use Plan Map.
Municipal Plans within 1.5 miles:
Spring Grove: No Land Use Designation; Johnsburg: No Land Use Designation
Improvements: The subject property is vacant.
Natural Resources: No wetlands are found on the subject property. Due to the amount of previously disturbed soils on the site, impact to natural resources from the proposed use is minimal, according to Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) Letter L20-036-4301.
Flood Hazard Areas: No floodplain was found on the site.
Flood-of-Record: No portion of the property is located within a flood-of-record area.
SARA: The site is not located in a zone with elevated aquifer contamination potential, according to the McHenry County Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Area (SARA) map.
The Affidavit of Posting, mailings and legal notice were checked and found to be acceptable. The McHenry-Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District determined that a full report was not necessary. 10. STAFF COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS:
* The granting of the variation will make it possible for the petitioner to complete their building permit application for a residential accessory structure.
*An Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) report was not required for this Project.
11. Recommended findings of fact as to the Request for the Variation:
The Standards for Variation, listed in Sec. 16.20.020.F of the McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance, have been met and granting this variation is recommended.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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
Witness testified that it would.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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 Witness testified that is true.
Sec. 16.20.020F.3: The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the monetary gain realized from the property.
The Witness testified that this is correct.
Sec. 16.20.020F.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.
Witness testified that the difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and not by the applicant.
Sec. 16.20.020F5: 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 Witness testified that the request, if granted, would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood.
Sec. 16.20.020F6: 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.
Witness testified that it would not.
Sec.16.20.020F.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 evidence establishes that the property owner would not be gaining a special privilege by the granting of this request, as it is a reasonable request that should be granted to other property owners, if they so requested.
The Witness has met his burden of establishing the necessary ordinance requirements. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the petitioner’s request be granted.
https://mchenrycountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4638&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up