Loading...
ZBA Minutes 2007 10-03-07 Page 1 of APPROVED 6/14/08 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 7pm Council Chambers Board Members in Attendance: Jeff Baker, Chairman Chris Funkhouser Dean Bromann Ben Moe Ryan Woods Others In Attendance: Anna Kurtzman Larry Franklin Gary Williams, Building Dept., City of Yorkville Robert Blahut Larry Hilt, Police Officer Todd Range Jerome Johnson Bryan Pruitt Kate Edwards Elaine Harker Geoff Edwards Michael Keck Jeff Olson, James Olson&Associates Wilfredo &Eva Cruz At 7:03 the meeting was called to order by Chairman Jeff Baker. Roll Call: Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Previous Meeting Minutes (Corrections/Approvals): September 5, 2007 The minutes were approved as read on a motion by Bromann and Funkhouser. Unanimous approval. Public Hearing: 1. ZBA 2007-34 Lawrence and Joanne Franklin, petitioners, have filed an application with the United City of Yorkville,Kendall County, Illinois, requesting a variance from Yorkville City Code. The real property's address is 212 Spring Street, Yorkville, Illinois, which is generally located at the southwest corner of Spring Street and Liberty Street. Petitioners are requesting a variance from Section 10-3-5A of the Municipal Code, which states that accessory buildings must be located at least five (5)feet from the rear and side lot lines. Chairman Baker explained to the meeting attendees how the meeting would be conducted. All those wishing to speak were asked to be sworn in as a group. Page 2 of 4 On a motion by Ben Moe and second by Ryan Woods, the Public Hearing ZBA 2007-34 was opened. The motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote. Petitioner Lary Franklin was asked to present his case. He asked for relief from the municipal code regarding placement of accessory buildings and said he was not aware of the code until the shed was almost completely built. Mr. Franklin had submitted an application for a building permit and thought he was doing everything correctly. A survey had been completed and a diagram showing the shed placement had been submitted. According to Mr. Franklin, no handouts were included in his paperwork that stated he needed to be five feet from the property line. He also noted that there are no known utility restrictions in the shed area. The petitioner stated that he takes great pride in the upkeep of his property. Mr. Franklin said he has also built a koi pond in his yard. While the shed is not completely done, he has spent over $2,000 thus far. He said the shed is not large and he would not have built it had he known of the restrictions. Chairman Baker then asked for any questions from the committee members. Bromann asked when the shed had been started and if it was cemented. It was started last November and is not a permanent structure since it is on a gravel base and situated on 4x4's. Mr. Franklin did not know what it would cost to have it removed/moved. Mr. Funkhouser noted that an illustration on the plat of survey shows the shed placement to be 7-8 feet from the property lines. Franklin said he did not understand that he had to draw this to scale. Gary Williams, Building Department representative, was asked to respond. He said that when an application is submitted for a shed, the applicant is informed that a plat of survey is needed showing the shed needs to be located five feet away from the property lines. He said the shed was already being built when Franklin applied for the permit. Mr. Franklin agreed that he had begun construction before the permit was issued,but had been told a permit was not required. Williams said that before a permit is issued, the survey must show that the structure will be at least five feet from the property lines. To clarify the ordinance, Baker said that accessory structures must have permits. This has been in effect since at least 1995. Since there is no utility easement in the shed area, Mr. Franklin said there would be no need to have utilities there and therefore, asked that the variance be granted on that basis. Other meeting participants were then asked to present their comments. Page 3 of 4 Kate Edwards of Earlville said she owns property, along with her brothers, at 211 E. Center St. This is directly south of Mr. Franklin. Ms. Edwards said her property was owned by her Father until April of this year when he passed away. In July, 2006 her Father informed Mr. Franklin of the setbacks and the need for a permit and proper inspections. She said it was her and her Father's wish that the shed not be built. Ms. Edwards saw work begin on the shed in November, 2006 and her Father went to the City to express his concerns about the lack of a permit. Ms. Edwards said a permit was not obtained until November 16, 2006, 12 days after construction began. In May of 2007 Ms. Edwards had a survey done which showed that the shed did not comply with City ordinances. She asked the Zoning Board to deny the variance. Jerome Johnson (brother of Ms. Edwards), of Bend, Oregon also spoke. He said he is a general contractor. He also asked for the variance denial and said the ordinances should be upheld. He said the placement of the shed is a detriment to his family's property and cited concerns about drainage and appearance of the yard. . Mr. Johnson also said that Mr. Franklin had constructed a play structure and swim apparatus over the property line. It was explained that there is a fence between the Edwards-Johnson and Franklin property. There was a brief discussion regarding possible new locations for the shed. Any possible sale of the Edwards/Johnson property could be affected by this shed according to Mr. Johnson. (Photos showing the shed area will become part of the official minutes). Brian Pruitt, formerly of 210 E. Spring St. said he had had several conversations with Mr. Franklin regarding the runoff and asked Franklin to install gutters. Franklin did remove a fence that was over the property line. Todd Range, 207 E. Spring St.,northwest of the Franklin property, said he felt the ordinances should be upheld and that ignorance is not a defense. He felt the shed should be dismantled or moved. He felt this issue was a mistake on Mr. Franklin's part and that citizens must be careful of what is submitted to the City. Mr. Franklin spoke about the above comments. In regards to drainage, Mr. Franklin said that the Johnson property slopes in a manner that Mr. Franklin would receive the runoff. He added that he has lived at this address for almost 7 years. There was no further discussion and a motion to close the Public Hearing was made by Bromann and seconded by Funkhouser. It was closed on a unanimous voice vote at 7:50pm. Page 4 of 4 Ms. Kurtzman explained the Finding of Fact and then proceeded with the Findings. (Findings are paraphrased): 1. ... due to the physical surroundings...a hardship would result Response: No, no evidence was presented to address that 2. ...conditions on which petition is based...are unique to the property Response: No 3. ...alleged difficulty or hardship was caused by title and not by interestedparty Response: No, the cause is the structure itself 4. ...granting of variance would not be a detriment to public welfare Response: Would not be a detriment, a real estate appraisal would be subject to opinion S. ...proposed variation will not impair adequate supply of light and air Response: No, would not impair; can't make a determination of property value Ms. Kurtzman said that after the Board makes a recommendation,the matter will proceed to Economic Development Committee on October 16 and to City Council on October 23. Mr. Bromann commented that the shed is a nice structure, however, it is not in the Board's jurisdiction to override the codes. He said that while variances have been granted for older structures,this shed was begun in 2006. Mr. Bromann added that he hoped the matter could be worked out and encouraged all neighbors to upgrade their properties as well. The Board concurred with this opinion. Mr. Funkhouser then made a motion to approve the variance ZBA 2007-34. Ben Moe seconded the motion. The motion failed on a roll call vote: Moe-no; Bromann-no; Woods-no; Funkhouser-no; Baker-no. This matter will now proceed with a recommendation of denial. There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned on a motion by Moe and second by Woods. Unanimously approved on a voice vote at 8pm. Minutes respectfully submitted By Marlys Young, Minute Taker . � � �� � K � �� ,y .. . i ' .. y � �f t 1� *r .� ,dI '•r � : ._ i a r � t � � � � .,. b � �+n t* 1 0. t x .q. � i 4 �, , i iy I f� I '{1 � � , _ - � r �i y,. s r,I 'F� �/�. '' •F � s.