City of Fairbury Zoning Board of Appeals met July 19.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
A public meeting of the Fairbury Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the City Hall in Fairbury, Illinois at 6 PM pursuant to a notice published in the Daily Leader.
Present: Zoning Board Chairman Gerry Vance, Zoning Board members John Gavin, Sam Pica, Seth Welch, Tom Bull, and James Tipton. Also present was applicant Kraig Edelman and Zoning Administrator Nancy Widlacki.
Chairman Vance called the meeting to order and the reason for the Application for Variance was read aloud by Zoning Administrator/Secretary, Nancy Widlacki.
Application of Kraig and Carrie Edelman, requesting a variance in area regulations of said Zoning Ordinance to permit a reduction of distance to lot lines and allow an accessory structure to be placed on the east line; said property being described, to-wit:
25-25-11-176-012 25-11-176-012 LOT 100.97 X 199.35 (APPROX) LOT 45 TIMBER RIDGE SUB. 1ST ADD
Chairman Vance called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Vance asked Zoning Administrator Widlacki to read the reason for the hearing. Chairman Vance asked Mr. Edelman if he had anything to add; Mr. Edelman replied the application covers his request. Member Pica said if his lot line is where the shed sits currently, he doesn’t see anything wrong with the location. Drainage was discussed and Mr. Edelman explained he installed an SDR40 for drainage. Member Gavin asked if Mr. Edelman’s shed was on the City right of way and Mr. Edelman said if his lot line is where he thinks it is, the shed is not on the city’s easement. Chairman Vance stated the Edelman property is a corner lot requiring a 25’ setback on the south and the east but he isn’t sure what the zoning code was when this home was built. Chairman Vance asked if Mr. Edelman could move the shed to the west so that it is lined up with the front of the house. Mr. Edelman said this is where pleasing the people and/or pleasing his wife comes into play. If he were to move the shed to align with the front of the house, that would completely block the sunroom’s view of the lake. If his request is denied, the shed will be removed. Mr. Edelman said he realizes the location he submitted on the building permit did not turn out to be the location where he placed the shed and this is because neighbor(s) were unhappy with Mr. Edelman’s choice of original location. The neighbor that voiced his concern offered to help Mr. Edelman remove the pine tree so the shed could be placed where it currently sits. Mr. Edelman said he could have the shed removed in half an hour, 45 minutes, if necessary. Member Welch said other than the shed not complying with the code, he wondered if Street Superintendent Martin Steidinger had any issues with the current location of the shed. ZA Widlacki said no. Member Welch then asked if City Superintendent Brett Ashburn was concerned with the current location. ZA Widlacki said no. Member Welch then asked if the Zoning Administrator had any concerns with the current location of the shed and the subsequent answer was no. Member Tipton said as long as the shed if portable, he doesn’t have a problem with the shed staying where it is. Member Picastated his agreeance with the current location. Chairman Vance reiterated the fact that the home is sitting on a corner and the setback is 25’. ZA Widlacki stated she and Chairman Vance disagree that the parcel is a corner lot. Member Pica thought since the street doesn’t change names after the bend that the lot is not on a corner. Chairman Vance then said if the east lot line is the side lot, Mr. Edelman is still asking to be allowed to place the shed on the lot line.
Member Welch made a motion to approve the variance as presented, allowing Mr. Edelman to leave the shed even with the trees.
An approximately 30 minute discussion followed about the location of the lot line, moving the shed to the west and whether or not the shed was okay being lined up with the trees.
Member Welch’s motion seemed forgotten about as Member Bull made a motion that the shed could be placed on the lot line once the lot line has been determined. Member Pica seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-2. YES-Pica Welch Bull Tipton NO-Vance Gavin
There was no other business to discuss so the meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
http://ww2.cityoffairbury.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up