The city of Ottawa Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 17 to approve variance requests.
Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the board:
"The Zoning Board of Appeals is vested with the following duties and responsibilities:
To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer under this ordinance in the manner prescribed by, and subject to, the standards established herein.
To hear applications for variations from the terms provided in this zoning ordinance in the manner prescribed by, and Subject to, the standards established herein, and report is findings and recommendations to the City Council in writing within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing.
To advise the City Council on all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to review under this Ordinance."
MINUTES OF THE OTTAWA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 17, 2016
Chairman Charlie Sheridan called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM in the Ottawa City Council Chambers.
Roll Call Present: Charlie Sheridan, Tom Aussem, Dan Bittner and Vince Kozsdiy.
Meeting It was moved by Vince Kozsdiy and seconded by Tom Aussem that the minutes of the October 20, 2016 meeting be approved. All ayes. Motion passed.
Chairman Sheridan opened the meeting and recounted the city ordinance provisions for granting zoning variances, per Section 19, G, 3 of the city zoning ordinance (see attached).
Item 1 Property: Lot 141 in Tomahawk Terrace Fifth Addition in the City of Ottawa, La Salle County, Illinois commonly known as 821 Tomahawk Drive.
Variance Request: Side Yard Setback
Applicant: Owners Walt and Carolyn Pries
Representative presenting the request: Chris Nordtvedt (contractor for garage addition)
Review: The Board heard evidence with regard to the request for a side yard setback variance. The Pries live on a pie shaped corner lot and wish to construct a 15’ x 23’ garage addition onto the home’s existing garage. The proposed addition would extend northwesterly off the existing garage 15’ from the existing wall and would have a 2’ roof overhang. Because the existing and proposed structures are not parallel to the lot line, Chris was unable to tell the Board how close the corner of the addition would be to the lot line. The plan for the garage addition met no objection from the neighbors.
Action: After some discussion, it was moved by Vince Kozsdiy and seconded by Tom Aussem to recommend approval of the variance request for a side yard setback with the condition that the corner of the overhang on the proposed structure closest to the west lot line be no closer than 2 feet (measured perpendicular) from the west lot line. All ayes. Motion passed.
Item 2
Lot 24 in Griffith’s Subdivision in the City Of Ottawa, LaSalle County, IL. Commonly known as 900 Pearl Street owned by Sebby VanHoozer, for the purpose of a request for a variance because the addition to the garage will make the accessory structures larger than 50% of the principal structure.
Applicant: Sebby Vanhoozer
Action: Vince Kozsdiy recused himself from the vote so Chairman Charlie Sheridan tabled the variance request until next meeting due to lack of quorum.
Item 3
Lot 19 in Carillon Estates Subdivision in the City Of Ottawa, LaSalle County, IL. Commonly known as 814 Catlin Street owned by Arthur Donovan II, for the purpose of a request for a side yard setback variance.
Mike Sutfin stated that this request was withdrawn.
Having no further business in front of it, a motion was made by Tom Aussem to adjourn; the motion was seconded by Vince Kozsdiy, and the board adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DAN BITTNER ZBA Board Member
ZBA Variance Considerations
Section 19, G, 3 Standards for Variances
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not recommend a variance from the regulations of this ordinance unless it shall make written findings based on evidence presented to it in each specific case that all the standards for hardships set forth are met.
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the district wherein the property is located.
b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances such that the enforcement of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or impose exceptional hardships due to special and unusual conditions which are not generally found on other properties in the same zoning district.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
e. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property and improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, and will not overcrowd the land or create undue concentration of population.
Alerts Sign-up