City of Olney Board of Appeals met January 7
City of Olney Board of Appeals met Jan. 7.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
AGENDA #1 ACALL TO ORDER@ The January 7, 2019, meeting of the Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Olney City Hall, 300 S. Whittle Avenue, Olney, Illinois, with Tony Zuber presiding.
AGENDA #2 AROLL CALL@ The following Board of Appeals members were present: Kurt Ginder, Scott Jones, Belinda Henton, Tony Zuber, Barb Roberts, and David Abell. Pat Evertte was absent. Also present were Code Enforcement Officer Mike Mitchell, City Attorney Bart Zuber, and City Clerk Kelsie Sterchi.
AGENDA #3 AAPPROVE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON NOVEMBER 5, 2018@ Mr. Ginder moved to approve the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting on November 5, 2018, seconded by Mrs. Roberts. Mr. Ginder, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Henton, Mr. Zuber, Mrs. Roberts, and Mr. Abell voted yes. There were no opposing votes. The motion carried.
AGENDA #4 ASWEARING IN@ Mr. Zuber asked that anyone wishing to testify on behalf of the items being discussed to stand and be sworn in. City Clerk Sterchi asked the individuals to stand, raise their right hand, and Aswear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.@ Edward L. Jones, Jr., was sworn in.
AGENDA #5 AVARIANCE: 616 E. York Street@ Edward L. Jones, Jr., submitted a Request for Variance for 616 E. York Street. Mr. Jones was requesting a variance in the side yard setback to allow a 3.5-foot setback rather than the 6-foot side yard setback, and a variance in the rear yard setback to allow for a 21.5-foot setback rather than the 25-foot rear yard setback required in Title 17 (Zoning) of the City of Olney Municipal Code. The actual property lines on this parcel appear to be less than the setback requirements listed in the City of Olney Municipal Code. If the variances are approved, it would allow the petitioner to build a 16-inch deep bump out on the west side of the house, and build a 42-inch deep addition on the north side of the house.
Mr. Jones had provided a sketch of the current property with his building plans. The Board reviewed this.
Referencing the drawing, Mrs. Henton noted that the drawn addition on the north side was labeled as a shed. She asked for clarification as to whether or not the shed would be a true addition or a portable building. Mr. Jones replied it would be attached as an addition.
Because the property was built before the City’s zoning ordinance became effective, the property already did not reflect a 25-foot rear yard setback. To Mr. Jones’ best guess, the property line was about 10-feet from the home. Mrs. Henton asked if this was correct. Mr. Mitchell was uncertain because the City of Olney does not determine property lines; it is up to the property owner.
Mrs. Roberts asked if any feedback had been received from the neighbors to the west. The Board found that no correspondence for or against the request had been received.
From the audience, a gentleman asked for the purpose of the home additions. Mr. Zuber replied that the 16-inch bump out would be for additional closet space, and the 42-inch addition would be for a storage shed. He added that no garage was on the property for any storage.
The audience member asked if the home would remain a single-family home. Mr. Jones confirmed.
Mrs. Henton asked if the tree in the yard could be saved. Mr. Jones indicated there would be no need to remove the tree.
Mrs. Roberts questions who owned the sidewalk running north and south on the west side of the property. Mr. Jones believed it belonged to 606 E. York Street because the sidewalk led to an entryway into the basement of that property.
Understanding what would be needed for the bump out, Mrs. Roberts wondered if 16 inches would be enough room. Mr. Jones indicated that he was rearranging the inside of the house to allow some room for a closet, but not enough room would be quite sufficient for a closet. The extra 16 inches would make the closest space sufficient to use.
Mrs. Roberts asked if anyone was currently living in the home. Mr. Jones replied that it was vacant as he was doing a full remodel. He had plans for his daughter to live there, but plans had changed so the home would eventually become a rental.
The audience member asked how parking would be affected. Mr. Jones replied that the house behind his property had vehicles parking on Sycamore Street. Across from his property, on York Street, the residents parked in front of that residence. Mr. Jones expected that he could lay gravel in front of his property to create a couple more parking spaces.
Mrs. Henton asked if any of the proposed additions would affect parking. Mr. Jones replied that the additions would not interfere.
Because believed property lines varied so drastically from requirements of the City Code, the proposed variances would translate more closely to 6-foot from Mr. Jones’ supposed rear yard property line, and 5-foot from Mr. Jones’ supposed side yard property line. Mrs. Henton moved to approve the variance requests as mentioned in the prior sentence that would allow for a 16-inch bump out on the west side yard, and a 42-inch addition on the rear yard 616 E. York Street, seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Ginder, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Henton, Mr. Zuber, Mrs. Roberts, and Mr. Abell voted yes. There were no opposing votes. The motion carried.
AGENDA #6 APUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS@ No one from the public wished to speak.
AGENDA #7 AADJOURN@ Mrs. Roberts moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Abell. Mr. Ginder,
Mr. Jones, Mrs. Henton, Mr. Zuber, Mrs. Roberts, and Mr. Abell voted yes. opposing votes. The motion carried.
The meeting of the Board of Appeals adjourned at 7:07 p.m.