The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - 2/1/1999 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZON I NG BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 1, 1999 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-465 MICHAEL R. CHAMBERS, FOR A ) Michael Chambers `-- VARIATION, PURSUANT TO ) 1602 N. Riverside Dr. THE ZO�JING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Variance MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ) REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on February 1, 1999. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Chuck Lovett, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: None. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. RE�cording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. 5. Pf�titioners: Michael Chambers, 1602 N. Riverside Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050. � 6. Attorney for Petitioner: None. 7. City Council Members/Staff: Alderman Andrew Glab. 8. C�urt Reporter: None. 9. RE�gistered Observers/Objectors: None. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on January 15, 1999. Publisher's Certificates of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's Office. Notices were mailed to all owners of record of abutting properties. An Affidavit of Service is on file with the City Clerk. LOCATION The subjE�ct property is located at 1602 North Riverside Drive, McHenry, Illinois 60050. It is currently vacant and zoned RS-4. SUMMARY The Peti�ioners are seeking a variance to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet. There is currently a variance approved for these premises pursuant to City Ordinance No. 0-90-522. `— This ordinance grants variance as to the minimum lot size (3,250 square feet), front yard setback (� feet), interior corner side yard setback (6 feet) and rear yard setback (22 feet). Page 2 ZBA-Chambers 2/1/99 TESTIMUNY Chairmaii Semrow swore in Petitioner Michael Chambers. � Mr. Cha�nbers provided the Board with an overview of previous variances granted to the subject �roperty. He stated in order to build a house on this lot, a rear yard setback of 10 feet is requirE�d, as opposed to the 22 foot granted previously. UESTI()NS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Meyer asked if the 10 foot setback would put the home in line with the recently constructed Krause rf�sidence to the immediate north. Mr. Chambers replied that would be correct. CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONERS Mr. Chambers stated the home they are planning to build will add value to the neighborhood. The colonial home will be constructed of 100% brick. He plans to make this his residence. Chairmari Semrow stated, "there being no further testimony before the Board with regard to the Petiti��n, the Board will consider the Petition at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a men�ber of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with reg�rd to this Petition." DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Lovett, to recommend to the City Council that th�� Petitioner's request for a variance to permit a rear yard setback of ten feet be �'' granted; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378, has been met. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 6-0. ADIOURNMENT Chairman Semrow adjourned this hearing at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully su mitted, �� Harry mrow, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Pe-itioner, B &Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, The �" Su i, File Copy. Z-465 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 1, 1999 GTY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-464 � JOHN HUNDRIESER, FOR A MAP AMENDMENT ) John Hundrieser AND V�RIATION, PURSUANT TO ) 3200 Bull Valley Rd THE ZO��ING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Map Amendment & Variance MCHEN�'.Y, MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ) REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on February 1, 1999. Chairman Semrow called thE� hearing to order at 7:42 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1 . Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Chuck Lovett, Jori Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: None. 2. Atlorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Re�ording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. 5. Petitioners: John Hundrieser, 2711 Justen Road, McHenry, Illinois 60050. `'' 6. Attorney for Petitioner: Diamond and LeSueur, represented by Samuel Diamond, 3431 West Elm Street, McHenry, IL 60050. 7. City Council Members/Staff: Alderman Andrew Glab. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on January 16, 1999. Publisher's Certificates of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's Office. Notices were mailed to all owners of record of abutting properties. The subject property was posted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. An Affidavit of Service is on file with the C:ity Clerk. LOCATION The subje��t property is located at 3200 West Bull Valley Road, McHenry, Illinois 60050. It is currentl�r improved with two single family dwellings, two detached garages, one outbuilding and an in€;round swimming pool. �' SUMMARY The Petitic�ners are seeking the following upon annexation into the City of McHenry: • Map amendment from A-1 (McHenry County) to RS-2 Medium Density Single Family Page 2 ZBA-Hundrieser 2/1/99 Residential District; • Variance to permit two principal structures (residential dwellings) on one zoned (ot. � TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in Petitioner )ohn Hundrieser. Attorney [�iamond stated the Petitioners property is currently located in McHenry County. The property is improved with two houses, two garages, one outbuilding and an inground swimmin�; pool. Mr. Hundrieser's septic system has failed. He has been directed by the County to connect to City of McHenry sewer. It would be less costly for Mr. Hundrieser to connect tc� the sewer if the subject property were annexed into the City. He is therefore in the process oi filing for Annexation before the McHenry City Council. Concurrently, he is seeking reclassification of this property from A1 to RS-2 along with a variance to permit the existing structures on the lot. Mr. Diamond noted Staff has indicated the Petitioner should seek annexation. Mr. Hundrieser stated he purchased the subject property along with another party in 1990. He became the sole proprietor in 1993. He stated the property is used as a rental property. Both houses were rented until last fall when the septic system failed. Mr. Hundrieser noted he has made arrangemE�nts for connection to City sewer whether the property is annexed or not. However, if the pro��erty remains in McHenry County, higher monthly sewer rates will be assessed. Mr. Hundrieser opined the existing structures fit into the neighborhood harmoniously. He is � seeking a variance so that both residences can remain on the property once it is annexed into the City. The dimensions of the lot are 100 feet wide by 330 feet deep. The dimensions of the residences are 24 feet by 36 feet; and 20 feet by 44 feet. Mr. Hundrieser informed the Board he had investigated the possibility of subdividing the lot into two parcels; however, McHenry County will not allow direct residential access onto the new Bull Valley Arterial Extension. In response to an inquiry from Attorney Diamond, Mr. Hundrieser attested to the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments as well as the Approval Criteria for Variances, as stated in the Petition. UESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cadotte a�ked if there are two residences on the site at this time. Mr. Hundrieser responded there are two dwelling units. Meyer, reterring to an earlier statement about multi-family dwelling units being proposed in this area, asked Attorney Diamond where these units would be constructed. Mr. Diamond replied th�� property immediately to the west of the subject property could be developed as multi-family if approved by the City upon annexation. Meyer asked who would maintain the pool. Mr Hundrieser responded he maintains the pool for the enjoyment of both tenants. Chairman Semrow asked for clarification as to Approval Criteria#5 with regard to the variance. He asked the Petitioner to identify other RS-2 properties within the City limits having more �' than one ��rincipal dwelling unit per lot. Attorney Diamond could not identify such a parcel at this tim?. Page 3 ZBA-Hundrieser 2/1/99 Howell asked why the property has not been subdivided. Attorney Diamond replied the Petitioner has not attempted to subdivide the property. He noted Staff's suggestion to leave `- the property as it is. Ekstrom a�ked the location of the well(s) on the property. Mr. Hundrieser provided a copy of the Plat o•' Survey indicating the location of the two wells on the subject property: one on the north sidE� of the southernmost residence; one adjacent to the frame shed to the south of the pool. CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONERS Attorney Diamond stated, in closing, the Petitioner is seeking RS-2 zoning upon annexation to the Cit�r. In order to continue to use the property as it currently exists, he is also seeking a variancE� to permit two principal structures on one zoned lot. Ekstrom asked if the property could be annexed as a pre-existing non-conformity. Semrow noted he�vould prefer to see the property annexed as a non-conformity, as opposed to granting a variance to permit two principal structures. He opined it would be setting a precedence to grant sucf� a variance. There are no other RS-2 lots in the City of McHenry which currently have two principal residential structures. Lovett stated he could find nothing in the Petition which stated the existing structures were permitted by variance or being grandfathered in by the County. Attorney Diamond responded he does n��t know the status of the property with regard to the County. He is not certain if the grandfather provision is applicable in the County. Lovett noted that according to the Staff `' Report, a variance is not needed. The property could come into the City as a non-conformity. Attorney Diamond pointed out if one of the principa) structures were to burn down, it could not be rebuilt if it was not in conformance. However, if a variance were granted, the building could be rebuilt in the event of fire. Howell st��ted he could not support a variance. Chairman Semrow stated, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this Petition, the Board will consider this matter at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a meml�er of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition." DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Motion by Lovett, seconded by Meyer, to recommend to the City Council that • the Petitioner's request for reclassification from A1 Agricultural in McHenry County to RS-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District in the City of McHenry be granted upon annexation; and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, on page 410 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met; • the Petitioner's request for a variance to permit two principal residential structures on �'' onE� zoned lot be denied; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 37;'-378, have not been met. Page 4 ZBA-Hundrieser 2/1/99 Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting N:�y: None. L- Not Votirg: None. Abstainin;: None. Absent: None. Motion c�irried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Semrow informed the Board he had been contacted by Plan Commission Chairman Butch Meyer regarding the possibility of the consolidation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan i�ommission. Mr. Meyer asked Chairman Semrow to bring this matter before the Zoning B��ard for discussion and/or comment. Chairman Semrow opined he believed there would be too much pressure placed upon such a Board to accomplish a diversified amount of work aiid study prior to each meeting/hearing. Consolidation would require a greater time commitmf�nt on the part of all members. Semrow stated he felt the City would be best served by having two separate boards. Following discussion the points raised by the Board included: • Wfiy is the issue being raised? • Combination of the Zoning Board and Plan Commission has been attempted in other places, such as Hoffman Estates - it does not seem to work; • It v✓ould not be in the best interest of the City to combine the two boards; • Concern that too much concentration would be given to the more familiar part of the �" process with other aspects needing review being ignored; • Would become a burdensome process to review any planning or zoning matter; • Logistically, how would applicants/petitioners prepare for presentation to this Board - how would petitions/applications be drafted. Chairman Semrow noted it would appear to be the consensus of the Board the combination of the Zoning Board of Appeals with the Plan Commission is not desirable. ADIOURNMENT Motion by Ekstrom, seconded, by Lovett, to adjourn the hearing at 8:37 p.m. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Votin;: None. Abstainin€,: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 6-0. The hearing was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Res ectfully sub itted, � �� Harry Se row, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Zoriing Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City `'' Adrninistrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Pet tioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, The Sur, File Copy. Z-464