East Central Reporter

City of Olney Board of Appeals met June 3.

Here are the minutes provide by the board:

AGENDA #1 “CALL TO ORDER” The June 3, 2024, 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, by City Clerk Kelsie Sterchi.

AGENDA #2 “ROLL CALL” The following Board of Appeals members were present: Kurt Ginder, Scott Jones, Bridgett Jensen, Brad Williams, and Pat Everette. Samantha Brazil and David Abell were absent. Also present was City Clerk Kelsie Sterchi and Code Enforcement Officer Dallas Colwell.

AGENDA #3 “ELECTION OF A CHAIRPERSON FOR THE JUNE 3, 2024 MEETING” Because Chairperson David Abell was absent, the Board would need to elect a Chairperson to conduct this meeting. Mrs. Sterchi opened the floor for nominations or motions.

Mrs. Jensen moved to elect Mr. Williams as Chairperson for the June 3, 2024, Board of Appeals meeting, seconded by Mr. Everette. A majority affirmative voice vote was received. Mr. Williams took control of the meeting.

AGENDA #4 “APPROVE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON NOVEMBER 6, 2023” Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes from November 6, 2023, seconded by Mr. Ginder. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

AGENDA #5 “SWEARING IN” Mr. Williams asked that anyone wishing to testify on behalf of the items being discussed to stand and be sworn in. City Clerk Sterchi asked the individual to stand, raise their right hand, and “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.” Johnnie Story was sworn in.

AGENDA #6 “PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUESTS 612 W. PARKER STREET” Johnnie Story had submitted Requests for Variation for 612 W. Parker Street, Olney, Illinois, Property Index Number 06-34-102-012. The petitioner was requesting variances to allow for a 5-foot front yard setback rather than the 25-foot front yard setback as required in Title 17 (Zoning) of the City of Olney Municipal Code. The petitioner also was requesting a variance in the distance an accessory building can be from a main building to allow for a 0-foot distance rather than the 10-foot distance required in Title 17 (Zoning) of the City of Olney Municipal Code. The granting of the variances would allow the petitioner have carports.

Mrs. Sterchi had provided the Board with a copy of an e-mail received from Jason Burckhartt, owner of 906 Beech Street, in opposition of the requests.

Mr. J. Story explained that he had placed the carports in March without knowing that they violated provisions of the Municipal Code.

Mr. Colwell stated that most homes in that area were placed in line at a 25-foot setback.

AGENDA #7 “VARIANCES: 612 W. PARKER STREET” The Board discussed alternate locations at 612 W. Parker Street where Mr. J. Story could place one or both carports.

From the audience, Grant Story wished to be sworn in. Mrs. Sterchi asked for Mr. G. Story to stand, raise his right hand, and “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.” Mr. G. Story was sworn in.

Mr. G. Story was given permission to utilize the easel to draw out the area of 612 W. Parker Street and explain issues with carport placement. Essentially, the property was too small to have a location better appropriate for either carport.

The Board seemed to not find issue with the carport placed between the existing garage and house, but were more concerned with the carport placed directly in the front yard.

Mr. J. Story explained that he owned three very expensive vehicles which he wished to keep covered. Trees had existed in the area that helped somewhat, but those trees had been removed.

Additionally, Mr. J. Story stated that his health was deteriorating and having the carport in the front yard would allow him to easily drive in on one end and out the other side.

While Mr. Everette understood the petitioner’s reasoning for the requests, he had concern with spot zoning. He also recognized that setbacks were put in place so that residents would have limits that respected the neighborhood.

Mr. Colwell told the Board that his main concern was with visibility coming around the corner. If in the future someone decided to put sides on the carport, there would be no visibility at all.

Mr. J. Story felt that a neighbor’s fence was also problematic and that parked vehicles in driveways caused more visibility issues than his carport.

Mr. Williams explained to the Storys that if a variance was granted, then property owners now and the future could do whatever they wanted within the granted variance. While Mr. J. Story likely had the intention of keeping the carports as-is, anything could be placed in these locations in the future, and variances would transfer as properties sold.

Mr. G. Story asked if a temporary variance could be granted. Not only was a temporary variance not allowable in this circumstance, but Mr. Williams noted that even if temporary variances could be granted, Mr. J. Story technically could make alterations within his variances that would cause additional problems.

Mr. Everette moved to approve a variance in the distance an accessory building can be from a main building to allow for a 0-foot distance rather than a 10-foot distance, seconded by Mrs. Jensen. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

Mr. Everette moved to deny a variance that would allow for a 5-foot front yard setback rather than a 25-foot front yard setback, seconded by Mr. Ginder. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

Mr. G. Story asked how much time they had to remove the carport from the front yard. Mr. Colwell indicated that he would work with Mr. J. Story on a timeline.

Mr. J. Story was displeased with the Board’s decision. He felt that the Board should be able to apply a stipulation that when he passed away, the carport must be moved out.

Mr. Everette again stated that would not be possible, and added that the granting of the front yard setback variance would set a poor precedent for the neighborhood.

Mr. J. Story objected that some properties in that area appeared to be violating the current zoning requirements. Mr. Colwell explained that due to the age of most homes in that neighborhood, many existing structures were grandfathered in when the zoning regulations passed.

Mr. J. Story was also frustrated that while he owned the property and paid taxes on it, the Board of Appeals could control how he used his own property.

Mr. G. Story asked if a permit would be needed to implement a circle drive. Mr. Colwell replied that a permit would not be needed.

AGENDA #8 “PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS” No one from the public was present.

AGENDA #9 “ADJOURN” Mr. Jones moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Everette. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

The meeting of the Board of Appeals adjourned at 7:37 p.m.

https://cms2.revize.com/revize/olneynew/ba%20June%203%202024%20min.pdf