After-the-fact variances concern Machesney Park trustee

By Bob Balgemann

Reporter

MACHESNEY PARK – Sometimes a resident’s property is altered without checking to see if the change is allowed by the village.

When there’s a problem, the resident often comes to the village, looking for a variance to get into compliance with code. The expectation is that the variance will be granted.

Village board member Erick Beck thinks that should stop.

“Too many folks are coming to us after doing something in violation of the Village Code and expecting approval,” he said during the April 4 board meeting.

“We should get the word out that people should call village hall about these kinds of things.”

Trustees actually were considering two requested variances for property along Pine Al Street.

One was for a variance in fence height in the front yard, with the other being for a front-yard setback, all in a single-family residential neighborhood.

First stop was before the planning and zoning commission, with the requests receiving differing recommendations.

Commissioners were unanimous in recommending approval of the fence height, from the allowable four feet to a sought-after six feet. This is a corner lot and as such, has two front yards.

The problem was that the side yard fronting Forest Lane actually was the front yard. The property owner testified before the commission that he wanted the higher fence for more privacy, because they have a swimming pool.

Commissioners reasoned that the fence was back from the intersection and did not interfere with the vision triangle.

But they voted 4-2 to deny the requested front-yard setback, from 33 feet to 9 feet, 4 inches.

Carrie Houston, the village’s planning and zoning coordinator, said the property contains an enclosed gazebo, with a hot tub, which is within the Forest Lane setback area. She said the retailer who put in the gazebo and hot tub did not inquire about the need for a permit and proceeded to built it “in this unacceptable location.”

Staff recommended denial of that variance, she said, to avoid setting a precedent in which people build structures where they are not permitted, then just ask for a variance after the fact.

A motion to approve the variance failed, 4-2.

The request moved to the planning and economic development committee (PED), one of three standing committees of the village board, at its March 4 meeting.

Each of those committees has three board members and three representatives of the community at large, and they make recommendations to the full village board.

In this case, PED voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the variances.

The village board received both variances April 4 and approved them, 6-1, with Trustee Robbin Snodgrass dissenting.

After making his comments, Trustee Beck said he would vote in favor of the requests because he didn’t believe approval “would be harsh.”