CC 09-27-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... Minutes of Regular September 27, 1982 . Page Three Council Meeting tractor does have piles of dirt stacked; suggested that the State be contacted requesting completion of the project. County Road E. Christoffersen reported that 17 of the 19 street light bases are being repaired; anticipates completion prior to the October 9th ribbon cutting and County Road E Celebration. REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER . Case No. 82-21, Front and Sideyard Setback Variances - 1400 West County Road E, Howard Kern Council was referred to transparency of the Kern's 75' lot on which the existing house and proposed addition were shown five feet from the west property line. Miller explained that the pro- posed remodeling extends the substandard 5' sideyard setback, requiring a variance; expansion also places the house in variance to the prevailing front setbacks of about 50' (40' is required in R-1). Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends denial of the sideyard setback variance, because of lack of a "hardship" (did not speak to the variance from the prevailing front setback). Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of both variances based on the narrowness of the lot, and the front setback does not exceed the 40' requirement in the R-1 District. Miller noted that the extension of the 5' sideyard variance does not represent further encroachment on the neighbor; proposed addition is within the 40' front setback requirement; is not entirely convinced that "prevailing setback" is a good thing, but it is an ordinance requirement. Howard Kern noted .that the seven homes on the south side of County Road E are at approximately 50' setback; showed pictures of homes on the north side of County Road E at random setbacks; noted that three of the homes on the north side of the street were built in the last 1~ years. Kern read a statement, signed by the seven residents on the south side of County Road E, stating that they would like to have the option (if they so desire) to expand their dwellings toward County Road E up to the legal setback of 40 feet. Kern said he had no idea, at the onset, that any variances would be needed for the proposed remodeling; tried to increase the square footage of his home, to maintain its appearance in harmony with the neighborhood and to improve the neighborhood. Mary Ann Benson, adjacent neighbor to the west, stated the pro- posed remodelling ,in her estimation, will be an asset to the neighborhood; stated she does not care about the changed sight line from her house. . Some concern was expressed relative to setting a precedent for future variations from the prevailing setback, which may not be desirable. Miller suggested that a precedent would not be set if each case is considered on its own merits. Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve the ex- tension of the 5' sideyard variance and the approximate 10' en- croachment into the prevailing 50' front setback, based on the following: 1. Five foot sideyard setback is common in the immediate area I and 2. The 10'front encroachment beyond the 50' prevailing setback is within the required 10' front setback re- quirement in the R-1 District. -3-